I hope the following paper helps the discussion along (criticism and corrections are welcomed). It is a response to “A DEFENCE OF THE JOHANNINE COMMA” found
here.
First of all, the paper is full of conjecture and speculation. I cannot count how many times the author guesses at the truth or facts instead of actually asserting an argument. Words like ‘plausible’ ‘in the very least’ ‘seems’ ‘likely’ ‘possible’ ‘circumstantial’ ‘suggested’ and the like would only be appropriate if he meant to show the possibility of the Comma being authentic, but his very thesis statement belies that fact: “The intention of this essay is to demonstrate to the reader the authenticity of the Johannine Comma through textual, historical, grammatical, and logical means.” (page 3) In his very qualifications, therefore, he disproves his original goal.
Second, his understanding of the transmission of the original manuscripts to our modern versions is poor, if not outlandish. “Preservation of scripture does not demand that every reading be preserved, such as the Comma was in the Old Latin/Vulgate Latin and Waldensian vernaculars which were based off the Old Latin.” (page 8) “its preservation through means other than the Greek witness in no wise disparages or dilutes the principle and doctrine of the preservation of God’s Word.” (page 23) This is problematic because the Reformers cried “ad fontes”: back to the sources! The scriptures had become corrupted through the generations and Luther and others went back to the Greek and Hebrew to demystify the interpretations and translations that obscured their meaning. One famous example is that of Matthew 3:2. There we read “And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” But the Vulgate read “Do penance…” which established the Roman Catholic doctrine of supererogatory works. Luther rightly translated (from the original Greek and not the Latin of the Vulgate) John the Baptist as saying ‘Repent.’ (Note that the apocryphal books also came into the canon through the Vulgate).
Thus we cannot begin to assert that the translations of the scriptures are of equal weight with the original (Hebrew or Greek) autographs otherwise we open ourselves to a whole host of errors. The preservation of the originals through translations is important but should not supersede the original language in which they were written. God chose the Hebrew and Greek languages (the common tongues of the day) to communicate His message to man. Thus we must submit ourselves to those tongues as the primary, if not exclusive, method of determining the wording of the OT and NT. And, as an aside, it is a well established fact that scribes were more willing to add to the scriptures than take away. It is, of course, illegitimate to not only take away but also add to what the original says (Deuteronomy 4:2).
Third, the author continues to use
ad hominem arguments (attacking the person not the teaching) and prejudices the minds of his readers against those who do not believe that the Comma is inspired since he constantly associates such an understanding with Muslims, liberals, and outright heretics. (such as pages 1-2). The problem with this, other than being an unsubstantiated accusation, leads the reader to think that anyone who thinks other than himself must have some ulterior theological motivation. However the reality is that there are places in the NT where the so called ‘eclectic’ text is actually more orthodox than the Received. In John 1:18, for example, the KJV reads the “only begotten son” whereas the older Greek text reads “the only begotten God.” The latter version, it could be argued, is more Trinitarian than the first, since it speaks of the Son as being God and not just a son. One could cast aspersions on the KJV’s stand on orthodoxy as a result. But the point here is not that one is more correct than the other but only to demonstrate that the reason that the reading of “the son” does not take away from the orthodoxy of the KJV nor call into question the theology of its writers, anymore than not including 1 John 5:7 in the Bible because one holds to a different textual tradition makes someone a heretic or liberal.
Fourth, the author shoots himself in the foot many times by agreeing with evidence cited by textual critics against the Comma. He notes that the Byzantine text-type, upon which the Textus Receptus mainly relies and in his own admission “forms the vast majority of the Greek texts,” does not contain the Comma. (page 7) His answer is to postulate something which cannot be proven: that it was removed by heretics who wanted to expunge this Trinitarian reference. The words and statements that follow such as ‘in the very least’ ‘likely’ ‘very well possible’ and the like do not help his case because they show, once again, that he is basing his conclusion(s) on pure conjecture.
Besides if we follow that reasoning to its logical end, why wasn’t John 1:1 removed, or many other verses that testify to the deity of our Lord (not to mention 1 John 5:20 which is in the same book!)? By way of comparison, Jehovah’s Witnesses have deliberately corrupted the original in their translation by removing or adding words (the latter being much more common even in ancient times) to fit their theology. They are aware of many more verses than 1 John 5:7 which demonstrate the deity of our Lord, and thus have suited their Bible to their ‘taste.’
Furthermore he admits that the “earliest existing Vulgate manuscript dating from 546 AD does not contain this verse” (page 11), that the Syriac versions do not all contain it. This all damages his claim to the Comma’s authenticity. Even stranger than these admissions is the fact that the Greek Church Fathers did not reference this verse in dealing with their anti-Trinitarian opponents. Surely somewhere along the line one of them would have quoted or cited it and yet they didn’t.
Fifth, I will deal with his citation of several church fathers which he claims acknowledge or actually quote from the Comma. I think his strongest argument is found on page 6 where he quotes from Jerome who noted that the testimony was left out of the Greek codices by “irresponsible translators.” However what does it mean that ‘translators’ left it out “in the Greek codices”? The task of a translator is to take one language and convert it into the other. We are left with the impression the Latin is being translated into the Greek, so that it was not the original Greek that had this statement but the Latin. I may be wrong about this but that’s the impression I get from this sentence. Furthermore the context is not provided unlike many of the author’s quotations. We have no idea to what Jerome is referring to in the original, nor if it is the verse in its entirety or simply the Comma. We have no way of knowing. Coupled with evidence provided in the paragraph above concerning the earliest copy of the Vulgate not containing the Comma this makes the author’s claim very weak.
The author also states that the Old Latin version, dating from the middle of 2nd century, contains the Comma (page 10). Yet we are not told if these are copies or the originals. Furthermore he states the African Old Latin tradition does not exist outside of quotations from the church fathers.
He moves onto an argument about the Waldensians and their preservation of the original scriptures. To be quite frank, I studied the Waldensians in university and even wrote a paper on them. Many people confused them with heretics (Albigensians and other crypto-Gnostic groups). They were all thought to descend from heresies of a similar kind (such as the Donatists); separatists of every stripe. But I don’t see in the research how they stretched back into the Roman era in regards to their existence but their teaching definitely bore similarities to past groups. In any case, this again, is conjecture as he says it is “certainly plausible” (page 12) but not obviously true.
On page 16 the case of Athenagorus is brought forth to state that his “language certainly seems to reflect a knowledge and use of the verse as part of his explanation on the Trinity.” (page 16) That it is not ‘likely’ (page 17) that he had this verse in mind when he wrote these statements is evident by the fact that he simply would have referred to it if that was the case. Again, as we stated above, the Greek fathers, of whom Athenagorus is one, do not quote or cite this verse directly even when dealing with the anti-Trinitarian heretics. They do not know of its existence. If they had, then Athenagorus certainly would have openly stated the content thereof in the context of defending the doctrine of the Trinity.
Similarly, Tertullian is said to have referred to this verse in a work that was written to defend the Trinity. Note however that the quote does not say Father, Word and Paraclete (as per the KJV text) but Father, Son and Paraclete. If he was aware of the Comma why didn’t he cite it properly? And if he knew about that verse why didn’t he cite it directly in a defense of the doctrine of the Trinity instead, as the author suggests, allude to it?
The author also quotes from Cyprian for support. You will note from his quotation (page 18) that the statement “it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit…” is actually not part of the quote from Cyprian. The portion ‘And these three are one’ is but not the latter. This is instructive because the reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are precisely the debated portion of this text. No one debates that the original Greek contains the phrase “these three are one” (at least in vs. 8) but the debate lies over to what that refers and whether or not the Comma is an addition to the original text. Furthermore, Cyprian says “Father, Son” not ‘Father, Word’ as in the original. Again, this is a misquotation which leads me to believe that Cyprian, like Tertullian, is interpreting this passage instead of simply citing what it actually says.
Finally, citing Augustine and Gregory to prove his point only weakens his arguments because Augustine never quotes directly from the passage and Gregory never cites it at all. In reference to Gregory’s discussion of the grammar rule that “Greek grammar demands gender agreement among parts of a sentence” is valid, (page 21) but not infallible. In Ephesians 2:8 we read “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” The question for us is what is “that”? In the Greek ‘that’ is neuter but there is no corresponding neuter in the context to know directly to what Paul is referring. This has led Reformed commentators to suggest that “that” is actually referring to both nouns in the preceding statement: ‘grace’ and ‘faith’ both of which are in the feminine case. It is not true, therefore, that all pronouns must correspond in case with their antecedent. And on top of that, he manufactures a reason for why Gregory did not know and cite directly from the Comma, which again cannot be proven and, as we have seen, has problems of its own.
In conclusion, faced with the evidence he cites I think another postulation could be made, one that is just as convincing as or even more than the one the author puts forth: could it not be that this statement was added because of the increasing attacks on the teaching of the Church concerning the doctrine of the Trinity? As we noted earlier, textual tradition teaches us that scribes were more likely to add to the Bible than take away from it. Yet even if we do not find this hypothesis convincing, his argument is poorly reasoned and simply contrived. If anything, the evidence that he offers only convinced me even more of my opinion.