The Johannine Comma From Christian References( 1 John5_7
Exclusive
What is the Johannine Comma?
The Johannine comma is the text found in the First Epistle of John, Chapter 5, Verse 7. It says:
For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one.
The text is before us in the Van Dyck translation, but the strange thing is not just the presence of such a text in the Van Dyck translation only!! But rather from those who cite it as if it were correct! Among them is Pope Shenouda, who says in his book Theology of Christ (at the beginning of the book, page 8):
**Catholic scholars confirm that this text has been distorted!
Protestant scholars confirm that this text has been distorted!
**
Except for some Orthodox scholars!
They sometimes defend the text, some leave it out, and some point out that the text has been distorted!!
The testimony of Protestant scholars has its weight, as the Van Dyck translation is originally a Protestant translation, and they confirm that the text has been distorted! At the forefront of them is the testimony of Rev. Dr. Samuel Habib, head of the Evangelical community (formerly), as well as the testimony of Rev. Dr. Munis Abdel Nour and others.
We will take a look at some Arabic translations, some English translations, and some Greek translations so that the reader, whether Muslim or Christian, is certain that this text has been added.
And for your information, as we mentioned previously, we will only talk about translations!
· Let’s not talk about the Greek manuscripts, as we know Christians claim the existence of hundreds of manuscripts, and this text is only found in eight manuscripts And it is not found in any Greek manuscript dating back to before the fifteenth century
· Let’s not talk about the Church Fathers and the fact that they did not cite this text (1 John 5:7). None of the early Church Fathers knew it, such as Origen, Justin the Martyr, or even Athanasius the Apostle and John Chrysostom! All the Church Fathers did not know the text, and no father referred to it except in very recent times.
Even the text as internal criticism is not equal, according to the confirmation of Christian scholars and commentators! The Father and the Word only met in this situation, and heaven does not need testimony, so how can the text say this!!
· This is in addition to the confirmation of Christian scholars and commentators that the text is a later addition and has no connection to the Gospel, but is merely an addition in a late Latin manuscript.!! And there is a lot of evidence that confirms the distortion of this text, but the search will be limited to the Arabic translations, some English and Greek only.
The Reason for This Research
One of the most important reasons for my research is simply that I heard a Christian cite it! And defend it, saying that if he had known what was in the text, by God, he would not have done it. At that time, my heart wept over such a thing. How can we have something that confirms the distortion of the text and not present it to the likes of these people!! So I ask God to make this simple series a candle in the path of those who search for the truth and a thorn in the hearts of those who hate and deny the truth.
The Problem of Jesus’ Teachings and the Importance of Paul’s Greetings
There is no text in the Holy Bible, whether in the Old Testament or the New Testament, that refers, even remotely, to what is called the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit)!!
So when these people realized the seriousness of the situation, which is the absence of at least one text that proves the Trinity! What is even more strange is that we find that what Jesus said is summarized in it. We will take, for example:
· Luke 24:27 And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
· Luke 9:11 And the multitudes, when they knew, followed him, and he welcomed them. And he spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and healed those who needed healing.
· Luke 4:31 And he came down to Capernaum, a city of Galilee, and taught them on the Sabbath days . (32) And they were astonished at his teaching, because his speech was with authority .
· Mark 6:2 And on the Sabbath day he began to teach in the synagogue . And many who heard it were astonished, saying, Where did this man get these things? And what is this wisdom that is given to him, that such mighty works are done by his hands?
Why didn’t the Bible mention these texts? These are Jesus’ teachings and what he said are divine words and are they important, or does he consider Paul’s greetings in his books to be more important?! And does he mention them in detail? Here is part of it:
1Th 5:26 Greet all the brothers with a holy kiss.
Colossians 4:10-18
(Aristarchus, my fellow prisoner, greets you; so does Mark, Barnabas’s sister’s son, concerning whom you received commandments. If he comes to you, welcome him. Jesus , who is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellow workers for the kingdom of God, who have become a comfort to me. Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ, greets you, always laboring for you in prayers, that you may stand perfect and complete in all the will of God. For I testify of him that he has great zeal for you and for those in Laodicea and Hierapolis. Luke , the beloved physician, greets you, and Demas. Greet the brothers who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church that is in his house.)
Php 4:21 Greet every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren who are with me greet you. All the saints greet you, especially they who are of Caesar’s household. Romans 16:1 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant
of the church in Cenchreae. Romans 16:2 That you receive her in the Lord, as is fitting for saints, and that you help her in whatever need she has of you, for she has been a helpmate of many, including myself. Romans 16:3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus. Romans 16:4 Who for my life risked their own necks; to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles . Romans 16:5 And the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ. Romans 16:6 Greet Mary, who labored much for us. Romans 16:7 Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who were in Christ before me.
Rom 16:8 Greet Amplias, my beloved in the Lord. Rom 16:9 Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys, my beloved. Rom 16:10 Greet Apollos, approved in Christ. Greet those of Aristobulus’ household. Rom 16:11 Greet Herodion, my kinsman. Greet those of Narcissus’ household, who are in the Lord. Rom 16:12 Greet Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who labor in the Lord. Greet my beloved Persis, who labored much in the Lord. Rom 16:13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, my mother. Rom 16:14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren who are with them. Rom 16:15 Greet Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. Rom 16:16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. The churches of Christ greet you. Rom 16:17 Now I urge you, brothers, to mark those who cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine you learned, and avoid them. Rom 16:18 For such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own stomach, and with pleasant words and flattering speeches they deceive the hearts of the simple. Rom 16:19
Because your obedience has become known to all, I rejoice over you and want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil.
Rom 16:20 And the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen.
Rom 16:21 Timothy, my fellow worker, and Lucius, Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen, greet you.
Rom 16:22 I, Tertius, who writes this epistle, greet you in the Lord.
Rom 16:23 Gaius, my host and the whole church, greets you. Erastus, the city treasurer, and Quartus our brother, greet you.
Rom 16:24 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Rom 16:25 Now to him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which was kept secret for ages past,
Rom 16:26 but has now been made manifest, and made known to all nations through the prophetic writings, according to the commandment of the eternal God, for the obedience of faith .
Rom 16:27 To the only wise God through Jesus Christ, to him be glory forever. Amen.
And many, many greetings that are not as important as the words of Jesus! We find the greetings of Paul but not the words of Jesus.
Moreover, the Bible Does Not Contain One of the Foundations of the Christian Faith, Which is the Trinity!! Isn’t that Strange?
All Arabic Translations Omit the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7)
Now let’s take a quick look at the Arabic translations:
Joint Arabic translation
The text stated:
(And those who bear witness are three)
and it was written in the margin:
(Three: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. These three are one, and those who bear witness on earth are three: This addition appeared in some ancient Latin manuscripts.)
For Your Information, the Head of the Joint Arabic Translation Committee is Bishop Gregory of the Orthodox Church (1)
Translation of the Jesuit Fathers
**This is a Catholic translation made by the Jesuit Fathers. They said in their translation of this text:
(And those who bear witness three times)**
Translation of life
This translation placed the text between brackets and wrote in the introduction to the translation:
(What is between the brackets is an explanation of difficult-to-understand expressions or old measures and standards. We have placed their modern equivalents between the brackets.)
It Contains the Same Translation as Al-Hayat, Swedish Edition (English-Arabic). The Text Was Deleted from the Translation and it Says
(There are three witnesses.)
Simplified Arabic translation
it did not mention the text of the Trinity either, but she said:
(There are three who bear witness to that.)
**Police translation
**
This translation mentioned the text as follows:
**(Therefore, the witnesses are three (…))
**
Translation of the Holy Bible
This translation stated the text as follows:
(Therefore, there are three witnesses to Christ.)
There Are Only Two Translations Left, the Catholic Translation and the Good News Translation, and neither of Them Contains the Text
The text in the Catholic translation says: (and those who bear witness are three)
and the text in the Good News translation says: (and those who bear witness are three)
So the Johannine comma is only present in the Van Dyck translation among nine Arabic translations!!
and it is not present (the Catholic, the Jesuit, the Common Arabic, the Simplified Arabic, the Paulist, the Simplified, the Life, the Good News, the Holy Gospel) and these translations did not include the text because it is not present in all the Greek manuscripts and we pointed out these matters in the introduction..
and the text is also not present in the Greek translation in which a number of biblical manuscript scholars participated!
Greek New Testament 4th Revised Edition p. 819.
Here Are Some English and Greek Translations that Omit the Text Entirely
Complete Jewish Bible
CJB Abbreviated Translation
1 John 5:7 There are three witnesses-
Holman Christian Standard Bible
CSB Abbreviated Translation
1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
The English Darby Bible
DBY Abbreviated translation
1 John 5:7 For they that bear witness are three:
ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
ESV 1
John 5:7 For there are three that testify:
GOD’S WORD translation
GWN Abbreviated translation
1 John 5:7 There are three witnesses:
The New American Bible
NAB Abbreviated Translation
1 John 5:7 So there are three that testify,
The NET Bible, Version 1.0
NET Abbreviated Translation
1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify,
New Jerusalem Bible
NJB Abbreviated Translation
1 John 5:7 So there are three witnesses,
New Living Translation, second edition
NLT Abbreviated translation
1 John 5:7 So we have these three witnesses—
New Revised Standard Version Bible
NRS Abbreviated Translation
1 John 5:7 There are three that testify:
Nestle-Aland
1Jn 5: 7
In confirmation of the above, here is the New Testament, Greek to Arabic, translated between the lines (Paul Al-Feghali):
Bottom line:
1The Bible, despite its size, does not contain what Christians believe!
2The Bible preferred the greetings of Paul over the most important Christian beliefs such as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc.!
3There is no text in the entire Bible that indicates the Trinity with the strength of the Johannine comma.
4The Johannine comma is not present in all Arabic translations except the Van Dyck translation.
5The Johannine comma is not present in many English translations!!
6The Johannine comma is not present in the (critical) Greek translations that were made by scholars who reviewed the manuscripts before putting the text. This is in addition to what we mentioned above…
These words may be useful to some of our Muslim brothers and Christian friends, and they may be old information for many Muslims or Christians, but God willing, this is the beginning of a series (distortion to prove a theological idea), and I ask God to accept from us and forgive us for our mistakes,
and our final supplication is that all praise is due to God, Lord of the Worlds, and may God’s prayers and peace be upon our master Muhammad, his family, and his companions…
Johannine Comma; the mother of Paul salutations ..
John the First 5-7 .. a Look into the Translations in Response to Pope Shenouda and Discord LIbraries
First Witness
(Biblical Encyclopedia)
The importance of this reference is not only that one of its editors is the former head of the Evangelical community, Dr. Samuel Habib, and one of its participants is Dr. Munis Abdel Nour, but also that it is among the references that are placed for students of the seminary and are cited by seminary professors, including Father Bishoy Nathan (1)
. The Biblical Encyclopedia has testified that this text was placed to support a theological thought and that it was not written by the author and is not found in any ancient Greek manuscripts, as it said (2) :
The Second Witness
Dr. William Kelly is one of the most prominent interpreters of the Holy Bible. His entire goal was to defend what he believed to be God’s revelation. His goal was to preach the book that he believed to be God’s revelation. However, he confirms to us that this text has been distorted by internal and external criticism. He said (3) :
As we find in the explanation of Dr. William Kelly, he explains that this text was added by some ignorant people and that the placement of the text proves the ignorance of its author and distorter because heaven does not need earthly testimony. He also explains that the word Father does not come with the word (Father and Word) because the word Father in the book comes with the Son and the word comes with God.
Thus, the interpreter William Kelly explains to us that this text also does not exist in the ancient manuscripts that are relied upon, which indicates that it was added, distorted and placed inside the book on purpose.
The Third Witness
He is Professor Hilal Amin, one of the interpreters of the Holy Book, who also testified to the distortion of this text. He said (4) :
(This number does not exist in the original Greek, and the translators added it, thinking that they were clarifying the truth. What shows us that the addition here was wrong is that the testimony is connected to the earth, not to heaven, because heaven does not need testimony, because it contains the angels, the spirits of the angels, and the spirits of the saints, and these do not need testimony.)
The Fourth Witness
The interpreter William MacDonald speaks about this text as if he is saying that the text is added and is not really found in all manuscripts, but we see that it is good and there is no problem with reading it and putting it in the book. He said (5) :
(Some pious Christians are disturbed when they learn that parts of the seventh and eighth verses according to our Arabic translation were only mentioned in a few Greek manuscripts, but this does not affect the authenticity of the Holy Book. Some of them see that keeping these words is an important matter since they mention the three persons in the Trinity..)
The Fifth Witness
This interpretation was made by the Bible Society and it shows us that this text is not found in the best Greek manuscripts that are relied upon. They said (6) :
(In the best Greek versions and the ancient translations and the fathers left out some of what was mentioned in verses 7 and 8 and read thus: For there are three who bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three agree in one thing, that is, in the testimony that Jesus is the Son of God. However, however different the readings are, the teaching of the Trinity is apparent in them. See 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Titus 3:6 and the footnotes..)
The Sixth Witness
He is the interpreter Craig S. Keener, one of the interpreters of the Bible. He testified that this text is only found in three modern Greek manuscripts. He tells us the story of this text with the translator of the Van Dyck version, saying (7) :
The Seventh Witness
Bart Ehrman and the Problem of the Trinitarian Text
Dr. Bart Ehrman, a doctor of philosophy and theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, is a scholar specializing in early history. He studied under Bruce Metzger and is dean of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Despite his extensive studies, he is now an atheist and no longer recognizes Christianity as a religion at all. However, even after his atheism, his testimony is of great importance in the field of manuscripts and fathers. Dr. Bart Ehrman wrote about this foreign text, saying (8) :
“There was, however, a basic passage from the Bible that was not present in the source manuscripts that Erasmus had. It is the recording of the verses from the First Epistle of John, chapter 5, verses 7-8, which scholars call the “Johannine Comma.” These verses are present in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts but are missing in the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts . This passage has been a favorite of Christian theologians for a long time, as it is the only passage in the entire Bible that clearly refers to the doctrine of the Trinity, that is, the existence of three persons with a divine nature.” Yet all three constitute only one God. This passage in the Vulgate reads :
” For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth : the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one .” It is an obscure passage, but it unequivocally
supports the traditional teaching of the Church concerning “the triune God who is one . ” In the absence of this passage, we must deduce the doctrine of the Trinity from several passages combined to show that Christ is God, as are the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, nevertheless, only one God. This passage, unlike the others, states this doctrine directly and concisely. But Erasmus did not find it in his Greek manuscripts, which instead simply read : ” There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one .” Where did the “Father, Son, and Spirit” go? Jerusalem? There is no mention of them in Erasmus’s main manuscript, or in any of the other manuscripts he consulted, and so, naturally, he did not include them in his first Greek version. This is what most infuriated the theologians of his time. They accused him of tampering with the text in an attempt to eliminate and degrade the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine of the full divine nature of Christ. One of the principal editors of the Complutense Polyglot Bible, Stonica, published his slander against Erasmus and insisted that he restore the verse in future editions to its proper place .The story continues , and Erasmus agrees - perhaps in a moment of weakness - to include this issue in the edition.
The future of the New Testament in Greek was subject to one condition: that his opponents produce a Greek manuscript in which this verse could possibly be found (its existence in Latin manuscripts was not sufficient). And so a Greek manuscript came into being! Indeed, it came into being on this occasion. It appears that someone had copied a Greek text containing the Epistles and, when he came upon the passage in question, translated the Latin text into Greek, thus producing the Johannine Comma in its familiar… and theologically useful form. The manuscript presented to Erasmus , in other words, dates from the 16th century, meaning it was made to order . Despite his skepticism, Erasmus kept his word and included the Johannine Comma in his own edition and in all subsequent printings. These editions, as I noted, became the basis for all subsequent reprints of the Greek New Testament by people like Stephanus, Beza, and Elsevier. They provided a form of text on which the translators of the King James Version of the Bible eventually relied. Passages familiar to readers of the English Bible—from the King James Version of 1611 onward to contemporary versions in the 20th century—include the passage about the adulterous woman, the last twelve verses of Mark, and the Johannine Comma , even though none of these passages are found in the older, more prestigious Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. These passages entered the English-speaking consciousness only by a historical accident, based on manuscripts that happened to be at Erasmus’s disposal and others made to assist him .
These various Greek versions of the 16th and 17th centuries were very similar, but eventually the printers were able to claim that it was the universally accepted text of the Greek New Testament by all scholars and readers – which is what happened, when there were no more competitors !
The Eighth Witness
Greek New Testament 4th Edition
This book, which is considered the most important reference in the New Testament, was written by a group of scholars specializing in manuscripts and patristic studies, namely (the well-known manuscript scholar Bruce Metzger, Carlo Martini, Allen Wikgren, Matthew Black, Johannis Karavidopoulos, and also Barbara Aland). All of these scholars agreed that this text is a later addition and not the original text, and that the correct text is (and those who bear witness three). They said in a comment in the margin (9) :
What is in the Box is the Commentary of This Committee on the Text of the Trinity, Which is as Follows
7-8 { A } 7 μαρτυροῦντες 8 τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
The committee has given the first reading a grade { A } , meaning that they are certain that it is the original reading .
The Important Manuscripts that Bear Witness to This Reading Are
A Codex Sinaiticus (4th century)
A Codex Alexandrianus (5th century)
B Codex Vaticanus (4th century)
048 vid (5th century) vid ; The reading is doubtful, but it is most likely correct.
33 (9th century)
81 (1044 AD)
322 (15th century)
323 (12th century)
436 (mid-11th century)
945 (11th century)
1067 (14th century )
1175 (10th century)
1241 (12th century)
1243 (11th century)
1292 (13th century )
1409 ( 14th century )
1505 (12th century)
1611 (12th century)
1735 (10th century)
1739 (10th century)
1846 ( 11th century )
1881 (14th century)
2138 (1072 AD)
2344 (11th century)
4464 (approximately 14th century*)
Byz ( KLP ) Manuscript consensus Byzantine Text Family
L 884 Canonical readings (8th century) read ( βαπτισμα ) instead of ( αιμα )
Old Bible Translations Attesting to This Reading
It ar Old Latin (4th century)
Vg ww,st Vulgate
ww ; WordsworthWhite (5th century)
st ; Stuttgart Vulgate ( 5th century)
syr p,h Old Syriac p
; Peshitta (mid-5th century)
h ; Heracleanus Version (616 AD)
cop sa,bo Coptic ( 3rd century) sa ; Sahidic, bo ; Boharic
arm mms Armenian ( 5th century) mss; Variations in manuscripts Ethiopic (beginning of the 6th century) Geo
Georgian ( 5th century) Salv Slavonic (9th century) Manuscripts reading ( μαρτυροῦσιν ) instead of ( μαρτυροῦντες
) ; Athos manuscript (mid-9th century) 1844 ( circa 11th century*) 1852 (8th century) Greek Fathers’ quotations that attest to this reading; Clement lat Clement of Alexandria (before 215 AD) lat ; Latin quotation Origen lat Origen (253 AD) lat ; The quotation in Latin (Cyril) Cyril of Alexandria (444 AD) The quotation is not exactly the same Ps-Dionysius vid Dionysius (5th century) vid ; the reading is doubtful but most likely correct (John-Damascus) John of Damascus (before 754 AD) The quotation is not exactly the same Latin Fathers’ quotations that testify to this reading; Rebaptism (c. 453 AD) Ambrose (397 AD) Augustine (430 AD) Quodvultdeus (5th century) Facundus (after 571 AD) End of quotation…
The Twelfth Witness
This fact was also confirmed by Dr. William Adey in his famous interpretation, The Great Treasure in the Interpretation of the Gospel, when he said (13) :
The Thirteenth Witness
Also, the margin of the Catholic translation commented on this text, saying (14) :
(In some originals: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. This was not mentioned in the Greek originals that are relied upon, and it is most likely that it is an explanation that was inserted into the text in some versions.)
This testimony is also given by the authors of the Jesuit translation entries, who have also pointed to the distortion of this text, saying (15) :
The Fifteenth Witness
Text of the New Testament (16)
By Bruce Metzger and Bart Arman
The Seventeenth Witness
The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian (17)
by
Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary
A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”) The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum . Before we look at Cyprian per se , a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):
(2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.
(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found ( a ) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate ( b ) as issued by Jerome… or ( c ) as revised by Alcuin…
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.
Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unit 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; This is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”),
and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this at least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not change the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma ( A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.” The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite besides the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma .
Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).
# SOURCES (EP 1)
(1) Notes on Comparative Theology and the Seven Sacraments of the Church - Father Bishoy Nathan - His second reference is the Biblical Encyclopedia.
(2) The Biblical Encyclopedia - A Selection of Scholars and Theologians - Part Three - Page 295.
(3) Twenty Lectures on the Commentary on the Epistles of John the Apostle - Commentator William Kelly - Pages 385-386.
(4) The Book of the Epistles of John - Hilal Amin Musa - Page 78.
(5) The Believer’s Commentary on the Bible - Part Three - William MacDonald, Page 1521.
(6) Commentary on the New Testament - Funded by the British Crabbs Society - The Bible Society - Page 622.
(7) The Cultural Background of the Bible, The New Testament - By: Craig S. Keener - Part Three, Page 197.
(8) Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, p. 81, 82
(9) Greek New Testament 4th Edition p819.
(10) http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1joh5.htm
(11) http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/newton1.html
(11) Isaac Newton’s words are not an argument against Christians, but we have presented them only to clarify that even the simplest of people, even if they are not students of the Bible, will be certain that this text is among the texts that were distorted in the Bible.
(12) The Book of the Inspiration of the Holy Bible - Youssef Riad, page 66.
(13) The Great Treasure in the Interpretation of the Bible by Dr. William Adie, issued by the Council of Churches in the Near East, Volume 8, page 340.
(14) The Holy Bible - The New Testament, Second Edition, Publications of the Catholic Press in Beirut.
(15) The Holy Bible - Translation of the Jesuit Fathers, Introduction to the Epistles of John, page 764.
(16) THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT FOURTH EDITION by BRUCE M. METZGER and BART D. EHRMAN p. 146 to 148.
(17) http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1185
{Embed}
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarke1joh5.htm
Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary - 1 John 5
Adam Clarke’s Bible Commentary. Commentaries, history books, and more are linked to this page
{Embed}
http://www.cyberistan.org/islamic/newton1.html
Sir Isaac Newton on the Bible
Sir Isaac Newton held Unitarian views.
{Embed}
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1185
The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian | Bible.org
A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three ar…
Episode 2
16 More Quotes of Scholars Testifying Distortion of 1 John 5:7
( SOME MIGHT BE REPEATED BUT WITH LINKS FOR ENGLISH SPEAKERS)
The first reference is the Encyclopedia of the Bible.
Sometimes some additions have been made to support a theological idea, as happened in the addition of the phrase “and there are three who bear witness in heaven” (1 John 5:7). This phrase does not exist in any Greek manuscript dating back to before the fifteenth century . Perhaps this phrase originally came in a marginal note in a Latin manuscript, and not as an intentional addition to the text of the Bible, and then a copyist inserted it into the body of the text.
English: http://rabelmagd.com/vb/others/Encyclopedia/7/68.htm
Reference
Twenty-two lectures in the commentary on the Epistle of John the Apostle
William Kelly
However, the chapter before us has had some words added to it, whether intentionally or unintentionally, which you can see in the book seen between parentheses. As we stated at the beginning of this topic, it is certainly taken for granted that the paragraph beginning with the words “in heaven” in verse 7 and ending with the words “on earth” in verse 8 is not part of the original text. Perhaps it was originally a footnote in one of the copies, and then a copyist came and inserted it into the text, thinking it was from him. The prominent biblical investigators have investigated and investigated this issue and reached this conclusion: the paragraph was added by chance through human deduction. However, any Christian, even if he does not know a single word of Latin, can immediately judge that these are added words. He does not need scholars or their research to decide that the paragraph is extra, for the word of God is comprehensive and exclusive and bears within itself proof of its sufficiency.
The Third Reference
Adam Clark responds to Raouf
It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; And even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is also wanting in all the ancient Greek fathers; and in most even the Latin.
The text is not found in the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopian, Coptic, Armenian, and Slavonic manuscripts. In other words, it is not found in all ancient manuscripts except the Vulgate. Even in the Vulgate, many of the oldest and most authentic manuscripts do not contain this text. The text is also not found in all the quotations of the ancient Greek Fathers and is not found in most of the quotations of the Latin Fathers.
The Catholic Encyclopedia --- A Comprehensive Response to Professor Raouf
Greek manuSCRIPTS
The disputed part is found in no uncial Greek manuscripts and in only four rather recent cursives — one of the fifteenth and three of the sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary manuscript contains the passage. Of the Itala or Old Latin manuscripts , only two have our present reading of the three witnesses: Codex Monacensis (q) of the sixth or seventh century ; and the Speculum (m), an eighth or ninth century manuscript which gives many quotations from the New Testament . Even the Vulgate , in the majority of its earliest manuscripts , is without the passage in question.
The ancient Latin manuscripts (which Raouf spoke about) only contain two manuscripts, one from the sixth or seventh century and the second from the eighth or ninth century, and even the Vulgate in
its ancient manuscripts does not contain the text.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm
Reference 7
1, 2, and 3 John By John Painter, Daniel J. Harrington
Page 301
]
It is most likely that the text is not authentic, as it is not found in Greek manuscripts before 1400. Only eight manuscripts after 1400 contain the text - four of which have the text in the margin - this text is not found in the old Latin manuscripts before 600 - and is not found in the Vulgate before 750 - is not found in the words of the Greek Fathers until near the end of the fourth century - and is not found in the words of the Latin Fathers such as Hilary, Ambrose, and Leo the Great (who lived in the fourth and fifth centuries)
The Eighth Reference
: Project Apostasy: The Development and Propagation of the Trinitarian Doctrine
By Jesse Acuff
Page 210
A wonderful page. I wish you would read it all.
I chose from it his statement:
The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate do not mention the text, and the most recent manuscripts of the Vulgate do mention it, and they are the eighth century manuscript [ wizanburgensis].
Then he talked about the issue of MUSCULINE, then he mentioned a wonderful response to it
Reference 9
The Letters of John
By Colin G. Kruse
Page 180 Footnote:
It is found in a few modern Greek manuscripts from the tenth century through the eighteenth century.
It is believed that the text entered the Greek manuscripts via Latin manuscripts in the ninth century.
The Johannine Comma is not found in any ancient Greek manuscript , nor in any ancient Latin manuscript before the seventh century , nor in any manuscript of the Vulgate before the eighth century.
Therefore, it was correct to delete it from all modern translations of the New Testament.
Reference 10
Handbook of Biblical Criticism By Richard N. Soulen, R. Kendall Soulen
Page 91
Year of publication 2001
Not found in the oldest manuscripts and unknown to the Church Fathers before the fifth century
The Johannine Interlude seems to be a footnote added as a result of a copyist’s error in the text of some Latin versions in the third or fourth century. Erasmus deleted it from his version and then added it after being protested against. It was widely accepted in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries
People were flying with it in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, then it was deleted in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries
The Catholic Encyclopedia Says about Jerome Who Wrote the Vulgate for the Catholics at the Request of Damasus, the Pope of the Catholics
See what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Jerome. St. Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the text
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm
Here is the eleventh reference
Page 36 The comma was not known to St. Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, by order of the Pope. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate do not contain the comma, including the Codex fuldensis. The oldest Greek manuscripts do not contain the comma, which made its way into writers during the eighth century. In England, St. Bede, who died in 735, did not know the comma. A saint (as you say) in the eighth century did not know the comma.
Reference Twelve
The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? By James R. White, Professor of New Testament, Grand Kensington University , Publication year 2009 , Page 102. Despite the importance of the Johannine comma in Christian doctrine, it is not found in the oldest Greek manuscripts. The few Greek manuscripts that contain it are very recent, and half of them contain it in the margin and are found in certain Latin manuscripts. There are hundreds of phrases with stronger evidence than this comma that were deleted by Erasmus and the translators of the King James Version. Despite this, the King James Version still clings to the comma today. In the margin, it is very important —most defenders of the comma do so simply because it is in the King James Version . Also, to point out that the Latin manuscripts corrected an error in the Greek manuscripts means that the Greek manuscripts have reached a degree of corruption that led to the loss of an entire text from them (oh, what words). In an interesting attempt to defend the comma, Kevin James pointed out the masculine gender of the three compared to the spirit, water, and blood (see his response) .
This is not a big problem, because The reference to the three as masculine occurs almost always if it is used as an adjective , the only exception being 1 Corinthians 13:13, although it refers to a list of feminine genders - the issue is purely a matter of style. He continues to humiliate Kevin James, who tried to defend the comma in the margin on pages 102 & 103. End of footnote. We continue on page 103 from its beginning. Among the defenders of the comma were the Burgon Society in the nineteenth century, and for that reason the King James translators considered them heroes. However, if they looked closely, they would see that Burgon believed that the comma was a later addition without proper evidence of its authenticity. Here are his words: If these few manuscripts were used to prove the authenticity of the text, the text of the New Testament as a whole would be uncertain and doubtful.
The Entire Book is Destroyed for This Text , Which Has Already Been Destroyed and Removed
Reference Thirteen
Johannine perspectives on the death of Jesus By Martinus Christianus Boer Page 307 (footnote) Year of publication 1996 This comma is undoubtedly not original
Reference Fourteen
The Johannine literature
By Barnabas Lindars, R. Alan Culpepper, Ruth B. Edwards, John M. Court
Page 16
Year of publication 2000
The Johannine comma is not found in any Greek manuscript before 1400 and came to us from Latin manuscripts from Spain and North Africa since the fourth century and thus it is a footnote that came to us from the fourth or fifth
century
Reference 15
Misquotes in Misquoting Jesus: Why You Can Still Believe By Dillon Burroughs The author of this book tries to respond to Bart Ehrman in his book MISQUOTING JESUS , but he admitted that the Johannine comma is a mistake, but he tried to justify that by saying what it means and what it means. There are no problems. Read the last page 24 and the first page 25
Reference 16
Interpreting the New Testament: a practical guide
By Daniel J. Harrington
Page 23
Published in 2003
How could the Johannine comma be present in the early Latin Gospels and in a few Greek manuscripts?
The long reading was written as an explanation of the three witnesses, and then another scribe inserted the explanation into the original manuscript. By the fifth and sixth centuries, the Latin Church Fathers considered it part of the original text.
Therefore, the comma is questionable on three counts:
- The few Greek manuscripts that contain
it; 2. The realistic interpretation is that it came from the margin of a Latin manuscript ;
- It makes the text that follows it more difficult
Episode 3
Writings of Fathers Only
St. Clement of Alexandria
***Many ancient sources where the Trinity text was expected to be found have found it omitted and without any basis at all. Clement of Alexandria emphasized the Trinity in his writings, yet his quotation of a passage from the First Epistle of John does not contain the Trinitarian formula?!
It is worth noting that he wrote in his commentaries on the First Epistle of John a commentary on 1 John 5:6 and 1 John 5:8 and completely omitted 1 John 5:7. Does this mean that it did not exist at all in Clement of Alexandria’s sources?!
ANF 2.05.49 St. Clement Of Alex. - Fragments of Clement - Chap. III (Comments on the First Epistle of John)1Jo_5:6. He says, ” This is He who came by water and blood ;” and again, -
1Jo_5:8 ” For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, “which is life, ” and the water, ” which is regeneration and faith, ” and the blood ,” which is knowledge; ” And these three are one. ” For in the Savior are those saving virtues, and life itself exists in His own Son.http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0211.htm
1 John 5:6 says, ” This is he who came by water and blood.
” 1 John 5:8 also says, ” And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, ” which is life, ” the water, ” which is the new birth and faith, ” and the blood, ” which is knowledge, ” and the three are one. ” For these saving qualities are in the Savior, and life itself is found in His Son.
End
. Thus, we do not see in Clement of Alexandria’s quote any reference to the Trinitarian text, despite its extreme importance in the orthodox Christian belief and principles. Is there an explanation for this other than that it is a distortion of their Holy Book by the Christians, and that Clement knows nothing about it at all?!!!
St. Theophilus of Antioch
Saint Theophilus of Antioch is one of the second century fathers.
. The question here in this topic is: Did Theophilus of Antioch have any knowledge or awareness of this passage that we are about to discuss in the writings of the first Christian fathers?!
I do not see that this great father had any knowledge or awareness of the famous text of the Trinity, otherwise he would not have made this heinous mistake in the most important principle of the true Christian faith.
LETS SEE HIS DEFINITION OF TRINITY
During his explanation of the six days of creation and at the beginning of a conversation about the fourth day in his book Against Autolycus … K2 F 15… Theophilus said :
Chap. XV. — Of the Fourth Day.
On the fourth day the luminaries were made; Because God, who possesses foreknowledge, knew the follies of the fine philosophers, that they were going to say, that the things which grow on the earth are produced from the heavenly bodies, so as to exclude God. In order, therefore, that the truth might be obvious, the plants and seeds were produced prior to the heavenly bodies, for what is posterior cannot produce that which is prior. And these contain the pattern and type of a great mystery. For the sun is a type of God, and the moon is a type of man. And as the sun far surpasses the moon in power and glory, so far does God surpass man. And as the sun remains ever full, never becoming less, so does God always abide perfect, being full of all power, and understanding, and wisdom, and immortality, and all good. But the moon wanes monthly, and in a manner dies, being a type of man; then it is born again, and is crescent, for a pattern of the future resurrection. In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries
,50 are types of the Trinity,51 of God , and His Word , and His wisdom.52 And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God, the Word, wisdom, man. Wherefore also on the fourth day the lights were made. The disposition of the stars, too, contains a type of the arrangement and order of the righteous and pious, and of those who keep the law and commandments of God. For the brilliant and bright stars are an imitation of the prophets, and therefore they remain fixed, not declining, nor passing from place to place. And those which hold the second place in brightness are types of the people of the righteous. And those, again, which change their position, and flee from place to place, which are also called planets,53 they too are a type of the men who have wandered from God , abandoning His law and commandments
QUESTION
If you asked Christians today .. What is wisdom in the Old Testament .. They would answer Jesus .. So wisdom = Son = Logos in the Christians of today ..
The question now … Does wisdom mean the Holy Spirit, O Christians, or did Theophilus of Antioch worship another god other than Yahweh?!
Definitely the Holy Spirit is not wisdom ..
And in light of the doctrine of the distinction between the hypostases .. We must distinguish between the work of each hypostasis .. The hypostases do not perform the same works, but each hypostasis has its own work ..
Do Christians have an answer to the words of Theophilus of Antioch, or did the man not know the origin of his belief and that the Holy Spirit is the third hypostasis, not wisdom!!!
Theologian Origen of Alexandria
The famous and eminent scholar Origen… If we were to write down his heresies one by one, I do not think that the world itself could contain the books that would be written. Amen.
He is the famous scholar and theologian… In his commentary on the Gospel of John, he explicitly quoted the text of the First Epistle of John 5:8… and did not pay attention to the text of 1 John 5:7, as if it was written in his copy in transparent handwriting… So what is the interpretation of the so-called fundamentalist Christians of the “fabricated” verse, the action of the famous theologian Origen?!
See if you wish
ANF 9.13.12 Origen - Commentary on Gospel Of John - Book VI. - Chap. XXVI
Saint Tertullian
The great Saint Tertullian, in his book Against Praxis, which he wrote around 210 AD, tries hard to prove the Trinity by quoting the text of John 10:30 [I and the Father are one], and despite that he does not quote 1 John 5:7, which has a decisive meaning… So what speech do you utter after that?!
ANF 3.01.60 St. Tertullian - Against Praxes - Chap. VIII, Chap. XXII., Chap. XXV
Tertullian mentioned many proofs of the divinity of Jesus, including John 1:1, John 14:11, and others. So why did Tertullian not mention the Trinitarian text, when he was in dire need of it here, and he mentioned John 10:30 to confirm the unity between the Father and the Son?!
Tertullian quoted the text in John 10:30 a lot in his explanations of the Trinity and the alleged unity between the hypostases.. The puzzling question still remains: Why did Tertullian not use it as evidence?!!
For example, we find him in chapter 25 or XXV saying:
These Three are, one95 essence, not one Person,96 as it is said, ” I and my Father are One ” (John x. 30.) in respect of] unity of substance not singularity of number.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.xxv.html
These three are one essence and not one hypostasis, because it was said: ” I and the Father are one ,” taking into account the unity of essence and not the unity of number.
End.
As we can see, the misguided one did not mention anything, not even any reference to the text of the Trinity, which is in dire need of it!!!
Why, I wonder?! Can one of the Christians, especially those who believe in the so-called inerrancy of the Bible, explain this matter to us?!
Why do you rely on flimsy statements in the writings of Tertullian and say that he cites the passage as evidence, while he does not mention it at all, and rather cites the text “I and the Father are one” as evidence for his statement, “These three are of one essence.” Is this reasonable, O people of understanding?!
Saint Cyprian
The impostors of Bani Abd al-Yusu claim that in the writings of Cyprian there is a direct quotation of the text of the forged Trinity. Is their claim true? This is what we will show, God willing, in the following lines.
Cyprian, one of the fathers of the third century, wrote what appears to the reader to be a quotation from an existing text. Scrivener said that it is difficult to believe that Cyprian did not quote a text. However, this claim faces many obstacles. Perhaps they are listed in what Dr. Daniel Wallace wrote in response to those who said that what Cyprian wrote was a quotation from a biblical text, and perhaps we can translate some of it. Dr. Wallace says:
https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
{Embed}
https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian
The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian | Bible.org
A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three ar…
A friend recently wrote to me regarding his reading of the King James Version of 1 John 5:7-8. He noticed that I did not mention Cyprian in my article regarding this text, as some say that he quoted the exact same text mentioned in John’s letter as it was mentioned in the King James Version! ((For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three are one.)) The question now is: Did Cyprian really quote from a copy of 1 John that contains this Trinitarian formula? If so, it would be very important. Cyprian lived in the third century and would be the oldest person to quote this text But before we turn to the writings of Cyprian, there is a background to this subject that must be presented. This text only appeared in 8 manuscripts, mostly in the footnotes, and all of them are late manuscripts. Bruce Metzger said in his famous book, Textual Commentary on The Greek New Testament - 2nd Edition, after commenting on the manuscripts on page 648:
(2) The text was not quoted by any of the Greek Fathers, and if they had known anything about it, they would have cited it in their theological debates about the Trinity in the heresies of (Sabellius and Arius). Its first appearance in a Greek text was in 1215 in the Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council.
(3) This paragraph is not found in all the ancient manuscripts (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Arabic, and Slavonic) except Latin; However, they are not found in either (a) the old Latin in its old form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), nor in the Vulgate (b) as written by Jerome, nor (t) as revised by Alcuin .
End quote from Bruce Metzger’s book. Wallace continues, saying:
The first example we see of these passages being quoted as part of a letter was in the fourth century in a Latin letter entitled Liber Apologeticus, chapter (4), attributed to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died in 385) or to his disciple, Bishop Instantius. The brilliance of these passages is clearly evident when interpreting verse 8 as referring to the Trinity (8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood). They first appeared as an explanation of these words in the margins, and from there they found their way into the main text.
Thus, we must carefully distinguish between the real text that Cyprian quotes and his interpretations!! As Metzger said: The old Latin used by Cyprian gives no evidence of the existence of the text. On the other hand, however, we do not see Cyprian showing any evidence of placing a theological halo around the text. In his book De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6 he said:
“The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”
The Lord said, “I and the Father are one,” and again it is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, “and these three are one.”
It is clear from his words that he is explaining 1 John 5:8 and that he means that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Clearly, he had to explain it this way. Dr. Wallace continues:
Since John 10:30 deals with the idea of unity and unites the Father and the Son, Cyprian had to look for a text that also speaks of the Holy Spirit and uses the same style as John 10:30. This is extremely important. However,:
Cyprian did not quote “of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” as a biblical text, but he was clearly explaining “the Spirit, the water, and the blood.”
We find that the phrase in the text of the Trinity is clear: “The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” However, Cyprian did not quote the text as such, but rather said, “of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” This is evidence that he did not know the text as part of the letter. It would have been expected of him to quote the text as it is explicitly stated in the letter, with the same words, since its meaning is clear. However, he did not do this, and this indicates that what he wrote was a Trinitarian interpretation of the text of 1 John 5:8 imposed by Cyprian.
Then Dr. Wallace mentions what Michael Maynard said , who wrote a book on the historicity of the debate on this text, and his comment was:
Cyprian is considered one of those who quote literally from the book.
This is true and completely contradicts the opinion that Cyprian quoted this text in his book, since what Cyprian quoted from the Epistle of John was only ” these three are one ”… that is, the words found in the Greek text only!
Thus, Cyprian was explaining the text of 1 John 5:7-8, which he understood to refer to the Trinity. However, it is unlikely that Cyprian saw this text in the letter and quoted it. This is supported by the great historical dilemma facing anyone trying to document this text, which is the disappearance of this text from all Greek manuscripts for a millennium and a half (1500 years). It first appeared in Latin, starting with the Spanish heretic Priscillian in 380 AD. This easily explains why it is not found in the ancient Greek manuscripts. Therefore, the historical evidence leads us in two directions and no third:
First : This reading was added by some Latin writers, who were driven by enthusiasm for belief to add those words to the sacred text.
Second : This reading was an explanation written in the margin of some Latin manuscripts between the third and fourth centuries, and then found its way into the Latin text by a writer who was not sure whether the reading was a commentary or from the original text.
Here ends Dr. Daniel Wallace, and you can review the English text on the above-mentioned site..
Add to what Dr. Daniel Wallace said that Cyprian in several writings in his proof of the unity between the hypostases never used this text as evidence.. as his main evidence was the text of John 10/30, for example see
ANF 5.02.15 St. Cyprian - Epistle Of Cyprian - Chap. LXXV.
- And therefore the Lord, suggesting to us a unity that comes from divine authority, lays it down, saying, “I and my Father are one.” To which unity reducing His Church, He says again, “And there shall be one flock,474 and one shepherd.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050675.htm
We find him citing John 10:30 as evidence for unity, so why doesn’t he cite 1 John 5:7, which is much stronger?!
I Am Amazed at the Christians
Saint Dionysius
In his explanation of the Trinity, St. Dionysius cited texts from John 10:30 and also John 14:10. He was talking about the Trinity, as he was in dire need of this text. So why didn’t he mention it?!
Do you have an answer, Christians, or are you just repeating what you hear and not understanding what you are transmitting?!
ANF 7.05.02 Dionysius - Against the Sabellians
- That admirable and divine unity, therefore, must neither be separated into three divinities, nor must the dignity and eminent greatness of the Lord be diminished by having applied to it the name of creation, but we must believe on God the Father Omnipotent, and on Christ Jesus His Son, and on the Holy Spirit. Moreover, that the Word is united to the God of all, because He says, “I and the Father are one;” (Joh_10:30) and, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.” (Joh_14:10) Thus doubtless will be maintained in its integrity the doctrine of the divine Trinity, and the sacred announcement of the monarchy.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0713.htm
We find him speaking very clearly about the Son’s relationship with the Father through the texts of John 10:30 and John 14:10…as if he had not seen the Spirit in the first place and he did not mention a single text in them that mentions the Trinity of Yahweh!…so why did Dionysius not mention this text if he knew anything about it?
I read a response before in a desperate failed attempt to prove the authenticity of the Trinity text.. and in an attempt by them to answer the fatal question that says: “Why do we not find a mention of this text in the dialogues related to the Trinity in the third and fourth centuries? Where did this text go in such dialogues?!” .. This is a fatal question that has no answer at all.. The owners of the site tried to respond by saying that these dialogues did not need to cite such a text since the Sabbellinists, for example, believe in the Trinity from the beginning but do not distinguish between the hypostases.. This is a very weak reason that does not even deserve a response since establishing a belief requires citing what pertains to it.. But we have seen in the writings of Dionysius against the Sabbellinists that he cited the text “I and the Father are one” .. Why did he cite it then when they believed in the Trinity from the beginning?!
This citation of Dionysius destroys their statement and blows up their response, leaving it completely empty..
Saint Hippolytus
As was the custom of the fathers when he spoke about the unity between the hypostases, he never mentioned the text of 1 John 5:7, but rather cited John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” So we find in the writings of Saint Hippolytus, for example:
ANF 5.01.27 St. Hippolytus - Fragments - Part II
- If, again, he allege His own word when He said, ” I and the Father are one ,” (Joh_10:30) let him attend to the fact, and understand that He did not say, ” I and the Father am one, but are one. “121 For the word are122 is not said of one person, but it refers to two persons, and one power.123 He has Himself made this clear, when He spake to His Father concerning the disciples, ” The glory which Thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; that the world may know that Thou hast sent me .” (Joh_17:22, Joh_17:23)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0521.htm
Here Hippolytus talks about the distinction between the hypostases with the unity in essence, citing John 10:30, which only mentions the Father and the Son. In a situation like this, why didn’t Hippolytus mention the famous text of the Trinity, 1 John 5:7, or did he not have it?!!!
This is the case with almost all the fathers. Although the text is crystal clear, we do not find anyone who has used it to prove their belief, which indicates the strength of the claim that this text is forged and unoriginal in any way. It is completely absent from all the writings of the fathers whom Christians boast about. So what talk do you have after that, Christians?!
Perhaps one of them will come out and say that Father So-and-so said that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, and this is a quote from the Epistle of John. Is this worth responding to after what we have mentioned from their writings?!
This is nothing more than an explanation of the belief that the man believes in. This belief is not necessarily based on a book. Rather, it is a tradition that has spread among generations. There is no power or strength except with God!
And our final supplication is that all praise is due to God, Lord of the Worlds.
Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo
Saint Augustine (354-430 AD) is one of the most famous Latin Fathers [1] ever. In his commentaries on the First Epistle of John, we find him quoting the texts 1 John 5:7-8. The paragraph does not contain the Trinitarian formula, so he quotes it as follows [2] :
As we see in the translation in the left column, underlined in red, it says: ” There are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one ”!!
Even the commentator on the translation says [3] :
It seems that Saint Augustine knew nothing about the Trinitarian formula, which was not explained by Mill, who asserted that the copies circulating in Africa in the period between Saint Cyprian and the fifth century contained this formula!!
It is now certain that the Latin versions from which Augustine quotes did not contain the Trinitarian formula, and this proves the invalidity of its presence in the versions circulated by the Christian Fathers Cyprian, Tertullian, and others, since they
were copiedfrom them !!! -----
Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan
Saint Ambrose (340-397 AD), Bishop of Milan, also surprises us with his complete ignorance of the Trinitarian formula in the First Epistle of John. The saint quotes it as follows [1] :
He says specifically in 3:10, v. 67:
But the same evangelist makes it clear when he writes about the Holy Spirit in another place: ” Jesus Christ came with water and blood, not with water only, but with water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness because it is true; for there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one .”
So where is the Trinitarian Formula in Ambrose?! It Seems that His Situation is No Different from that of Augustine
[1] NPNF2-10. Ambrose: Selected Works and Letters, pp. 144
Saint Pope Leo III
Pope Leo III (?? - 816 AD) also cited the text of the First Epistle of John in his letter to Flavian. This is the text of the letter [1] :
In front of you, in the red shaded part on the right of the page, is Pope Leo III’s quotation of the text of the First Epistle of John, Chapter 5, Verses 7-8. He quotes it as follows:
For there are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
It is clear from the quote of Saint Leo III in the 9th century AD that he knew nothing about the formula of heavenly witnesses or the Trinitarian formula. This is conclusive evidence that this formula was not widespread or entered into the Greek versions known to Pope Leo III until the 9th century AD! Who would come after that to say that this formula was known among the people but there was no need to quote it or talk about it?!
This is also evidence that distortion entered the Greek versions in later eras after the emergence… and even the spread of Islam.
These are the ones I came across who quoted the text in question specifically. I did not come across anyone else from their predecessors or successors from the Nicene Fathers and those after them who quoted this text specifically. Most of their talk after that about the Trinity was purely philosophical talk far from citing biblical texts. If there was citation, it would not be with this distorted text under discussion.
And God is the Grantor of success.
[1] NPNF2-12. Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, pp. 42
” O Allah, Lord of Gabriel, Michael, and Israfil, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You will judge between Your servants concerning that over which they differ. Guide me to the truth concerning that over which they differ, by Your permission. Indeed, You guide whom You will to a straight path. ” (Sahih Muslim 1847)
First, we must make it clear to everyone that the Johannine Comma is the best witness to the doctrine of the Trinity in the entire Bible.
There is no other text that clarifies the doctrine of the Trinity as clearly as the Comma. Bart Ehrman [1] testified to this in his book Misquoting Jesus, where he said [2] : The verses from the First Epistle of John, chapter 5, verses 7-8, which scholars call the Johannine Comma , are found in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts but not in the overwhelming majority of the Greek manuscripts .
This has long been a favorite passage among Christian theologians, as it is the only passage in the entire Bible that clearly indicates the doctrine of the Trinity , that is, three persons with a divine nature, yet all three constitute only one God. The passage in the Vulgate reads as follows: “There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”
This is an obscure passage, but it unambiguously supports the traditional teaching of the Church regarding “the triune God who is one.” In the absence of this passage, we must deduce the doctrine of the Trinity from a number of passages combined to indicate that Christ is God, as are the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, however, only one God . This passage, in contrast to the others, states this doctrine directly and concisely.
A Christian colleague said after admitting the inauthenticity of the comma: But my dear Christian believer, do not be intimidated by these statements that say that this text is the only one that indicates the Trinity, and with its fall the doctrine of the Trinity falls. You should know that every text that indicates the oneness of God is evidence of the oneness of the Trinity. We believe that the Trinity is the three hypostases of one divine essence. Proving the oneness of the divine essence that we worship is itself proving the oneness of the three hypostases. Below, we will list 260 texts from the Bible that prove the doctrine of the Trinity! … End
I don’t know how he understood the phrase ( And you should know that every text that proves the oneness of God is evidence of the oneness of the Trinity ), but after this quote, the Christian colleague listed texts in 16 full pages! His method was as follows: Collecting texts that speak of the divinity of the Father, collecting texts that speak - according to his claim - of the divinity of the Son, i.e. Christ, collecting texts that speak - according to his claim - of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, then collecting texts that speak - according to his claim - of the equality of the hypostases, and in the end he collected texts that speak of the oneness of God! And thus he proved the Trinity (may God help you). How hard this work was, in order to prove a fundamental Christian doctrine. Now we know why a text was added that explicitly carries the doctrine! We respond to all texts that the Christian colleague believes speak of the divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or the equality of the hypostases, without exception, because they are also not explicit texts, and we are in a constant debate about these deductive theological topics.
This introduction is only for the Christian to know the extent of the problem he falls into in order to prove a basic doctrine, and for this we realize well why this text was and still is the most beloved to the hearts of Christians, and the first text that comes out of the mouth of the Christian when he tries to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from a biblical perspective, so the Christian does not find it easier or simpler than to say and say: The evidence in the first letter of John is five, seven… etc.
In this final review , we will prove - God willing - beyond any doubt that the text of the Johannine Comma is not an authentic text according to the rules of textual criticism. We will discuss the opinions of everyone who tries to defend the text, so that no one will cite this text anymore and we will leave them to fight with 260 verses in an attempt to deduce the doctrine of the Trinity, which does not exist in the Bible!
۞ Beginning of studying the textual problem: #
When we begin to study any textual problem, we first determine the number of readings and then study the external evidence for each reading. In the case of our text under investigation, we find that there are two readings in the Greek manuscripts: a long reading, which contains a comma, and a short reading, which does not contain a comma. Here is the text of the two readings:
Long read The blue textis the comma text in question
7 For there are three witnesses in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three who bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three are one . (Life Translation)
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ m Λόγος οὗτοι οι τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν 8 τρεῖς εἰσιη αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (GNT of the Greek Orthodox Church)
The short reading does not contain any talk about the Trinity.
7 And there are three who bear witness: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are in one . (English Common Translation)
7 days old age τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (Nestle-Aland 27th edition GNT)
۞ Short Reading Manuscripts
We will first discuss the external evidence (manuscripts) for the short reading and then move on to the long reading. The Greek manuscripts that attest to the short reading and do not contain the Johannine comma number 494, but the total number of manuscripts, including manuscripts of the ancient translations, exceeds 500. Here is a list of the Greek manuscripts [3] that do not contain the comma:
א ABKLP Ψ 048 049 056 0142 0296 1 2 3 4 5 6 18 35 36 38 42 43 51 57 62 69 76 81 82 88* 90 93 94 97 102 103 104 105 110 131 133 141 142 149 172 175 177 180 181 189 201 203 204 205 206 209 216 218 221* 223 226 234 250 254 256 263 296 302 307 308 309 312 314 319 321 322 323 325 326 327 328 330 337 363 365 367 368 378 383 384 385 386 390 393 394 398 400 404 421 424 425 429* 431 432 436 440 442 444 450 451 452 453 454 456 457 458 459 460 462 464 465 466 467 468 469 479 483 489 491 496 498 506 517 522 547 582 592 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 627 628 630 631 632 633 634 635 636* 637 638 639 641 643 656 664 665 680 699 720 743 757 794 796 801 808 824 832 876 901 910 912 913 914 915 917 919 920 921 922 927 928 935 941 945 959 986 996 999 1003 1022 1040 1058 1066 1067 1069 1070 1072 1075 1094 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1115 1127 1149 1161 1162 1175 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1270 1292 1297 1311 1315 1319 1352 1354 1351851
9 1360 1367 1384 1390 1398 1400 1404 1405 1409 1424 1448 1456 1482 1490 1495 1501 1503 1505 1508 1509 1521 1523 1524 1548 1563 1573 1594 1595 1597 1598 1599 1609 1610 1611 1618 1619 1622 1626 1628 1636 1637 1642 1643 1646 1649 1656 1661 1668 1673 1678 1702 1704 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1757 1758 1761 1762 1763 1765 1767 1768 1769 1780 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1849 1850
1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1880 1881 1882 1885 1886 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1899 1902 1903 2080 2085 2086 2125 2127 2130 2131 2138 2143 2147 2180 2186 2191 2194 2197 2200 2218 2221 2242 2243 2255 2261 2279 2288 2289 2298 2344 2352 2356 2374 2378 2400 2401 2404 2412 2423 2431 2464 2466 2475 2483 2484 2492 2494 2495 2501 2502 2508 2511 2516 2523 2527 2541 2544 2554 2558 2587 2625 2626 2627 2652 2653 2674 2675 2691 2696 2704 2705 2712 2716 2718 2723 2736 2746 2774 2776 2777 2805
Details of the Important Manuscripts [4] Set by the GNT4RE Version
The committee gave the first reading a rating of { A } , meaning that they are certain that it is the original reading ;
A - Codex Sinaiticus - (4th century)
A - Codex Alexandrianus - (5th century)
B - Codex Vaticanus - (4th century)
048vid - (5th century) vid; Reading is difficult, but most likely correct.
33 - (9th century)
81 - (1044 AD)
322 - (15th century)
323 - (12th century)
436 - (mid-11th century)
945 - (11th century)
1067 - (14th century)
1175 - (10th century)
1241 - (12th century)
1243 - (11th century)
1292 - (13th century)
1409 - (14th century)
1505 - (12th century)
1611 - (12th century)
1735 - (10th century)
1739 - (10th century)
1846 - (11th century)
1881 - (14th century)
2138 - (1072 AD)
2344 - (11th century)
4464 - (circa 14th century*)
Byz( KLP ) - Consensus of Byzantine Text Family manuscripts
L884 - Canonical readings - (8th century) reads (βαπτισμα) instead of (αιμα)
Ancient Translations of the Bible that Bear Witness to This Reading
Itar - Old Latin - (9th century)
Vgww,st - Vulgate -
ww; Wordsworth-White (1889)
st; Stuttgart Vulgate (1983)
syrp,h - Old Syriac
p; Peshitta (mid-5th century)
h; Heracleanus version (616)
copsa,bo - Coptic - (3rd century) sa; Sahidic, bo; Boharic
armmms - Armenian - (5th century) mss; manuscript variations
Eth - Ethiopic - (early 6th century)
Geo - Georgian - (5th century)
Salv - Slavonic - (9th century)
Manuscripts Read (μαρτυροῦσιν ) Instead of ( μαρτυροῦντες)
Ψ - Athos Manuscript - (mid-9th century)
1844 - (c. 11th century*)
1852 - (8th century)
Quotes from the Greek Fathers that Bear Witness to This Reading
Clementlat - Clement of Alexandria - (before 215 AD) lat; Latin quotation
Origenlat - Origen - (253 AD) lat; Latin quotation
(Cyril) - Cyril of Alexandria - (444 AD) The quotation is not completely identical
Ps-Dionysiusvid - Dionysius - (5th century) vid; the reading is difficult but most likely correct
(John-Damascus) - John of Damascus - (before 754 AD) The quotation is not completely identical
Quotes from the Latin Fathers that Bear Witness to This Reading
Rebaptism - (c. 453 AD)
Ambrose - (397 AD)
Augustine - (430 AD)
Quodvultdeus - (5th century)
Facundus - (after 571 AD)
Images of the Most Important Greek Manuscripts that Do Not Contain the Johannine Comma
Sinaiticus Codex
@KufrCleaner
Vatican Codex
Alexandrian Manuscript
So there Are 494 Greek Manuscripts that Attest to the short Reading, in Addition to Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Slavonic Translations, and Some Vulgate and Old Latin Manuscripts. How Many Greek Manuscripts Attest to the Long Reading?
۞ Long Reading Manuscripts
Masha Allah, no envy, there are 5 (five) manuscripts exactly that contain the comma text in the body of the manuscript itself, in addition to these five manuscripts, there are four other manuscripts that contain the comma text in the margin! That is, there are a total of nine manuscripts if we add the marginal manuscripts to the manuscripts that contain the text in the body, and now let us go to analyze these manuscripts [5] :
Text in the manuscript
629 - 15th century - Vatican Library, Ottob
61 - 16th century - Dublin, Trinity College
918 - 16th century - Escorial
2473 - 17th century - Athens, National Library
2318 - 18th century - Bucharest, Romania
Text on the margin of the manuscript
221 - 10th century - Oxford, Bodleian Library
88 - 12th century - Naples, National Library
429 - 14th century - Wolfenbuttel, Herzog August Bibliothek
636 - 15th century - Naples, National Library
Five manuscripts contain the text in the main body, the oldest dating back to the fifteenth century (manuscript no. 629), and four manuscripts contain the text in the margin, the oldest dating back to the tenth century, and the same addition from a later scribe. After this manuscript farce, what about the Latin manuscripts?
The Latin reading is as follows:
7 Quoniam three sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, and Spiritus Sanctus: and hi tres unum sunt. 8 And there is sunt, which testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, and aqua, and sanguis: and hi there is a sunt. (Clement Latin Vulgate)
Latin Manuscripts [6]
itl - 7th century
itr - 7th century
itq - 7th century
As for the Latin versions [7] , the text does not appear in its early form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), nor does it appear in the Vulgate as issued by St. Jerome (the Fuldensis version written in 546 AD or the Amiatinus version written before 716 AD), nor in the version revised by Alcion in the ninth century. Therefore, we can say with all confidence that the comma text never appeared in any Latin manuscript before the seventh century, even though we know that the text did not appear in any Greek manuscript within its text before the fifteenth century!
۞ The Most Important Laws of Textual Criticism
Kurt Aland and his wife Barbara [8] mentioned to us one of the most important laws of textual criticism:
The primary authority for a critical textual decision lies with the Greek Manuscripts tradition , with the versions and Fathers serving no more than a supplementary and corroborative function.
Translation: The supreme authority in determining the original reading of the Greek manuscript tradition, the ancient translations and the writings of the Fathers represent a complementary factor.
Based on this law, the comma text is not original in any way!
The comma is absent from the oldest Greek manuscripts, and its first appearance was in the fifteenth century. It is also absent from the majority of Greek manuscripts, as it is present in only five manuscripts in the text! How, by God, can any sane person know that this text is authentic?! Therefore, we find that the Greek versions that rely on the majority of Byzantine manuscripts also omit the comma!
The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text [ 9 ] ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The New Testament in the original Greek [ 10 ] και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν
Since the text is not authentic, neither by antiquity nor by majority, we find that the critical Greek versions that rely on ancient manuscripts also delete the text without debate or discussion. What a pity for every Christian who believes that this text is authentic!
The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition [ 11 ] ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
Novum Testamentum Graece [12] : Nestle-Aland 27 ὅτι
τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες , 8 ὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament [
13 ] ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
Novum Testamentum graece [14] : Tischendorf
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 ὅτι πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The Greek New Testament [ 15 ] : Samuel Tregelles ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The Greek Testament [16] : H. Alford
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
Novum Testamentum Graece [17] : Griesbach
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 ὅτι πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
Bagster’s Critical New Testament [ 18 ] Greek and English
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ µαρτυροῦντες, 8 ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The Greek Testament [ 19 ] : Samuel Thomas
7 ὁ Λόγος τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
This is the case of the Johannine comma in the Greek critical versions. I do not know of a single critical version that contains the comma, and I have only found Samuel Thomas’s version, which put the comma between parentheses! Everyone knows very well that putting a text between parentheses means that the part is not authentic, but I know very well why Samuel put the comma between parentheses and did not delete it. The reason is that his version is for theologians (Manual Edition For The Use Of Theological Readers), and this is a purely theological and doctrinal text, so he found no escape except to put the comma between parentheses.
۞ Fathers and Comma
father who do not know the comma
We will mention the names of the Church Fathers who we know for certain knew nothing about the Johannine Comma.*** But if you have read Episode 2, you can skip this part
Clement of Alexandria (150 AD - 215 AD)
One of the most important fathers of the Alexandrian School and one of the most famous Greek fathers , he was ordained a priest and then became dean of the Alexandrian School and assumed its presidency after Pantaenus [20] . This father is famous for three books, including the Book of Miscellaneous. In this book, he interpreted the First Epistle of John, and we do not find in this interpretation any mention of the comma! Here is the text of his words from the famous English translation [21] :
He says, “This is He who came by water and blood;” and again, - ” For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, ” which is life, ” and the water, ” which is regeneration and faith, ” and the blood, ” which is knowledge; ” And these three are one. ” For in the Savior are those saving virtues, and life itself exists in His own Son.
Translation: He says, ” This is he who came by water and blood” (1 John 5:6) and again, “for there are three witnesses: the Spirit,” which is life, “the water,” which is spiritual rebirth and faith, and “the blood,” which is knowledge; “and these three are one,” since in the Savior are all these elements that save us, and life itself lives in his Son.
What more do you want?! The man seems to have copied from Nestle-Aland’s version! Clement of Alexandria interpreted the entire First Epistle of John, quoting the short reading as we know it in all ancient Greek manuscripts and modern critical translations.
Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (339 AD - 397 AD)
The famous Bishop of Milan, Ambrose, was one of the great Latin Fathers and he also knew Greek and spoke it fluently [22] . Despite all this - his knowledge of Latin and Greek - we find him knowing absolutely nothing about the Johannine comma and we find him quoting entire verses from the First Epistle of John, starting from the sixth verse to the end of the eighth verse, and we do not find the Johannine comma. Here is the text of the English translation [23] :
But the same Evangelist, that he might make it plain that he wrote this concerning the Holy Spirit, says elsewhere: “Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not in the water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one ”.
Translation: But the same evangelist who said it explicitly and wrote about the Holy Spirit says in another place, “Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not by water alone, but by water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness, because the Spirit is true. For there are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”
Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354 AD - 430 AD)
He was ordained a priest when he was about forty years old, then he was ordained a bishop for Bishop Hippo between 395 and 396 AD, then he succeeded him [24] . Of course, he is from the group of post-Nicene fathers , in addition to this, he is from the Latin fathers , and this is very important for us, as it is clear evidence that the Latin fathers after Nicene did not know the Johannine comma, since Augustine loved Latin and mastered it and did not like the Greek language [25] . So, all of Augustine’s sources for the New Testament were Latin manuscripts, and despite this, he did not know the Johannine comma! I will quote to you the English translation [26] from his book Moral Sermons from the First Epistle of John:
I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he said, ” There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one .”
Translation: I would not be mistaken in the place in the Epistle of John the Apostle where it says, “There are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are one.”
What’s all this assertion?! What’s all this confidence?! Actually, I think Augustine’s quote is very strong. He is one of the most important Latin fathers who knew absolutely nothing about the Johannine comma. We also know from Augustine’s words in the same letter that he interpreted the short reading to arrive at the Trinity, but he was completely unaware of the comma itself because he did not have it! Also, Augustine explained the Trinity in detail in 15 parts and did not cite this text once.
Leo the Great [27] Bishop of Rome (400 AD - 461 AD)
One of the famous Latin Fathers who was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church to be called “The Great” was the Pope. At the Second Council of Ephesus, representatives of Bishop Leo delivered his famous letter “The Tome”, which was written in Latin, to Flavian. This letter was a statement of the faith of the Roman Church [28] . In this letter, Bishop Leo quoted from the First Epistle of John, verses 5-8, and in this quotation we do not find the Johannine comma. We must repeat that Bishop Leo was one of the Latin Fathers and his letter was in Latin. This information greatly clarifies that the Johannine comma was not widespread in the Latin tradition, as some claim. Here is his quote from the First Epistle of John from the English translation [29] :
Let him also not resist the testimony of Blessed John the Apostle … [30] “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not in water only, but in water and blood;
Translation: And make him also irresistible the testimony of the blessed Apostle John… “Who is he who overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This one who came is Jesus Christ. He came not by water and blood, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. And there are three who bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one” (1 John 5:5-8).
These are the fathers whose quotations I was able to bring, which indicate their complete lack of knowledge of the Johannine comma. I would like to point out that I have brought only one Greek father, knowing that there is not a single Greek father who quoted the comma [31] , and I have brought three Latin fathers to indicate that the text of the comma was not widespread in the Latin tradition, as many Christians try to show in vain. Among the fathers who quoted the short reading [32] are: Origen (253 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (444 AD), John of Damascus (before 754 AD), and many others.
Cyprian and the Half-Comma (210 AD - 258 AD)
The martyred bishop of Carthage, who was born in Africa to a wealthy pagan family, was educated at the highest levels of learning and became a preacher. At the end of 248 AD, or most likely at the beginning of 249 AD, he was elected bishop of Carthage, thus becoming the Metropolitan of North Africa [33] . Cyprian’s quotation of the comma text is one of the most controversial quotations among scholars, and for that reason we will shed light on this quotation and examine it carefully, perhaps we will arrive at the truth of Cyprian’s quotation.
Did Cyprian quote the comma?
Here is the text of Cyprian’s words that caused much controversy in the English translation [34] :
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ” And these three are one .”
Translation: Our Lord says: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and again it is written about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: ” And these three are one .”
Actually, I have a simple question: When a Christian says through this statement of Cyprian that he has quoted the comma, is his statement being a joke or a joke? Where did Cyprian quote the comma? Perhaps the matter is not clear to the Christian, but now I will present some main points that will make it clear beyond any doubt that Cyprian was not quoting the comma at all with his statement.
Cyprian said ( it is written of the Father, and of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit ), that is, it is written about them, written concerning them. Would he have said this if the quoted text explicitly mentioned them? Of course not. Notice, my friend, that he says ( the Son ) and does not say the word ( ὁ Λόγος - Verbum ) which we find in the late Latin text of the Vulgate or the Received Greek Text. So, Cyprian quoted a text that refers to or symbolizes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and this text is the short reading ( And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are in one ), since we found that this interpretation is famous among the Latin Fathers such as Augustine [35] - as we mentioned previously - and these are Augustine’s sayings from the English translation:
But if we will inquire into the things signified I by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said , “There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:” so that by the term Spirit we should understand God the Father to be signified ; as indeed it was concerning the worship of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, “God is a Spirit:” by the term, blood, the Son ; Because “the Word was made flesh:” and by the term water, the Holy Ghost .
But if we investigate the things that give symbols , I cannot through these things give a reason when the Trinity itself comes to my mind, which is one, only, true, the supreme God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit , of whom it is truly said (that is, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity): “There are three witnesses, and these three are one” (1 John 5:8). The term Spirit must be understood to symbolize God the Father , because it was certainly His own in worship when our Lord mentioned it when He said: “God is Spirit” (John 4:24). The term Blood symbolizes the Son because “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). The term Water symbolizes the Holy Spirit .
This is exactly what Cyprian meant, that the text (1 John 5/8) which says that the Spirit, water and blood are one, replaced the three symbols with what they symbolize! He said that it is written about the Father, about the Son, and about the Holy Spirit ( and these three are one ). I think that the matter is very clear and does not need more explanation than this, but it might occur to the Christian that Cyprian quoted ( and these three are one ). But if we look at the Van Dyck translation or any other translation at the end of (1 John 5/8), we will find that it is written ( and the three are in one ). In response, we say that this difference goes back to the Greek text and not to the Latin text. If the Christian looks up again to look at the sayings of the Latin fathers who quoted the short reading, he will find that Leo the Great quoted ( and the three are one ), and that Augustine quoted ( and the three are one ), and that Ambrose quoted ( and these three are one ). If we look again at texts 7 and 8 as we find them in the Claromental Vulgate, we will find that the end of the two texts is one! And here is the Latin text:
7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, and Spiritus Sanctus: and hi tres unum sunt . 8 And there is sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, and aqua, and sanguis: and hi tres unum sunt . (Clement Latin Vulgate)
So Cyprian never quoted the comma, but rather intended the symbolic meaning of the short reading that refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We simply say that if Cyprian, who lived in the third century, knew the comma, then why did the Latin Fathers who came after him, such as Leo the Great, Augustine, or Ambrose, not know the comma? This is a question that requires contemplation, but there is also testimony from the same time as Cyprian that confirms to us once again that the comma was not known at all in the time of Cyprian!
Letter on the Rebaptism of an Unknown Person (258 AD)
Do not be surprised, dear reader, that I quote from a letter by an anonymous person. This is not my problem, but the problem of Christians. I only cite this letter to condemn a Christian, and because of the writer’s anonymity. Many researchers have differed about the time of writing the letter [36] . One of them attributed the letter to Cyprian himself! He said that it was written in his time, and there are many researchers who agree with this opinion! There are others who say that the letter was written against Cyprian! In addition to that, the GNT4RE version [37] placed (Rebaptism) among the list of Latin fathers! And it dates back to the year (258 AD). In any case, what matters to us is that the letter is from the same time as Cyprian, that is, from the third century. Here is the text of the English translation [38] :
For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;”
Translation: John says about our Lord in his letter to teach us: “This is Jesus Christ who came by water and blood—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness, because the Spirit is true. So there are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one” (1 John 5:6-8).
There is also another quote in the same letter [39] :
Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that “three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.”
So at the end of our dialogue about the Fathers and the comma, we can say with all strength that the testimony of the Fathers is against the comma, since the oldest (Clement of Alexandria) and the majority (all the Greek Fathers in addition to many Latins) do not know anything about the comma. In addition to this, we have explained that Cyprian (the only Father that Christians cling to) did not quote the comma, so what hadith after him do they believe?! All that remains for us is to know, despite all this standing testimonies against the comma, how did the comma enter the text of the New Testament?
۞ Received Text and Comma
We know for certain that the entry of the Johannine comma into the text of the New Testament and its global spread was through the Greek version of Erasmus, but not in its first or even second edition. Rather, the comma entered the Erasmus version in its third edition and not before it, that Greek version which was the cornerstone of all traditional translations such as the English King James Version and the Arabic translation of Smith and VanDyke. This was said by major textual critics such as: Samuel Troggles [40] , Stott [41] , Hort [42] , Frederic Kenyon [43] , Caspar Gregory [44] , Conybeare [45] , Eberhard Nestel [46] , Bart Ehrman [47] , Hammond [48 ] , Scrivener [49], Scott Porter [50] , Bruce Metzger [51] and many others. Here is the Arabic translation of the novel as Bruce Metzger said it:
Among the criticisms that Erasmus received, the most severe was from Stonica, one of the revisers of Ximenes Complacentian Polyglot, who said that his text was missing a part of the last chapter of 1 John known as the “Trinitarian phrase,” which speaks of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and they bear witness on earth” (1 John 5:7-8). Erasmus replied that he had found no Greek manuscript containing these words, although he had examined several manuscripts besides those on which he had relied when preparing his first copy. In a moment of indiscretion, Erasmus may have promised to add the Johannine comma , as it is called, in future editions if he found a single Greek manuscript containing this phrase. After a while, this manuscript was found, or produced for this purpose ! As it now seems, This Greek manuscript was probably written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan father named “Froy” or “Roy,” who took this questionable phrase from the Vulgate. Erasmus inserted the text in the third edition (1522), but indicated in a long note his expectation that the manuscript was prepared to refute him.
This is the story as textual critics know it, but it seems that many people didn’t like the story so they wanted to verify the story! Yes, by God, it is a strange statement and I fell off my office chair from laughing so much when I read it in a research paper by one of my Christian colleagues. They wanted to verify the story because it says that someone produced a fresh manuscript in order to introduce the comma into the text of the New Testament! Regardless of the truth of this story or not - no Christian has anything that can deny it with certainty - what is the story opposite to this story? We know for sure that the comma entered the text of the New Testament through the third edition of Erasmus, so how did it enter if you rejected the story reported by Bruce Metzger? By God, you will hear an amazing story!
A doctoral researcher on Erasmus’s writings named Jung wrote an article [52] published in a theological journal, in which he discusses the story popular among textual critics about the introduction of the comma into Erasmus’s third edition. In short, Dr. Jung quotes Erasmus in one of his letters [53] explaining why he introduced the comma into his third edition: ” So that no one would have the opportunity to criticize me out of spite .” What is this! Is this reason better than the first version? No, by God, in fact I firmly believe that the first version was invented to cover up this shameful reason. In the first version, Erasmus introduced the comma into his text with good intentions! He said that the reason for not adding the comma was the lack of manuscripts containing it, in other words, the lack of evidence. So, some dishonest person produced a manuscript in order to add the comma, and on this basis, Erasmus added the comma, following the evidence. But the second reason is very shameful, as it shows beyond doubt that Erasmus knew that the comma was inauthentic, but for personal reasons, he added it! Does this satisfy you, Christians? Rejoice in both versions, for the sweetest of them is bitter.
۞ Conclusion
I will suffice with this amount of writing about the comma, as I believe that there are no other points worth discussing about this textual problem.
And our final supplication is that all praise is due to God, Lord of the Worlds.
Sources( Ep 3)
[1] MISQUOTING JESUS - TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - Page 8I
This is the account of i John 5:7-8, which scholars have called the Johannine Comma, found in the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate but not in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, a passage that had long been a favorite among Christian theologians,since it is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity, that there are three persons in the godhead, but that the three all constitute just one God. In the Vulgate, the passage reads: There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one. It is a mysterious passage, but unequivocal in its support of the traditional teachings of the church on the “triune God who is one.”Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity must be inferred from a range of passages combinedto show that Christ is God, as is the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, nonetheless, only one God. This passage, in contrast, states the doctrine directly and succinctly.
[2] Distortion of the sayings of Jesus… Who is the letter of the Bible and why? - Written by Dr. Bart Ehrman - Chapter Three: New Testament Texts… Editions, Manuscripts, and Variations
[3] List of manuscripts taken from:
David Robert Palmer: The First Epistle of John - A new translation from the Greek - February 2009 edition - Page 23 -http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/1john.pdf
[4] Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, CM, Metzger, BM, Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006).
[5] David Robert Palmer made a study to prove the inauthenticity of the Johannine Comma and mentioned the five manuscripts that contain the text in the four manuscripts that contain the text in the margin. As for the GNT4RE version and the NA27 version ,they mentioned four manuscripts that contain the text in the body (2318 61 629 918) and four manuscripts that contain the text in the margin (88 429 636 221), but in general everyone agreed without exception that the oldest manuscript that contains the text in the body is manuscript (629) which dates back to the fifteenth century.
David Robert Palmer - Link:http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/FirstJohnCh5v7.pdf
Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C.M., Metzger, B.M., Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus).
[6] NA27 says that two Latin manuscripts containing the comma text are l and r from the 7th century,
while GNT4RE mentions l and r, also from the 7th century, and both say that some later Vulgate manuscripts contain the text. Some Christian colleagues have said that the comma text appeared in other Latin manuscripts without a reference, such as: (c) from the twelfth century, (dem) from the thirteenth century, (div) from the twelfth century, and (m) from the ninth century. However, there is agreement that the first appearance of the comma text in the Latin versions was in the seventh century, and there is no objection to the text spreading in the Latin versions after the seventh century.
[7] Metzger, BM, & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (Page 648). London; New York: United Bible Societies. - The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied ad 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before ad 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
[8] Kurt & Barbra Aland: The Text of The New Testament - Second Edition - VII Introduction to the Praxis of New Testament Textual Criticism - Page 280
[9] Hodges, ZC, Farstad, AL, & Dunkin, WC (1985). The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text (2nd ed.) (Page 713). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.
[10] Pierpont, W. G., & Robinson, M. A. (1995, c1991). The New Testament in the original Greek: According to the Byzantine/Majority textform (1 John 5:7-8). Roswell, GA: The Original Word Publishers.
[11] Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus) (1 John 5:7-8).
[12] Nestle, E., Nestle, E., Aland, K., Aland, B., & Universität Münster. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung. (1993, c1979). Novum Testamentum Grace. At head of title: Nestle-Aland. (27. Aufl., rev.) (623). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung.
[13] Westcott, B. F., & Hort, F. J. A. (1996). 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament (1 John 5:7-8). Oak Harbor WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
[14]Novum Testamentum graece. 1869-94 (C. v. Tischendorf, C. R. Gregory & E. Abbot, Ed.) (2:337-341). Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient.
[15] Samuel Tregelles: The Greek New Testament, Edited from ancient authorities with their various readings in full, and the Latin Version of Jerome - Page 658
[16] H. Alford: The Greek Testament with various readings - Volume IV - Page 503, 504
[17] Griesbach: Novum Testamentum Graece - Volume 2 - Page 564
[18] Bagster’s Critical New Testament Greek And English - Consisting Op The Greek Text Of Scholz, With The Readings, Both Textual And Marginal, Of Griesbach; And The Variations Of The Editions Of Stephens, 1550; Beza, 1598; And The Elzevir, 1633: With The English Authorized Version, And Its Marginal Renderings - Page 575
[19] Samuel Thomas: The Greek Testament, With English Notes, Critical, Philological, And Exegetical, Selected And Arranged From The Best Commentators, Ancient And Modern, But Chiefly Original. The Whole Being Especially Adapted To The Use Of Academic Students, Candidates For The Sacred Office And Ministers Though Also Intended As A Manual Edition For The Use Of Theological Readers In General. - Volume II - Page 550 (comma in parentheses)
[20] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 69
[21] The Early Church Fathers: ANTE-NICENE FATHERS - Volume 2 - Fathers of the Second Century: Clement of Alexandria - Fragments of Clemens AlexandrinusIII - Comments on the First Epistle of John
[22] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 258
[23] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. X. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters. (Page 144). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[24] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 271
[25] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 269
[26] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII. St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John Soliloquies. (Page 526). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[27] Comprehensive information about this bishop http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm
[28] Information taken from the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I#The_Tome
[29] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XIV. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. - THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL - THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (ad 451) - The Tome of St. Leo. (Page 258). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[30]There were some quotations from the words of John the Apostle that did not interest us, so I preferred to quote the part that relates to the subject of our research
[31] Clarke, A. (1999). Clarke’s Commentary:The Adam Clarke Commentary - First John - Chapter 5 (electronic ed.) (1 Jn 5:7) http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/vi…jo&chapter=005
It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers ; and in most even of the Latin.
[32] Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, CM, Metzger, BM, Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus) (1 Jn 5:7-8) - Page 819
{Embed}
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Leo I (The Great)
Article on his pontificate, in Christian antiquity second only to that of Gregory the Great in importance. Leo died in 461
Pope Leo I
Pope Leo I (Italian: Leone I) (c. 391 – 10 November 461), also known as Leo the Great (Latin: Leo Magnus; Italian: Leone Magno), was Bishop of Rome from 29 September 440 until his death on 10 November 461. He is the first of the three Popes listed in the Annuario Pontificio with the title “the Great”, alongside Popes Gregory I and Nicholas I.
[33] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 236
[34] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, AC (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. – The Treatises of Cyprian – Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church. (Page 423)
[35] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII. St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John Soliloquies. (Page 526)
[36] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. (Page 665). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems – Rigaltius, who first edited the treatise, among his notes to the works of Cyprian, judged that it was written about the time of that Father. And Fell, Cave, Tillemont, and Galland, are of the same opinion. The two latter, indeed, conjecture that it was actually intended against Cyprian.
[37] Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus) List of Latin Church Fathers – Page (37*) – Rebaptism (De Rebaptismate) 258
[38] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. (Page 675). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[39] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. – A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer. —Argument.—That They Who Have Once Been Washed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ought Not to Be Re-Baptized (Page 677). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[40] SP Tregelles: An Account Of The Printed Text Of The Greek New Testament, London, 1854 Pp 22 And 27
[41] BF Westcott: The Epistles Of St John, Third Edition 1892, Reprinted With A New Introduction By FF Bruce, Abingdon, Berkshire, 1966, p 207
[42] FJA Hort: Notes On Select Readings In BF Westcott And FJA Hort, Thc New Testament In The Onginal Greek, Cambridge And London 1881 Appendix to vol II, p 104
[43] FG Kenyon: Handbook To The Tcxtual Criticism Of The Νew Testament London 1901, P 229, 19122 (Reprmtcd 1926), p 270
[44] Caspar Rene Gregory: Canon And Text Of The New Testament – Early History Of Text – 1 John 5:7-8 – Page 509
[45] FC Conybeare: History Of New Testament Criticism – Textual Criticism – Page 70
[46] Eberhard Nestle: Introduction To The Textual Criticism Of The Greek New Testament – Chapter I – History Of The Printed Text Since 1514 – Greek New Testament – Page 4
[47] Bart D. Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why – Texts Of The New Testament – Page 81
[48] C.E. Hammond: Textual Criticism Applied To The New Testament – Chapter I – Sketch Of The History Of The Textus Receptus – Page 10
[49] Frederick Scrivener: A Plain Introduction To The Criticism Of The New Testament – Page 653
[50] J. Scott Porter: Principles Of Textual Criticism, With Their Application To The Old And New Testaments – Textual Criticism Of The New TestamentCritical, Examination Of Particular Passes – Page 494
n, And Restoration - Fourth Edition - Chap 3 - The Precritical Period The Origin And Dominance Of The Textus Receptus - Page 146 Bruce M. Metzger: The Text Of The New Testament Its Transmission, Corruptio [51]
[52] De Jonge: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, At: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol 56: 1980 , P. 381-389
[53] Erasmus: First Apology Against Stunica Ed Clericus Tom IX Col 353 E - “so that no one would have occasion to criticize me out of malice”
Episode 3
Final Review
Pinned a message.
” O Allah, Lord of Gabriel, Michael, and Israfil, Creator of the heavens and the earth, Knower of the unseen and the witnessed, You will judge between Your servants concerning that over which they differ. Guide me to the truth concerning that over which they differ, by Your permission. Indeed, You guide whom You will to a straight path. ” (Sahih Muslim 1847)
First, we must make it clear to everyone that the Johannine Comma is the best witness to the doctrine of the Trinity in the entire Bible.
There is no other text that clarifies the doctrine of the Trinity as clearly as the Comma. Bart Ehrman [1] testified to this in his book Misquoting Jesus, where he said [2] : The verses from the First Epistle of John, chapter 5, verses 7-8, which scholars call the Johannine Comma , are found in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts but not in the overwhelming majority of the Greek manuscripts .
This has long been a favorite passage among Christian theologians, as it is the only passage in the entire Bible that clearly indicates the doctrine of the Trinity , that is, three persons with a divine nature, yet all three constitute only one God. The passage in the Vulgate reads as follows: “There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”
This is an obscure passage, but it unambiguously supports the traditional teaching of the Church regarding “the triune God who is one.” In the absence of this passage, we must deduce the doctrine of the Trinity from a number of passages combined to indicate that Christ is God, as are the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, however, only one God . This passage, in contrast to the others, states this doctrine directly and concisely.
A Christian colleague said after admitting the inauthenticity of the comma: But my dear Christian believer, do not be intimidated by these statements that say that this text is the only one that indicates the Trinity, and with its fall the doctrine of the Trinity falls. You should know that every text that indicates the oneness of God is evidence of the oneness of the Trinity. We believe that the Trinity is the three hypostases of one divine essence. Proving the oneness of the divine essence that we worship is itself proving the oneness of the three hypostases. Below, we will list 260 texts from the Bible that prove the doctrine of the Trinity! … End
I don’t know how he understood the phrase ( And you should know that every text that proves the oneness of God is evidence of the oneness of the Trinity ), but after this quote, the Christian colleague listed texts in 16 full pages! His method was as follows: Collecting texts that speak of the divinity of the Father, collecting texts that speak - according to his claim - of the divinity of the Son, i.e. Christ, collecting texts that speak - according to his claim - of the divinity of the Holy Spirit, then collecting texts that speak - according to his claim - of the equality of the hypostases, and in the end he collected texts that speak of the oneness of God! And thus he proved the Trinity (may God help you). How hard this work was, in order to prove a fundamental Christian doctrine. Now we know why a text was added that explicitly carries the doctrine! We respond to all texts that the Christian colleague believes speak of the divinity of the Son, the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or the equality of the hypostases, without exception, because they are also not explicit texts, and we are in a constant debate about these deductive theological topics.
This introduction is only for the Christian to know the extent of the problem he falls into in order to prove a basic doctrine, and for this we realize well why this text was and still is the most beloved to the hearts of Christians, and the first text that comes out of the mouth of the Christian when he tries to prove the doctrine of the Trinity from a biblical perspective, so the Christian does not find it easier or simpler than to say and say: The evidence in the first letter of John is five, seven… etc.
In this final review , we will prove - God willing - beyond any doubt that the text of the Johannine Comma is not an authentic text according to the rules of textual criticism. We will discuss the opinions of everyone who tries to defend the text, so that no one will cite this text anymore and we will leave them to fight with 260 verses in an attempt to deduce the doctrine of the Trinity, which does not exist in the Bible!
۞ Beginning of studying the textual problem: #
When we begin to study any textual problem, we first determine the number of readings and then study the external evidence for each reading. In the case of our text under investigation, we find that there are two readings in the Greek manuscripts: a long reading, which contains a comma, and a short reading, which does not contain a comma. Here is the text of the two readings:
Long read The blue textis the comma text in question
7 For there are three witnesses in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three who bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three are one . (Life Translation)
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ m Λόγος οὗτοι οι τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν 8 τρεῖς εἰσιη αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (GNT of the Greek Orthodox Church)
The short reading does not contain any talk about the Trinity.
7 And there are three who bear witness: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are in one . (English Common Translation)
7 days old age τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. (Nestle-Aland 27th edition GNT)
۞ Short Reading Manuscripts
We will first discuss the external evidence (manuscripts) for the short reading and then move on to the long reading. The Greek manuscripts that attest to the short reading and do not contain the Johannine comma number 494, but the total number of manuscripts, including manuscripts of the ancient translations, exceeds 500. Here is a list of the Greek manuscripts [3] that do not contain the comma:
א ABKLP Ψ 048 049 056 0142 0296 1 2 3 4 5 6 18 35 36 38 42 43 51 57 62 69 76 81 82 88* 90 93 94 97 102 103 104 105 110 131 133 141 142 149 172 175 177 180 181 189 201 203 204 205 206 209 216 218 221* 223 226 234 250 254 256 263 296 302 307 308 309 312 314 319 321 322 323 325 326 327 328 330 337 363 365 367 368 378 383 384 385 386 390 393 394 398 400 404 421 424 425 429* 431 432 436 440 442 444 450 451 452 453 454 456 457 458 459 460 462 464 465 466 467 468 469 479 483 489 491 496 498 506 517 522 547 582 592 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 627 628 630 631 632 633 634 635 636* 637 638 639 641 643 656 664 665 680 699 720 743 757 794 796 801 808 824 832 876 901 910 912 913 914 915 917 919 920 921 922 927 928 935 941 945 959 986 996 999 1003 1022 1040 1058 1066 1067 1069 1070 1072 1075 1094 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1115 1127 1149 1161 1162 1175 1241 1242 1243 1244 1245 1247 1248 1249 1250 1251 1270 1292 1297 1311 1315 1319 1352 1354 1351851
9 1360 1367 1384 1390 1398 1400 1404 1405 1409 1424 1448 1456 1482 1490 1495 1501 1503 1505 1508 1509 1521 1523 1524 1548 1563 1573 1594 1595 1597 1598 1599 1609 1610 1611 1618 1619 1622 1626 1628 1636 1637 1642 1643 1646 1649 1656 1661 1668 1673 1678 1702 1704 1717 1718 1719 1720 1721 1722 1723 1724 1725 1726 1727 1728 1729 1730 1731 1732 1733 1735 1736 1737 1738 1739 1740 1741 1742 1743 1744 1745 1746 1747 1748 1749 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 1757 1758 1761 1762 1763 1765 1767 1768 1769 1780 1827 1828 1829 1830 1831 1832 1835 1836 1837 1838 1839 1840 1841 1842 1843 1844 1845 1846 1847 1849 1850
1852 1853 1854 1855 1856 1857 1858 1860 1861 1862 1863 1864 1865 1867 1868 1869 1870 1871 1872 1873 1874 1875 1876 1877 1880 1881 1882 1885 1886 1888 1889 1890 1891 1892 1893 1894 1895 1896 1897 1899 1902 1903 2080 2085 2086 2125 2127 2130 2131 2138 2143 2147 2180 2186 2191 2194 2197 2200 2218 2221 2242 2243 2255 2261 2279 2288 2289 2298 2344 2352 2356 2374 2378 2400 2401 2404 2412 2423 2431 2464 2466 2475 2483 2484 2492 2494 2495 2501 2502 2508 2511 2516 2523 2527 2541 2544 2554 2558 2587 2625 2626 2627 2652 2653 2674 2675 2691 2696 2704 2705 2712 2716 2718 2723 2736 2746 2774 2776 2777 2805
Details of the Important Manuscripts [4] Set by the GNT4RE Version
The committee gave the first reading a rating of { A } , meaning that they are certain that it is the original reading ;
A - Codex Sinaiticus - (4th century)
A - Codex Alexandrianus - (5th century)
B - Codex Vaticanus - (4th century)
048vid - (5th century) vid; Reading is difficult, but most likely correct.
33 - (9th century)
81 - (1044 AD)
322 - (15th century)
323 - (12th century)
436 - (mid-11th century)
945 - (11th century)
1067 - (14th century)
1175 - (10th century)
1241 - (12th century)
1243 - (11th century)
1292 - (13th century)
1409 - (14th century)
1505 - (12th century)
1611 - (12th century)
1735 - (10th century)
1739 - (10th century)
1846 - (11th century)
1881 - (14th century)
2138 - (1072 AD)
2344 - (11th century)
4464 - (circa 14th century*)
Byz( KLP ) - Consensus of Byzantine Text Family manuscripts
L884 - Canonical readings - (8th century) reads (βαπτισμα) instead of (αιμα)
Ancient Translations of the Bible that Bear Witness to This Reading
Itar - Old Latin - (9th century)
Vgww,st - Vulgate -
ww; Wordsworth-White (1889)
st; Stuttgart Vulgate (1983)
syrp,h - Old Syriac
p; Peshitta (mid-5th century)
h; Heracleanus version (616)
copsa,bo - Coptic - (3rd century) sa; Sahidic, bo; Boharic
armmms - Armenian - (5th century) mss; manuscript variations
Eth - Ethiopic - (early 6th century)
Geo - Georgian - (5th century)
Salv - Slavonic - (9th century)
Manuscripts Read (μαρτυροῦσιν ) Instead of ( μαρτυροῦντες)
Ψ - Athos Manuscript - (mid-9th century)
1844 - (c. 11th century*)
1852 - (8th century)
Quotes from the Greek Fathers that Bear Witness to This Reading
Clementlat - Clement of Alexandria - (before 215 AD) lat; Latin quotation
Origenlat - Origen - (253 AD) lat; Latin quotation
(Cyril) - Cyril of Alexandria - (444 AD) The quotation is not completely identical
Ps-Dionysiusvid - Dionysius - (5th century) vid; the reading is difficult but most likely correct
(John-Damascus) - John of Damascus - (before 754 AD) The quotation is not completely identical
Quotes from the Latin Fathers that Bear Witness to This Reading
Rebaptism - (c. 453 AD)
Ambrose - (397 AD)
Augustine - (430 AD)
Quodvultdeus - (5th century)
Facundus - (after 571 AD)
Images of the Most Important Greek Manuscripts that Do Not Contain the Johannine Comma
Sinaiticus Codex
@KufrCleaner
Vatican Codex
Alexandrian Manuscript
So there Are 494 Greek Manuscripts that Attest to the short Reading, in Addition to Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Ethiopic, Slavonic Translations, and Some Vulgate and Old Latin Manuscripts. How Many Greek Manuscripts Attest to the Long Reading?
۞ Long Reading Manuscripts
Masha Allah, no envy, there are 5 (five) manuscripts exactly that contain the comma text in the body of the manuscript itself, in addition to these five manuscripts, there are four other manuscripts that contain the comma text in the margin! That is, there are a total of nine manuscripts if we add the marginal manuscripts to the manuscripts that contain the text in the body, and now let us go to analyze these manuscripts [5] :
Text in the manuscript
629 - 15th century - Vatican Library, Ottob
61 - 16th century - Dublin, Trinity College
918 - 16th century - Escorial
2473 - 17th century - Athens, National Library
2318 - 18th century - Bucharest, Romania
Text on the margin of the manuscript
221 - 10th century - Oxford, Bodleian Library
88 - 12th century - Naples, National Library
429 - 14th century - Wolfenbuttel, Herzog August Bibliothek
636 - 15th century - Naples, National Library
Five manuscripts contain the text in the main body, the oldest dating back to the fifteenth century (manuscript no. 629), and four manuscripts contain the text in the margin, the oldest dating back to the tenth century, and the same addition from a later scribe. After this manuscript farce, what about the Latin manuscripts?
The Latin reading is as follows:
7 Quoniam three sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, and Spiritus Sanctus: and hi tres unum sunt. 8 And there is sunt, which testimonium dant in terra : spiritus, and aqua, and sanguis: and hi there is a sunt. (Clement Latin Vulgate)
Latin Manuscripts [6]
itl - 7th century
itr - 7th century
itq - 7th century
As for the Latin versions [7] , the text does not appear in its early form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine), nor does it appear in the Vulgate as issued by St. Jerome (the Fuldensis version written in 546 AD or the Amiatinus version written before 716 AD), nor in the version revised by Alcion in the ninth century. Therefore, we can say with all confidence that the comma text never appeared in any Latin manuscript before the seventh century, even though we know that the text did not appear in any Greek manuscript within its text before the fifteenth century!
۞ The Most Important Laws of Textual Criticism
Kurt Aland and his wife Barbara [8] mentioned to us one of the most important laws of textual criticism:
The primary authority for a critical textual decision lies with the Greek Manuscripts tradition , with the versions and Fathers serving no more than a supplementary and corroborative function.
Translation: The supreme authority in determining the original reading of the Greek manuscript tradition, the ancient translations and the writings of the Fathers represent a complementary factor.
Based on this law, the comma text is not original in any way!
The comma is absent from the oldest Greek manuscripts, and its first appearance was in the fifteenth century. It is also absent from the majority of Greek manuscripts, as it is present in only five manuscripts in the text! How, by God, can any sane person know that this text is authentic?! Therefore, we find that the Greek versions that rely on the majority of Byzantine manuscripts also omit the comma!
The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text [ 9 ] ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The New Testament in the original Greek [ 10 ] και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν
Since the text is not authentic, neither by antiquity nor by majority, we find that the critical Greek versions that rely on ancient manuscripts also delete the text without debate or discussion. What a pity for every Christian who believes that this text is authentic!
The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition [ 11 ] ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
Novum Testamentum Graece [12] : Nestle-Aland 27 ὅτι
τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες , 8 ὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament [
13 ] ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
Novum Testamentum graece [14] : Tischendorf
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 ὅτι πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The Greek New Testament [ 15 ] : Samuel Tregelles ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The Greek Testament [16] : H. Alford
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
Novum Testamentum Graece [17] : Griesbach
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, 8 ὅτι πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
Bagster’s Critical New Testament [ 18 ] Greek and English
7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ µαρτυροῦντες, 8 ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
The Greek Testament [ 19 ] : Samuel Thomas
7 ὁ Λόγος τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.
This is the case of the Johannine comma in the Greek critical versions. I do not know of a single critical version that contains the comma, and I have only found Samuel Thomas’s version, which put the comma between parentheses! Everyone knows very well that putting a text between parentheses means that the part is not authentic, but I know very well why Samuel put the comma between parentheses and did not delete it. The reason is that his version is for theologians (Manual Edition For The Use Of Theological Readers), and this is a purely theological and doctrinal text, so he found no escape except to put the comma between parentheses.
۞ Fathers and Comma
father who do not know the comma
We will mention the names of the Church Fathers who we know for certain knew nothing about the Johannine Comma.*** But if you have read Episode 2, you can skip this part
Clement of Alexandria (150 AD - 215 AD)
One of the most important fathers of the Alexandrian School and one of the most famous Greek fathers , he was ordained a priest and then became dean of the Alexandrian School and assumed its presidency after Pantaenus [20] . This father is famous for three books, including the Book of Miscellaneous. In this book, he interpreted the First Epistle of John, and we do not find in this interpretation any mention of the comma! Here is the text of his words from the famous English translation [21] :
He says, “This is He who came by water and blood;” and again, - ” For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, ” which is life, ” and the water, ” which is regeneration and faith, ” and the blood, ” which is knowledge; ” And these three are one. ” For in the Savior are those saving virtues, and life itself exists in His own Son.
Translation: He says, ” This is he who came by water and blood” (1 John 5:6) and again, “for there are three witnesses: the Spirit,” which is life, “the water,” which is spiritual rebirth and faith, and “the blood,” which is knowledge; “and these three are one,” since in the Savior are all these elements that save us, and life itself lives in his Son.
What more do you want?! The man seems to have copied from Nestle-Aland’s version! Clement of Alexandria interpreted the entire First Epistle of John, quoting the short reading as we know it in all ancient Greek manuscripts and modern critical translations.
Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (339 AD - 397 AD)
The famous Bishop of Milan, Ambrose, was one of the great Latin Fathers and he also knew Greek and spoke it fluently [22] . Despite all this - his knowledge of Latin and Greek - we find him knowing absolutely nothing about the Johannine comma and we find him quoting entire verses from the First Epistle of John, starting from the sixth verse to the end of the eighth verse, and we do not find the Johannine comma. Here is the text of the English translation [23] :
But the same Evangelist, that he might make it plain that he wrote this concerning the Holy Spirit, says elsewhere: “Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not in the water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one ”.
Translation: But the same evangelist who said it explicitly and wrote about the Holy Spirit says in another place, “Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not by water alone, but by water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness, because the Spirit is true. For there are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.”
Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354 AD - 430 AD)
He was ordained a priest when he was about forty years old, then he was ordained a bishop for Bishop Hippo between 395 and 396 AD, then he succeeded him [24] . Of course, he is from the group of post-Nicene fathers , in addition to this, he is from the Latin fathers , and this is very important for us, as it is clear evidence that the Latin fathers after Nicene did not know the Johannine comma, since Augustine loved Latin and mastered it and did not like the Greek language [25] . So, all of Augustine’s sources for the New Testament were Latin manuscripts, and despite this, he did not know the Johannine comma! I will quote to you the English translation [26] from his book Moral Sermons from the First Epistle of John:
I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he said, ” There are three witnesses: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one .”
Translation: I would not be mistaken in the place in the Epistle of John the Apostle where it says, “There are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three are one.”
What’s all this assertion?! What’s all this confidence?! Actually, I think Augustine’s quote is very strong. He is one of the most important Latin fathers who knew absolutely nothing about the Johannine comma. We also know from Augustine’s words in the same letter that he interpreted the short reading to arrive at the Trinity, but he was completely unaware of the comma itself because he did not have it! Also, Augustine explained the Trinity in detail in 15 parts and did not cite this text once.
Leo the Great [27] Bishop of Rome (400 AD - 461 AD)
One of the famous Latin Fathers who was the first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church to be called “The Great” was the Pope. At the Second Council of Ephesus, representatives of Bishop Leo delivered his famous letter “The Tome”, which was written in Latin, to Flavian. This letter was a statement of the faith of the Roman Church [28] . In this letter, Bishop Leo quoted from the First Epistle of John, verses 5-8, and in this quotation we do not find the Johannine comma. We must repeat that Bishop Leo was one of the Latin Fathers and his letter was in Latin. This information greatly clarifies that the Johannine comma was not widespread in the Latin tradition, as some claim. Here is his quote from the First Epistle of John from the English translation [29] :
Let him also not resist the testimony of Blessed John the Apostle … [30] “Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not in water only, but in water and blood;
Translation: And make him also irresistible the testimony of the blessed Apostle John… “Who is he who overcomes the world but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This one who came is Jesus Christ. He came not by water and blood, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth. And there are three who bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one” (1 John 5:5-8).
These are the fathers whose quotations I was able to bring, which indicate their complete lack of knowledge of the Johannine comma. I would like to point out that I have brought only one Greek father, knowing that there is not a single Greek father who quoted the comma [31] , and I have brought three Latin fathers to indicate that the text of the comma was not widespread in the Latin tradition, as many Christians try to show in vain. Among the fathers who quoted the short reading [32] are: Origen (253 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (444 AD), John of Damascus (before 754 AD), and many others.
Cyprian and the Half-Comma (210 AD - 258 AD)
The martyred bishop of Carthage, who was born in Africa to a wealthy pagan family, was educated at the highest levels of learning and became a preacher. At the end of 248 AD, or most likely at the beginning of 249 AD, he was elected bishop of Carthage, thus becoming the Metropolitan of North Africa [33] . Cyprian’s quotation of the comma text is one of the most controversial quotations among scholars, and for that reason we will shed light on this quotation and examine it carefully, perhaps we will arrive at the truth of Cyprian’s quotation.
Did Cyprian quote the comma?
Here is the text of Cyprian’s words that caused much controversy in the English translation [34] :
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ” And these three are one .”
Translation: Our Lord says: “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) and again it is written about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: ” And these three are one .”
Actually, I have a simple question: When a Christian says through this statement of Cyprian that he has quoted the comma, is his statement being a joke or a joke? Where did Cyprian quote the comma? Perhaps the matter is not clear to the Christian, but now I will present some main points that will make it clear beyond any doubt that Cyprian was not quoting the comma at all with his statement.
Cyprian said ( it is written of the Father, and of the Son , and of the Holy Spirit ), that is, it is written about them, written concerning them. Would he have said this if the quoted text explicitly mentioned them? Of course not. Notice, my friend, that he says ( the Son ) and does not say the word ( ὁ Λόγος - Verbum ) which we find in the late Latin text of the Vulgate or the Received Greek Text. So, Cyprian quoted a text that refers to or symbolizes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and this text is the short reading ( And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are in one ), since we found that this interpretation is famous among the Latin Fathers such as Augustine [35] - as we mentioned previously - and these are Augustine’s sayings from the English translation:
But if we will inquire into the things signified I by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said , “There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:” so that by the term Spirit we should understand God the Father to be signified ; as indeed it was concerning the worship of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, “God is a Spirit:” by the term, blood, the Son ; Because “the Word was made flesh:” and by the term water, the Holy Ghost .
But if we investigate the things that give symbols , I cannot through these things give a reason when the Trinity itself comes to my mind, which is one, only, true, the supreme God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit , of whom it is truly said (that is, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity): “There are three witnesses, and these three are one” (1 John 5:8). The term Spirit must be understood to symbolize God the Father , because it was certainly His own in worship when our Lord mentioned it when He said: “God is Spirit” (John 4:24). The term Blood symbolizes the Son because “the Word became flesh” (John 1:14). The term Water symbolizes the Holy Spirit .
This is exactly what Cyprian meant, that the text (1 John 5/8) which says that the Spirit, water and blood are one, replaced the three symbols with what they symbolize! He said that it is written about the Father, about the Son, and about the Holy Spirit ( and these three are one ). I think that the matter is very clear and does not need more explanation than this, but it might occur to the Christian that Cyprian quoted ( and these three are one ). But if we look at the Van Dyck translation or any other translation at the end of (1 John 5/8), we will find that it is written ( and the three are in one ). In response, we say that this difference goes back to the Greek text and not to the Latin text. If the Christian looks up again to look at the sayings of the Latin fathers who quoted the short reading, he will find that Leo the Great quoted ( and the three are one ), and that Augustine quoted ( and the three are one ), and that Ambrose quoted ( and these three are one ). If we look again at texts 7 and 8 as we find them in the Claromental Vulgate, we will find that the end of the two texts is one! And here is the Latin text:
7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, and Spiritus Sanctus: and hi tres unum sunt . 8 And there is sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, and aqua, and sanguis: and hi tres unum sunt . (Clement Latin Vulgate)
So Cyprian never quoted the comma, but rather intended the symbolic meaning of the short reading that refers to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We simply say that if Cyprian, who lived in the third century, knew the comma, then why did the Latin Fathers who came after him, such as Leo the Great, Augustine, or Ambrose, not know the comma? This is a question that requires contemplation, but there is also testimony from the same time as Cyprian that confirms to us once again that the comma was not known at all in the time of Cyprian!
Letter on the Rebaptism of an Unknown Person (258 AD)
Do not be surprised, dear reader, that I quote from a letter by an anonymous person. This is not my problem, but the problem of Christians. I only cite this letter to condemn a Christian, and because of the writer’s anonymity. Many researchers have differed about the time of writing the letter [36] . One of them attributed the letter to Cyprian himself! He said that it was written in his time, and there are many researchers who agree with this opinion! There are others who say that the letter was written against Cyprian! In addition to that, the GNT4RE version [37] placed (Rebaptism) among the list of Latin fathers! And it dates back to the year (258 AD). In any case, what matters to us is that the letter is from the same time as Cyprian, that is, from the third century. Here is the text of the English translation [38] :
For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: “This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;”
Translation: John says about our Lord in his letter to teach us: “This is Jesus Christ who came by water and blood—not by water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness, because the Spirit is true. So there are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one” (1 John 5:6-8).
There is also another quote in the same letter [39] :
Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that “three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one.”
So at the end of our dialogue about the Fathers and the comma, we can say with all strength that the testimony of the Fathers is against the comma, since the oldest (Clement of Alexandria) and the majority (all the Greek Fathers in addition to many Latins) do not know anything about the comma. In addition to this, we have explained that Cyprian (the only Father that Christians cling to) did not quote the comma, so what hadith after him do they believe?! All that remains for us is to know, despite all this standing testimonies against the comma, how did the comma enter the text of the New Testament?
۞ Received Text and Comma
We know for certain that the entry of the Johannine comma into the text of the New Testament and its global spread was through the Greek version of Erasmus, but not in its first or even second edition. Rather, the comma entered the Erasmus version in its third edition and not before it, that Greek version which was the cornerstone of all traditional translations such as the English King James Version and the Arabic translation of Smith and VanDyke. This was said by major textual critics such as: Samuel Troggles [40] , Stott [41] , Hort [42] , Frederic Kenyon [43] , Caspar Gregory [44] , Conybeare [45] , Eberhard Nestel [46] , Bart Ehrman [47] , Hammond [48 ] , Scrivener [49], Scott Porter [50] , Bruce Metzger [51] and many others. Here is the Arabic translation of the novel as Bruce Metzger said it:
Among the criticisms that Erasmus received, the most severe was from Stonica, one of the revisers of Ximenes Complacentian Polyglot, who said that his text was missing a part of the last chapter of 1 John known as the “Trinitarian phrase,” which speaks of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one, and they bear witness on earth” (1 John 5:7-8). Erasmus replied that he had found no Greek manuscript containing these words, although he had examined several manuscripts besides those on which he had relied when preparing his first copy. In a moment of indiscretion, Erasmus may have promised to add the Johannine comma , as it is called, in future editions if he found a single Greek manuscript containing this phrase. After a while, this manuscript was found, or produced for this purpose ! As it now seems, This Greek manuscript was probably written in Oxford in 1520 by a Franciscan father named “Froy” or “Roy,” who took this questionable phrase from the Vulgate. Erasmus inserted the text in the third edition (1522), but indicated in a long note his expectation that the manuscript was prepared to refute him.
This is the story as textual critics know it, but it seems that many people didn’t like the story so they wanted to verify the story! Yes, by God, it is a strange statement and I fell off my office chair from laughing so much when I read it in a research paper by one of my Christian colleagues. They wanted to verify the story because it says that someone produced a fresh manuscript in order to introduce the comma into the text of the New Testament! Regardless of the truth of this story or not - no Christian has anything that can deny it with certainty - what is the story opposite to this story? We know for sure that the comma entered the text of the New Testament through the third edition of Erasmus, so how did it enter if you rejected the story reported by Bruce Metzger? By God, you will hear an amazing story!
A doctoral researcher on Erasmus’s writings named Jung wrote an article [52] published in a theological journal, in which he discusses the story popular among textual critics about the introduction of the comma into Erasmus’s third edition. In short, Dr. Jung quotes Erasmus in one of his letters [53] explaining why he introduced the comma into his third edition: ” So that no one would have the opportunity to criticize me out of spite .” What is this! Is this reason better than the first version? No, by God, in fact I firmly believe that the first version was invented to cover up this shameful reason. In the first version, Erasmus introduced the comma into his text with good intentions! He said that the reason for not adding the comma was the lack of manuscripts containing it, in other words, the lack of evidence. So, some dishonest person produced a manuscript in order to add the comma, and on this basis, Erasmus added the comma, following the evidence. But the second reason is very shameful, as it shows beyond doubt that Erasmus knew that the comma was inauthentic, but for personal reasons, he added it! Does this satisfy you, Christians? Rejoice in both versions, for the sweetest of them is bitter.
۞ Conclusion
I will suffice with this amount of writing about the comma, as I believe that there are no other points worth discussing about this textual problem.
And our final supplication is that all praise is due to God, Lord of the Worlds.
Sources( Ep 3)
[1] MISQUOTING JESUS - TEXTS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - Page 8I
This is the account of i John 5:7-8, which scholars have called the Johannine Comma, found in the manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate but not in the vast majority of Greek manuscripts, a passage that had long been a favorite among Christian theologians,since it is the only passage in the entire Bible that explicitly delineates the doctrine of the Trinity, that there are three persons in the godhead, but that the three all constitute just one God. In the Vulgate, the passage reads: There are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one. It is a mysterious passage, but unequivocal in its support of the traditional teachings of the church on the “triune God who is one.”Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity must be inferred from a range of passages combinedto show that Christ is God, as is the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, nonetheless, only one God. This passage, in contrast, states the doctrine directly and succinctly.
[2] Distortion of the sayings of Jesus… Who is the letter of the Bible and why? - Written by Dr. Bart Ehrman - Chapter Three: New Testament Texts… Editions, Manuscripts, and Variations
[3] List of manuscripts taken from:
David Robert Palmer: The First Epistle of John - A new translation from the Greek - February 2009 edition - Page 23 -http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/1john.pdf
[4] Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, CM, Metzger, BM, Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006).
[5] David Robert Palmer made a study to prove the inauthenticity of the Johannine Comma and mentioned the five manuscripts that contain the text in the four manuscripts that contain the text in the margin. As for the GNT4RE version and the NA27 version ,they mentioned four manuscripts that contain the text in the body (2318 61 629 918) and four manuscripts that contain the text in the margin (88 429 636 221), but in general everyone agreed without exception that the oldest manuscript that contains the text in the body is manuscript (629) which dates back to the fifteenth century.
David Robert Palmer - Link:http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/FirstJohnCh5v7.pdf
Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C.M., Metzger, B.M., Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus).
[6] NA27 says that two Latin manuscripts containing the comma text are l and r from the 7th century,
while GNT4RE mentions l and r, also from the 7th century, and both say that some later Vulgate manuscripts contain the text. Some Christian colleagues have said that the comma text appeared in other Latin manuscripts without a reference, such as: (c) from the twelfth century, (dem) from the thirteenth century, (div) from the twelfth century, and (m) from the ninth century. However, there is agreement that the first appearance of the comma text in the Latin versions was in the seventh century, and there is no objection to the text spreading in the Latin versions after the seventh century.
[7] Metzger, BM, & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (Page 648). London; New York: United Bible Societies. - The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied ad 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before ad 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
[8] Kurt & Barbra Aland: The Text of The New Testament - Second Edition - VII Introduction to the Praxis of New Testament Textual Criticism - Page 280
[9] Hodges, ZC, Farstad, AL, & Dunkin, WC (1985). The Greek New Testament according to the Majority Text (2nd ed.) (Page 713). Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers.
[10] Pierpont, W. G., & Robinson, M. A. (1995, c1991). The New Testament in the original Greek: According to the Byzantine/Majority textform (1 John 5:7-8). Roswell, GA: The Original Word Publishers.
[11] Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus) (1 John 5:7-8).
[12] Nestle, E., Nestle, E., Aland, K., Aland, B., & Universität Münster. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung. (1993, c1979). Novum Testamentum Grace. At head of title: Nestle-Aland. (27. Aufl., rev.) (623). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung.
[13] Westcott, B. F., & Hort, F. J. A. (1996). 1881 Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament (1 John 5:7-8). Oak Harbor WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.
[14]Novum Testamentum graece. 1869-94 (C. v. Tischendorf, C. R. Gregory & E. Abbot, Ed.) (2:337-341). Lipsiae: Giesecke & Devrient.
[15] Samuel Tregelles: The Greek New Testament, Edited from ancient authorities with their various readings in full, and the Latin Version of Jerome - Page 658
[16] H. Alford: The Greek Testament with various readings - Volume IV - Page 503, 504
[17] Griesbach: Novum Testamentum Graece - Volume 2 - Page 564
[18] Bagster’s Critical New Testament Greek And English - Consisting Op The Greek Text Of Scholz, With The Readings, Both Textual And Marginal, Of Griesbach; And The Variations Of The Editions Of Stephens, 1550; Beza, 1598; And The Elzevir, 1633: With The English Authorized Version, And Its Marginal Renderings - Page 575
[19] Samuel Thomas: The Greek Testament, With English Notes, Critical, Philological, And Exegetical, Selected And Arranged From The Best Commentators, Ancient And Modern, But Chiefly Original. The Whole Being Especially Adapted To The Use Of Academic Students, Candidates For The Sacred Office And Ministers Though Also Intended As A Manual Edition For The Use Of Theological Readers In General. - Volume II - Page 550 (comma in parentheses)
[20] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 69
[21] The Early Church Fathers: ANTE-NICENE FATHERS - Volume 2 - Fathers of the Second Century: Clement of Alexandria - Fragments of Clemens AlexandrinusIII - Comments on the First Epistle of John
[22] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 258
[23] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. X. Ambrose: Select Works and Letters. (Page 144). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[24] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 271
[25] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 269
[26] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII. St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John Soliloquies. (Page 526). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[27] Comprehensive information about this bishop http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm
[28] Information taken from the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_I#The_Tome
[29] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XIV. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. - THE FOURTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL - THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (ad 451) - The Tome of St. Leo. (Page 258). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[30]There were some quotations from the words of John the Apostle that did not interest us, so I preferred to quote the part that relates to the subject of our research
[31] Clarke, A. (1999). Clarke’s Commentary:The Adam Clarke Commentary - First John - Chapter 5 (electronic ed.) (1 Jn 5:7) http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/vi…jo&chapter=005
It is wanting in both the Syriac, all the Arabic, Ethiopic, the Coptic, Sahidic, Armenian, Slavonian, etc., in a word, in all the ancient versions but the Vulgate; and even of this version many of the most ancient and correct MSS. have it not. It is wanting also in all the ancient Greek fathers ; and in most even of the Latin.
[32] Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, CM, Metzger, BM, Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus) (1 Jn 5:7-8) - Page 819
{Embed}
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Pope St. Leo I (The Great)
Article on his pontificate, in Christian antiquity second only to that of Gregory the Great in importance. Leo died in 461
Pope Leo I
Pope Leo I (Italian: Leone I) (c. 391 – 10 November 461), also known as Leo the Great (Latin: Leo Magnus; Italian: Leone Magno), was Bishop of Rome from 29 September 440 until his death on 10 November 461. He is the first of the three Popes listed in the Annuario Pontificio with the title “the Great”, alongside Popes Gregory I and Nicholas I.
…
[33] Father Tadros Yacoub Malaty: A Comprehensive View of Patrology in the First Six Centuries - p. 236
[34] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, AC (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. – The Treatises of Cyprian – Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church. (Page 423)
[35] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. VII. St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John Soliloquies. (Page 526)
[36] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. (Page 665). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems – Rigaltius, who first edited the treatise, among his notes to the works of Cyprian, judged that it was written about the time of that Father. And Fell, Cave, Tillemont, and Galland, are of the same opinion. The two latter, indeed, conjecture that it was actually intended against Cyprian.
[37] Aland, K., Black, M., Martini, C. M., Metzger, B. M., Wikgren, A., Aland, B., Karavidopoulos, J., Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, & United Bible Societies. (2000; 2006). The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (with apparatus) List of Latin Church Fathers – Page (37*) – Rebaptism (De Rebaptismate) 258
[38] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. (Page 675). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[39] Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. V: Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to AD 325. Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix. – A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer. —Argument.—That They Who Have Once Been Washed in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Ought Not to Be Re-Baptized (Page 677). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.
[40] SP Tregelles: An Account Of The Printed Text Of The Greek New Testament, London, 1854 Pp 22 And 27
[41] BF Westcott: The Epistles Of St John, Third Edition 1892, Reprinted With A New Introduction By FF Bruce, Abingdon, Berkshire, 1966, p 207
[42] FJA Hort: Notes On Select Readings In BF Westcott And FJA Hort, Thc New Testament In The Onginal Greek, Cambridge And London 1881 Appendix to vol II, p 104
[43] FG Kenyon: Handbook To The Tcxtual Criticism Of The Νew Testament London 1901, P 229, 19122 (Reprmtcd 1926), p 270
[44] Caspar Rene Gregory: Canon And Text Of The New Testament – Early History Of Text – 1 John 5:7-8 – Page 509
[45] FC Conybeare: History Of New Testament Criticism – Textual Criticism – Page 70
[46] Eberhard Nestle: Introduction To The Textual Criticism Of The Greek New Testament – Chapter I – History Of The Printed Text Since 1514 – Greek New Testament – Page 4
[47] Bart D. Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why – Texts Of The New Testament – Page 81
[48] C.E. Hammond: Textual Criticism Applied To The New Testament – Chapter I – Sketch Of The History Of The Textus Receptus – Page 10
[49] Frederick Scrivener: A Plain Introduction To The Criticism Of The New Testament – Page 653
[50] J. Scott Porter: Principles Of Textual Criticism, With Their Application To The Old And New Testaments – Textual Criticism Of The New TestamentCritical, Examination Of Particular Passes – Page 494
n, And Restoration - Fourth Edition - Chap 3 - The Precritical Period The Origin And Dominance Of The Textus Receptus - Page 146 Bruce M. Metzger: The Text Of The New Testament Its Transmission, Corruptio [51]
[52] De Jonge: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, At: Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Vol 56: 1980 , P. 381-389
[53] Erasmus: First Apology Against Stunica Ed Clericus Tom IX Col 353 E - “so that no one would have occasion to criticize me out of malice”
Coptic Manuscript Evidence — الفاصلة اليوحناوية
The following 24 Coptic manuscripts from the Patriarchal Library collections COP_13 and COP_14 all document 1 John 5:5–8 without the Trinitarian interpolation known as the Johannine Comma. They consistently preserve only the three earthly witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. Dates range from 1259 AD to 1864 AD.
Total Manuscripts: 24 | Collections: COP_13 & COP_14 | Passage: 1 John 5:5–8 | Date Range: 1259–1864 AD
1. COP_13-1
Date: 1486 AD · 15th century
📌 Oldest manuscript in Collection 13. Contains fuller context beginning from 1 John 5:4.
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-1 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
لأن كل من ولد من الله يغلب العالم والغلبة التي بها نغلب العالم هو إيماننا. من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله هو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته:
English translation:
For everyone born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that has overcome the world — our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he who came by water and blood and Spirit — Jesus Christ; not by the water only but by the water and the blood and the Spirit. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify:
2. COP_13-2
Date: 1691 AD · 17th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-2 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
لأن كل من ولد من الله يغلب العالم والغلبة التي بها غلب العالم هو إيماننا من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو بيسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
For everyone born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that overcomes the world — our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
3. COP_13-3
Date: Date unknown
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-3 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
4. COP_13-4
Date: 1500 AD · 16th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-4 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
لأن كل من ولد من الله يغلب العالم والغلبة التي بها غلب العالم هو إيماننا من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلثة واحده.
English translation:
For everyone born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that overcomes the world — our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
5. COP_13-5
Date: 1464 AD · 15th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-5 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
لأن كل من ولد من الله يغلب العالم والغلبة التي بها غلب العالم هو إيماننا من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلثة واحده.
English translation:
For everyone born of God overcomes the world. And this is the victory that overcomes the world — our faith. Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
6. COP_13-6
Date: 1299 AD · 13th century
📌 One of the two oldest dated manuscripts in the collection.
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-6 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
7. COP_13-7
Date: 1259 AD · 13th century
📌 Oldest dated manuscript in the entire collection (975 AM). Unique reading: uses لا instead of ليس.
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-7 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
هو ابن الله يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح لا بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
He is the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who came by water and blood and Spirit — not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. ()
8. COP_13-8
Date: 1805 AD · 19th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-8 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو بيسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
He who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He came to us by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
9. COP_13-9
Date: 1800 AD · 19th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-9 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو بيسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
He who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He came to us by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
10. COP_13-10
Date: 1864 AD · 19th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-10 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو بيسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
He who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He came to us by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
11. COP_13-11
Date: 1778 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-11 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو بيسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
He who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He came to us by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
12. COP_13-12
Date: 1422 AD · 15th century
📌 Text begins specifically from 1 John 5:5.
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-12 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو بيسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
He who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He came to us by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
13. COP_13-14
Date: 1846 AD · 19th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_13-14 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو بيسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He came to us by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
14. COP_14-1
Date: 1640 AD · 17th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-1 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثه الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحد.
English translation:
Christ the Son of God — He came to us by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
15. COP_14-2
Date: 1600 AD · 17th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-2 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
16. COP_14-3
Date: 1700 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-3 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
17. COP_14-4
Date: 1800 AD · 19th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-4 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
18. COP_14-5
Date: 1700 AD · 18th century
📌 Copy by Bishop Athanasius, Bishop of Abutig. Contains Coptic Library stamp.
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-5 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. (Copy by Bishop Athanasius, Bishop of Abutig.)
19. COP_14-6
Date: 1700 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-6 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
20. COP_14-7
Date: 1719 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-7 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
21. COP_14-8
Date: 1775 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-8 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
22. COP_14-9
Date: 1659 AD · 17th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-9 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
23. COP_14-10
Date: 1743 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-10 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
24. COP_14-11
Date: 1345 AD (1062 AM) · 14th century
📌 Copy attributed to Tuma ibn al-Safi al-Sa’igh. Dated 1062 AM (Martyrs’ Era) = 1345 AD.
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-11 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. (Dated 1062 AM = 1345 AD. Copy by Tuma ibn al-Safi al-Sa’igh.)
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو بيسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود تلاته الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He came to us by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
14. COP_14-1
Date: 1640 AD · 17th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-1 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاءنا بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثه الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحد.
English translation:
Christ the Son of God — He came to us by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit. And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
15. COP_14-2
Date: 1600 AD · 17th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-2 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
16. COP_14-3
Date: 1700 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-3 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
17. COP_14-4
Date: 1800 AD · 19th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-4 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
18. COP_14-5
Date: 1700 AD · 18th century
📌 Copy by Bishop Athanasius, Bishop of Abutig. Contains Coptic Library stamp.
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-5 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. (Copy by Bishop Athanasius, Bishop of Abutig.)
19. COP_14-6
Date: 1700 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-6 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
20. COP_14-7
Date: 1719 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-7 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
21. COP_14-8
Date: 1775 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-8 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
22. COP_14-9
Date: 1659 AD · 17th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-9 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
23. COP_14-10
Date: 1743 AD · 18th century
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-10 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one.
24. COP_14-11
Date: 1345 AD (1062 AM) · 14th century
📌 Copy attributed to Tuma ibn al-Safi al-Sa’igh. Dated 1062 AM (Martyrs’ Era) = 1345 AD.
🔗 Archive.org: COP_14-11 — View full manuscript
Arabic text (1 John 5:5–8):
من ذا الذي غلب العالم غير ذلك الذي يؤمن بأن يسوع المسيح ابن الله وهو يسوع المسيح ذاك الذي جاء بالماء والدم والروح ليس بالماء فقط لكن بالماء والدم والروح وهو الذي شهد بأن الروح حق والشهود ثلاثة الروح والماء والدم وهي الثلاثة واحده.
English translation:
Who is it that overcomes the world except the one who believes that Jesus Christ is the Son of God — He who came by water and blood and Spirit, not by water only, but by water and blood and Spirit? And the Spirit testifies that the Spirit is the truth. And the witnesses are three: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. (Dated 1062 AM = 1345 AD. Copy by Tuma ibn al-Safi al-Sa’igh.)
...cal manuscripts when they felt the existing text did not provide enough support for later beliefs.