THE CASE OF THE "MISSING VERSE"
When you read 1 John 5:7–8 in almost all translations today, it is commonly rendered as: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.” (ESV). But when you read the same passage in the KJV, you’ll notice it is much longer: “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 longer translation of verse 7 in the KJV (as well as in the NKJV and a few others) is called the “Comma Johanneum,” which literally means “short clause pertaining to John.” The Comma Johanneum has been removed in almost all of the modern translations we have today.
๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ก๐ฆ๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ฌ?
Some argue that its removal is essentially taking away from the Word of God, which means that modern translations are unreliable. Some even suggest that the omission of this longer reading was an attempt to invalidate the doctrine of the Trinity, which is obviously seen here. In other words, for some, modern translations are heretical. Others regard the Comma Johanneum as one of the so-called “missing verses” of the modern Bible today. Such conclusions, however, are based on ignorance of textual criticism.
๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ฃ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐ข๐ก ๐ข๐ ๐ ๐๐ก๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฃ๐ง๐ฆ
The reading “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” is absent from all known Greek manuscripts (handwritten copies), except for eight. As we all know, the NT was originally written in Greek, so the fact that the Comma Johanneum is missing from them is already a strong reason to question its originality. Four of those eight manuscripts only have it written in the margins as a variant reading added later. The other manuscripts that contain it are not really “ancient” but rather late manuscripts, meaning they are not old at all.
The longer reading is also absent in manuscripts of the ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, etc.). It is not found in the earliest versions of the Old Latin and even the Latin Vulgate (translated by St. Jerome). According to Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, a textual scholar: “Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s.” Which means, the Comma Johanneum was not part of the original writing of 1 John—it was added later.
๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐๐ง๐๐๐ฅ๐ฆ
No early Church Father ever quoted the Comma Johanneum—not even once. At a time when debates over the Trinity were intense due to controversies and heresies (such as Sabellianism and Arianism), we would expect the Church Fathers to have frequently used this passage to defend the Trinity, if it had really been in the Bible. But we find no mention of it at all. This proves that this passage did not exist during their time!
๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ฃ๐ฌ๐๐ฆ๐ง’๐ฆ ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐๐ฆ
So, where did the Comma Johanneum come from? Most likely, an ancient scribe or copyist wrote his insights in the margins of the manuscript he was copying. This was common practice among scribes. Later on, these marginal notes were copied along with the main text, and some mistook them as part of the original.
๐ง๐๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ฅ๐๐’๐ฆ ๐ฃ๐ฅ๐๐ฆ๐ฆ๐จ๐ฅ๐
How then did the Comma Johanneum become part of the KJV, if it was not part of the original writing of 1 John? During the 16th century, Desiderius Erasmus was compiling his Greek New Testament (known today as the Textus Receptus). He did not include the longer reading in the first and second editions of his Greek NT because it did not exist in any ancient Greek manuscripts. Erasmus, however, was pressured by the Roman Catholic Church to include the Comma Johanneum because of its obvious Trinitarian theme. Around the 1520s, Codex 61 (Codex Montfortianus) was produced to convince him, as it contained the longer reading. Since there was now a Greek manuscript that included it, Erasmus was persuaded (or forced!) to add it. Finally, the Comma Johanneum appeared in the third edition of his Greek NT. Because the later editions of the Textus Receptus were the basis of the KJV, the longer reading was also included in the KJV.
๐๐ข๐ก๐๐๐จ๐ฆ๐๐ข๐ก
Can we still prove the doctrine of the Trinity even without the Comma Johanneum? Yes! Whether with or without it, one can find countless passages from Genesis to Revelation supporting the doctrine. So it is wrong to think that we need this passage. Also, it is wrong to add something to the Word of God, regardless of how good the content may sound. No matter how beautiful the longer reading may be, it is not inspired since it was not part of what the biblical author originally wrote.
Can we still trust the Bible despite textual problems like this? Yes! This is where textual criticism comes in. Thankfully, because of the vast number of manuscripts available to us today (and likely more to be discovered), textual experts have been able to reconstruct the original text with almost perfect accuracy. That is how we know the Comma Johanneum was not part of the original writing! Issues like this are not truly serious enough to doubt the reliability of the Bible we have today.
Sources and Studies:
Metzger, B. (1994). “See Notes on 1 John 5:7-8”. ๐ ๐๐ฆ๐น๐ต๐ถ๐ข๐ญ ๐๐ฐ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต๐ข๐ณ๐บ ๐๐ฏ ๐๐ฉ๐ฆ ๐๐ณ๐ฆ๐ฆ๐ฌ ๐๐ฆ๐ธ ๐๐ฆ๐ด๐ต๐ข๐ฎ๐ฆ๐ฏ๐ต
Wallace D. (2004, June 25). “The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8”. Bible. Org. Retrieved from https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8
“What is the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8)?” GotQuestions. Retrieved from https://www.gotquestions.org/Comma-Johanneum.html
Comments
Post a Comment