The Comma Johanneum Examined

This is a examination of the background, history, and data regarding the famed "Comma Johanneum," 1 John 5:7 in the King James Version of the Bible.
All production and credit belongs to Alpha and Omega Ministries®.
If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/

[@eclipsesonic]

The fact that no Greek manuscript before the 10th century even contains it (and even in that aforementioned manuscript, it's a marginal note, not in the main text itself) and that the vast majority of Greek manuscripts lack it is strong evidence against it being written by the Apostle John. On top of that, old translations into other languages (Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic, Gothic, etc) also lack it. If the Comma Johanneum was original, it wouldn't explain why it's absent in a wide variety of manuscripts over different geographical areas.

[@truthhitman7473]

According to the Vines Bible Dictionary, 1John 5:7 is an interpolation and can't be found in the earliest manuscripts prior to the 14th century A.D.

[@Ronvega00]

Well Vine's is, pardon the expression, ALL WET. Because before 258 AD St Cyprian of Carthage comments on 1 Jn 5.7. Which obviously means that he was either physically using a mss which included the 'Comma' or he was citing it from memory, in either case the mss had to exist, for St Cyprian to comment on it.

[@truthhitman7473]

@@Ronvega00 And just to add to the information about how the Bible was changed by design. Here's the proof. kzbin.info/www/bejne/d6mqc6iLe9V-ebc

[@Greyswyndir]

@@Ronvega00 - Strange, I just heard White say it's not mentioned in antiquity by any of the "Greek Fathers". Would you mind pointing me to where St.Cyprian quoted the comma? Thank you.

[@thomasglass9491]

@@Greyswyndir because Cyprian is a latin father not a greek one.

[@freelightexpress]

Thanks James for honest textual criticism :)

[@DefinedFaith]

Is there an easy way to determine how many total manuscripts containing 1 John 5:7-8 we have (with or without the comma)?

[@craigime]

I think about 6 have it

[@apostasiaelegcho5612]

Very interesting. I pulled up Metzger's notes in my logos software, and I have a question, if James, or someone else that might know, could help me with. Metzger mentions there are 8 instances of this yet only mentions 7 in the breakdown of his notes. Am I reading it incorrectly? Thanks. Great video! CORRECTION: I found my oversight. 7 lines, 8 references. My bad.

[@hondotheology]

thanks for the analysis!

[@barryallen119]

What’s the motive for adding it because the Trinity was already accepted by at least 260? It was quoted or alluded to by a large number of early Church fathers. It was exactly quoted by Cyprian before 260 Socrates of Constantinople said that “some have corrupted this epistle” of 1 John because they wished to separate Jesus humanity from his deity. Jerome specifically said the passage had been removed by “Unfaithful translators” (who we would guess are the Arians) Gregory of Nazanzius says the Comma belongs. It is present in 98% of the Latin copies (which were virtually free from Arian influence) It was accepted by at least 350 Bishops - many of whom were Arians - at the Council of Carthage.

[@craigime]

Could have been added because it was in the margin first... also Cyprian did not quote it exactly- that's dishonest

[@alexandercoppejansontdekhe7044]

Great answer.

[@thomasglass9491]

@@craigime Cyprian quoted the verse, he said "it is written". That's a biblical terminology used by the NT to quote the OT.

[@NicholasproclaimerofMessiah]

I don't understand the preference for early minority readings. I thought the reliability of our Scripture is based on the spread of documentation, which had not yet occurred in early years. Therefore, a minority reading from the era before reliability had yet been better established, should not be preferred. If a reading only existed in a minority of texts early on, then those correct readings must have become lost for many centuries, and if so then there may today be correct readings which are still lost, and then we may not have the full Scriptures. We ought to assess the manuscripts according to self-agreeing consistency, rather than according to self-refuting inconsistency; then, each self-agreeing hypothesis may be tested/assessed over time. A hypothesis which is self-refuted, is not worthy of further consideration. Do we prefer early manuscripts? Or is our text reliable as a result of it having spread broadly at a later time? It cannot be both.

[@AtiShard16]

1 John 5:7 was a Latin interpolation that was later translated into Greek and inserted in very late Greek manuscripts. No Greek text has it until over 1,000 years after Christ.

[@thomasglass9491]

@SC30 Not true! Cyprian in 250AD quoted 1 John 5:7 and he said “it is written”. So that means that in that time there were manuscripts that had the comma, Is just that they don’t exist anymore.

[@curtthegamer934]

@@thomasglass9491 What Cyprian said was "It is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, 'these three are one.'" Notice that he only quotes the "these three are one" part, which appears with or without the Comma Johanneum. It's clear that he was interpreting the Spirit, Water, and Blood as referring to the Holy Spirit, Father, and Son, other wise he would have quoted the entire verse.

[@aletheia8054]

@@curtthegamer934 What he said was exactly like 1 John 5:7. Thats what a quote is.

[@curtthegamer934]

@@aletheia8054 "These three are one" also appears in 1 John 5:8. So it proves nothing.

[@aletheia8054]

@@curtthegamer934 the words before that do not appear in Verse 8. That was what he quoted

[@dex1141]

I don’t understand was it added or not?

[@blastingcows5024]

yes

[@Ronvega00]

@@blastingcows5024 N0 it wasn't!

[@Ronvega00]

It is a debated text, but only because the Critical Text uses as its foundations texts that, if not spurious, were at least considered not worthy of the heavy expense of hand copying them ( 1 copy of Mathew's Gospel would have set you back over 1300.00 in todays US Dollars) Also in the case of one of the main sources for the CT the Sinaiticus, it is a text considered so poor that it was being used as fuel by the monastery where it was found, On the other hand, the Byzantine Text has been copied so much, that today we have thousansds of copies; more that 25 X the copies of the Mss used by the CT. The text is considered spurrious because the CT says that is not present in any older mss and in few later mss. However it is present in the Fathers, even though CT proponents lie about this, and was even commented on by them, as far back as the 3rd Century. You have to make up your mind, whether or not it is in the most faithful Text or if it was added. Theologically it emphasizes the Trinity and excluding oit de-emphasizs the Trinity. To me, the fact that the CT proponents attack it and lie about it, claiming it never existed before the XI Century, when is clearly present in the Fathers, way before that, is enough for me to accept it. Another consideration is, that it is extremely naive to trust echolars, who in these days of apostacy, are bent on changing the text of Scripture which, in this case, has been around for close to 1900 years.

[@Greyswyndir]

@@Ronvega00 - There was a Greek man by the name of Constantine Siimonides who claimed to have created Codex Sinaiticus. I'm surprised at how many people seem to blindly accept the manuscript as being genuine with so much controversy surrounding it? von Tischendorf's story is highly suspect, and there's evidence that suggests he aged the manuscript to make it appear older then it truly was. Part of the manuscript was kept in Leipzig, and those pages look pristine, white even, whereas Tischendorf's pages look brown. And why would a so-called Protestant meet with a Pope just before this codex was found? One expert said it, along with Vaticanus, both looked like 15th century manuscripts, rather then codices from the 4th century. What are the chances that we find two ancient manuscripts in the same time frame, both with the fingerprints of the Universal church all over them?

[@craigime]

​@@Ronvega00yes it was

[@geelamar3542]

This is very interesting. Is 1 John 5:7 true in what it says? Would it be wrong to say it isn’t the word of God?

[@samueljennings4809]

I don't think the issue is whether it's true or not, but rather whether John himself wrote it in or not, or if it was added later on for additional clarification of doctrine.

[@geelamar3542]

Thanks, Good point.

[@Ronvega00]

Its 100 % true if you believe and trust in the Scripture and the Church Fathers.

[@geelamar3542]

Thanks. It doesn’t conflict but agrees with the rest of scriptures.

[@khankorpofficial]

@@Ronvega00 Scripture never says anything about a Trinity And you shouldnt give a single fuck what Church Fathers say, they have their own agendas

[@curtischristensen2034]

Thanks for giving some history on this verse. I myself have always been of Christian belief but never believed in the trinity. Whether the verse was omitted or added it shows that the Bible is not perfect. God's personal name has be obscured and replaced with "LORD" several thousand times as well as other questionable texts like the conclusion of Mark. Perhaps part of the job of the two witnesses foretold in Revelation will be to set the record straight with God given authority.

[@craigime]

Are you trinitarian now?

[@curtischristensen2034]

@@craigime Absolutely not. A son is not also his father. Three distinct powerful persons would be three distinct gods not one god. The Father has life within himself and is eternal and did not die, the Son died and then was granted to have life within himself by his father so they are not equal and the Son is not eternal. The Son became flesh and therefore had to be created and his father is not created so again not equal. Thanks for the question. My question to you is, do you think there is any person or group around today that has authority from the true God and are bringing people into a relationship with God as the Apostles did in the first century?

[@tiptupjr.9073]

White has spoken extensively about how the world was gripped by Arianism in the fourth century. Why is it so insane to think that Arian copyists could have removed this verse, just as easily as pro-trinity scribes could have inserted it? Cyprian also quotes it directly in 250 AD. I have yet to hear a compelling refutation of this, although many have certainly tried.

[@NashRespect]

Because Arians also believed that the three are one -- in substance. Una substancia, though they disagreed on consubstancia.

[@NashRespect]

Cyprian doesn't quote it directly, and it would only be a misquote if he did anyway. All he quotes is "and the three are one" which is in v8 as well for anyone to take a mystical Trinity reading of, which would be natural eisegesis if you already believed in a "one essence" Trinity. Evidently, Cyprian did! And if he had the comma, he probably would have quoted all of it rather than just the very end.

[@tiptupjr.9073]

@@NashRespect Cyprian: "and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'" There's only one place in Scripture where that's written, and it's not verse 8.

[@NashRespect]

@@tiptupjr.9073 "the three are one" is in verse 8, which is what he quotes. Are you claiming that Cyprian couldn't have seen v8 and interpreted it to be a statement about the Trinity?

[@tiptupjr.9073]

@@NashRespect ”the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three agree.“ ‭‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭8‬ ‭NRSVUE‬‬ ”the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.“ ‭‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭8‬ ‭ESV‬‬ ”the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.“ ‭‭1 John‬ ‭5‬:‭8‬ ‭NIV‬‬ ...🧐🤔

[@jessetoler8171]

How could all the fullness of deity dwell bodily in Christ (Col 2:9) and God be Spirit to be worshiped in Spirit (Jhn 4:24). Seems like an ad hoc explanation is needed.

[@Ronvega00]

Coz He, Jesus, is God and can do whatever He wants except deny Himself.

[@craigime]

What exactly do you have a problem is?

[@slyc22]

In your place folks i would not put my whole date in the hands of a book that was changed many times throughout history. "Gospel according to ..." is sufficient to let you think about what you are believing in.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

The passage is canonical, depending upon which text you consider to be your canonical text.

[@samueljennings4809]

It's canonical in the Byzantium text (Textus Receptus) right? And not in the Vulgate/Alexandrian texts? I just want to know that I have the right understanding.

[@AJMacDonaldJr]

@@samueljennings4809 It's in the Vulgate.

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

@@AJMacDonaldJr Nope, Jerome's Vulgate does not have it.

[@Ronvega00]

HMM I would say the passage is canonical if the Church has used it, and its been used since before AD 258, since St Cyprian used it before his death and he was a bishop and a rather important Church Father That means it has been used by the Church, for almost 1900 years.

[@Ronvega00]

@@samueljennings4809 The Textus Receptus ,is not identical with the Byzantine Text. It is based, mostly on it, but with some Vulgate ( Latin) readings and it has rather few witneses in comparison to the Byzantine Text

[@rmsmin]

Cited unequivocally by Priscillian (385 AD), Cassian (435 AD), Cassiodorus (580 AD), and a multitude of African and Western bishops, the comma was providentially included in text of the reformation and is Holy Scripture.

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

All in Latin! Staring with a supposed Priscillian (possibly his successor) mss from the mid 5th century. And most likely a gloss.

[@aletheia8054]

@@veridicusmaximus6010 So what? The guy spoke Latin.

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

@@aletheia8054 Of course! And? It just happen to show up in the Latin tradition and none other. Prior to this nada nothing zip!

[@aletheia8054]

@@veridicusmaximus6010 Why not?

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

@@aletheia8054 Why not what?

[@t.b.player7102]

Uh, 2 Cor 2:17. Just because some minority mss are old, it doesn't mean they're reliable. As Paul stated, even in his time, there were those who were corrupting God's words.

[@jamessheffield4173]

Could it have been removed because of a suspected Sabellian taint?

[@craigime]

No

[@jamessheffield4173]

@@craigime Petitio Principii

[@LionPebsX]

Jerome said it was being removed in the prologue to the Vulgate.

[@Ronvega00]

AND? St Jerome, and he is a saint, did fairly well with the little material he had. But his is a one man version and its subject to the ideosyncracies of such and he, for some reason, ditched the LXX and changed the versification and some of the books of the Bible Jesus and the Apostles, mainly, used . The fact that in the IV Century he said he took the vs out, does 2 things in my book. Ot establishes that the comma was in the text in the IV Century. AND it established that it does not come from the Vulgate.

[@AG_Highlights11]

Part of God's preserved word. Sorry James, respect you but have to disagree on this one.

[@thomasarmstrong1686]

Preserved from what year? Sounds like there’s no evidence even existed before 12 century. What do we want to know, what the apostles wrote or what someone in the 12th century thought the apostles wrote?

[@jacobcarne8316]

@@thomasarmstrong1686 no, there are certainly manuscripts and patristic citations of the text dating far earlier than that. The extant early manuscript evidence of 1 John including 1 John 5:7-8 is not very large. Cyprian, Priscillian, the Varimadum, etc. mention or quote the verse. The ancient Latin textual evidence is extremely strong. The INTERNAL evidence for the text is unquestionable, per top Greek scholar Georgios Babiniotis and others. Plus the fact that countless manuscripts have been destroyed through persecution and wars and old age that what we have in the extant evidence today is not nearly what it was even 500 years ago. Thank the Lord for his providence in printing during the Reformation! James White on Theology Proper and textual criticism has never been strong. I’m with Tamas on this one

[@InfinitelyManic]

@@jacobcarne8316 Have you examined those Patristic citations? Cyprian is not quoting the Comma but uses a prepositional phrase after quoting what would be John 10:30 then quotes what would be 1 John 5:8c. Priscillian's citation appears to be stronger, "As John says and there are three which give testimony on earth the water the flesh the blood and these three are in one and there are three which give testimony in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one in Christ Jesus."; but what does "one in Christ Jesus" means? Also, attribution for this citation is questionable. The Comma is not in the earliest extant Vetus Latina or Latin Vulgate mss. The internal evidence is questionable; but it appears to be the strongest, depending on who determines the acceptable Koine Greek grammar rules. Can a masculine participle agree with a set of non-masculine personified nouns? Some experts say yes, others say no, or only in a limited sense. I think we need a larger body of Koine Greek grammarians to comment on this since "Georgios Babiniotis and others" may not be a large enough to establish some degree of majority consensus.

[@InfinitelyManic]

How are we defining "preserved"? I would think some chain of succession would be required. The insertion of the Comma into the Biblical text sounds more like an argument for restoration not preservation.

[@douglasmcnay644]

I would love to see your research in the area of textual criticism that leads you to this conclusion.

[@ronashman8463]

The man continuing his life's work of casting doubt on the preserved word of God 🙄.

[@syriacchristianity9007]

Maybe on your favoured government issued version.

[@smytb]

Are you one of those "KJV ONLY " Cultists?

[@ronashman8463]

@@smytb are you one of those ones who think that Jesus was lying when he said to God "Thy word is truth" in John 17?

[@smytb]

@@ronashman8463 Lol! That's funny!!! Jesus NEVER lied, at all! What's your problem?? Do you worship the KJV?

[@ronashman8463]

@@smytb we have a common ground that Jesus never lied at all. Now please tell me which Bible you use that reports faithfully what he said.