Facebook NT Textual Criticism discussion of Heavenly Witnesses
FIRST JOHN 5:7 AND GREEK MANUSCRIPTS
My brothers, let us turn again to the subject of First John 5:7, and focus on what the existing Greek manuscripts show us. (Notice the many embedded links in this material, which, if you click the links after reading this, will show more data.)
My good friend and competent scholar Elijah Hixson offered
an informative post at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog which included pictures of the few Greek manuscripts which have the
Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7.
The earliest such manuscript is
GA 629, a Latin-Greek manuscript dated to 1362. I offered some analysis of the text of First John 5:7 in GA 629 in August of 2016 (see the replica of the relevant part of 629 at
this link, or a page-view of the manuscript itself at the Vatican Library’s website at
this link).
The second-oldest manuscript of First John, as far as I know, that has the
Comma Johanneum in the text of 5:7 is GA 61, which was made in the early 1500s. The third-oldest Greek manuscript with the
Comma Johanneum in the text of First John 5:7 is GA 918. Brother Elijah Hixson, by a series of simple deductions, narrowed his estimate of its production-date to the 1570s.
And that is all, unless we include GA 2473 (from 1634) and 2318 (from the 1700s) – both of which were made after printed editions of the Greek New Testament were made, and which very probably include the
Comma Johanneum because their copyists used a printed Greek New Testament as an exemplar.
The other manuscripts do not have the
Comma Johanneum in the text; the
Comma Johanneum is written in the margin instead. Hixson’s post includes pictures of the relevant portions of these manuscripts, so I will only spend a little time reviewing them here:
● In GA 221, a manuscript from the 900s, the
Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, but it appears that the
Comma Johanneum arrived there rather recently, considering that (
as Hixson reports) a description of GA 221 made in 1854 says that the manuscript does not have the
Comma Johanneum, with nothing said about a margin-note.
● In GA 177, the
Comma Johanneum is written in the upper margin of the page and is identified by its verse-number, which means that the
Comma Johanneum was placed in the margin of GA 177 sometime after 1550. (Our brother
Dan Wallace noticed the Comma Johanneum in the margin of GA 177 in 2010.) Hixson offers a more precise date: the annotator of this manuscript left his name in it: Ignatius Hardt, who was born in 1749. Guided by a little more data about Hardt’s career, brother Hixson estimated that Hardt wrote the
Comma Johanneum in the margin of 177 no earlier than the 1770s.
● In GA 88, a manuscript from the 1100s, the
Comma Johanneum appears in the margin with almost no clues about who added it or when.
Almost no clues: as Hixson observed, whereas copyists routinely contracted sacred names such as “Father” and “Spirit,” in the margin-note in 88 these words are written out in full, which may indicate that the person writing them was using as his source a printed book, rather than a manuscript.
● In GA 429, a manuscript from the 1300s, the
Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and it matches up with the text of the
Comma Johanneum printed in Erasmus’ third edition – because,
as Hixson explains, Erasmus’ third edition was its source.
● In GA 636, a manuscript from the 1400s, the
Comma Johanneum is written in the margin, and is missing the articles, which is consistent with a scenario in which it was translated from Latin.
Brothers, let us thoughtfully consider the implications of this evidence.
First, there is no Greek manuscript made before the 1500s in which the
Comma Johanneum appears in the text of First John in a form which does not appear to be derived from Latin; strictly speaking, the exact text of the
Comma Johanneum that appears in the
Textus Receptus does not appear in the text of any Greek manuscript made before the 1500s.
Second, in the Greek manuscripts in which the
Comma Johanneum appears in the margin, it either appears to be derived from Latin, or else it appears to have been copied from a printed source.
Now let us look on the other side of the equation.
Here, from the competent researcher Timothy Berg, is a list of existing (and catalogued) Greek manuscripts that DO contain First John 5:7 but do NOT have the
Comma Johanneum in the text:
Manuscripts Produced Before the 700s: 01, 03, 02, 048, 0296
Manuscripts Produced in the 700s-800s: 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464
Manuscripts Assigned to the 900s: 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147,
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1000s: 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1100s: 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1200s: 4, 5, 6, 51, 204, 206, 172, 141, 218, 234, 263, 327, 328, 378, 383, 384, 390, 460, 468, 469, 479, 483, 496, 592, 601, 614, 643, 665, 757, 912, 914, 915, 941, 999, 1069, 1070, 1072, 1094, 1103, 1107, 1149, 1161, 1242, 1251, 1292, 1297, 1352, 1398, 1400, 1404, 1456, 1501, 1509, 1523, 1563, 1594, 1595, 1597, 1609, 1642, 1719, 1722, 1727, 1728, 1731, 1736, 1758, 1780, 1827, 1839, 1842, 1843, 1852, 1855, 1857, 1858, 1860, 1864, 1865, 1873, 2180, 2374, 2400, 2404, 2423, 2483, 2502, 2558, 2627, 2696
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1300s: 18, 62, 76, 189, 201, 209, 216, 223, 254, 308, 363, 367, 386, 393, 394, 404, 421, 425, 429, 453, 489, 498, 582, 603, 604, 608, 621, 628, 630, 633, 634, 680, 743, 794, 808, 824, 913, 921, 928, 935, 959, 986, 996, 1022, 1040, 1067, 1075, 1099, 1100, 1102, 1106, 1248, 1249, 1354, 1390, 1409, 1482, 1495, 1503, 1524, 1548, 1598, 1599, 1610, 1618, 1619, 1622, 1637, 1643, 1661, 1678, 1717, 1723, 1725, 1726, 1732, 1733, 1741, 1742, 1744, 1746, 1747, 1753, 1761, 1762, 1765, 1769, 1831, 1832, 1856, 1859, 1866, 1877, 1881, 1882, 1886, 1890, 1892, 1899, 1902, 2080, 2085, 2086, 2197, 2200, 2261, 2279, 2356, 2431, 2466, 2484, 2492, 2494, 2508, 2511, 2527, 2626, 2675, 2705, 2716, 2774, 2777
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1400s: 69, 102, 149, 205, 322, 368, 385, 400, 432, 444, 467, 615, 616, 631, 636, 664, 801, 1003, 1105, 1247, 1250, 1367, 1405, 1508, 1626, 1628, 1636, 1649, 1656, 1729, 1745, 1750, 1751, 1757, 1763, 1767, 1830, 1876, 1896, 2131, 2221, 2288, 2352, 2495, 2523, 2554, 2652, 2653, 2691, 2704
Manuscripts Assigned to the 1500s and Later: 90, 296, 522, 1702, 1704, 1749, 1768, 1840, 1844, 1861, 2130, 2218, 2255, 2378, 2501, 2516, 2544, 1101, 1721, 1748, 1869, 1903, 2243, 2674, 2776, 2473, 1104
With this information in mind, let us consider a few extracts from
a defense of the Comma Johanneum recently offered by brother Taylor DeSoto of Agros Reformed Baptist Church in Arizona:
►
“There is manuscript evidence for it.” True. Hixson’s analysis shows that there is Greek manuscript evidence for the
Comma Johanneum . Brother Elijah Hixson has also shown us that the Greek manuscript evidence is sparse, and late, and shows clear signs of being derived either from Latin or from a printed text.
►
“It has more manuscript evidence support than let’s just say, the Gospel of Mark without 16:9-20.” That is not quite the case. There are three Greek manuscripts in which Mark 16 ends at 16:8 (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and GA
304 – all of which have anomalous features). Technically, the quantities are equal. Brother Taylor spoke honestly when he said this.
However, it is foolish to use simple quantities to frame this evidence, as if one bag of rocks weighs the same as another bag of rocks. Most of the words in Codex Vaticanus (written, I suspect, in the early 300s) and most of the words in Codex Sinaiticus (written in the mid-300s) are the earliest substantial Greek representatives of Mark 16:1-8. GA 629 was produced in the mid-1300s. GA 61 is from the early 1500s. GA 918 is from the 1570s. And the rest, as Hixson’s data shows, are either dependent on Latin, or else are extremely late.
As a defender of the genuineness of Mark 16:9-20, I do not grant to Codex Sinaiticus or to Codex Vaticanus the level of weight that was given to them by Westcott and Hort (and which continues, in some circles, to be assumed).
But there is more than the testimony of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus to consider, my brothers.
We must also consider the testimony of 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth.
►
“Those who attack the authenticity of this reading appeal to the assumption that it was introduced from a Latin manuscript.”
Brother Taylor DeSoto wrote as if there is no basis for this “assumption.” He was incorrect.
Deduce, brothers, from the evidence: in the old Latin text of First John 5:8 (
as I have explained already), the nouns are typically transposed to the order
water-blood-spirit, which is conducive to a figurative interpretation in which the water represents the Father (see Jeremiah 2:13), the blood represents the Son, and the Spirit represents, of course, the Holy Spirit.
That interpretation IS the
Comma Johanneum . It is an interpretive gloss that was inserted into the Old Latin text (and from there into the later medieval Vulgate text). Its origin is linked to the transposition: in evidence uninfluenced by Latin, where the transposition is absent, the
Comma Johanneum is absent as well.
►
“Can 1 John 5:7 be said to have been definitively introduced from the Latin, as though it were never found in a Greek manuscript?”
Yes. All one needs to do is observe the evidence and think it through. Everything is completely consistent with precisely that scenario.
Look at the Latin text that runs parallel to the Greek text in 629. Look at the absence of the articles, and look at the absence of the
Comma Johanneum in 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth.
Ask, “
What more could I possibly ask for, if I were asking for evidence that the
Comma Johanneum drifted into a few Greek manuscripts due to the actions of copyists who wanted to make their Greek copies conform more precisely to the meaning of their Latin copies?”
Brother Taylor DeSoto stated,
“I have yet to see a scholar actually produce a manuscript, or historical source from antiquity which demonstrates that this verse was added from the Latin.”
Brother Taylor was resisting the plain implications of the evidence.
Brother Taylor DeSoto resorted to a grammatical argument (offered in a past generation by the competent reader Robert Dabney) as evidence for the genuineness of the
Comma Johanneum .
Brother Taylor DeSoto stated, “The only people I have seen stand against this grammatical argument are people who self-admittedly are rusty in Greek.” His approach is a nothingburger. This was demonstrated by Dr. Barry Hofstetter in 2018 in the essay
The Comma Johanneum and Greek Grammar.
Furthermore, Mr. Taylor DeSoto misrepresented the evidence when he stated that
“Jerome and Nazianzes comment on it.”
By “Jerome,” Taylor meant the author of the
Preface to the Canonical Epistles – an author who (
as I have already pointed out) used the transposed form of First John 5:8.
By saying that “Gregory of Nazianzes comments on it,” Taylor DeSoto referred to the statement by
Gregory of Nazianzus where, after stating that John says “that there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood” – as we find verse 8 in most manuscripts, without the phrase
“on earth” – Gregory of Nazianzus mentioned a frivolous objection from a posited grammarian only in order to tear it down, stating “You see how completely your argument from con-numeration has completely broken down, and is refuted by all these instances,” and Gregory continued after sharing these words – never once citing any part of the
Comma Johanneum.
It was, and is, false to claim that Gregory of Nazianzus commented on the
Comma Johanneum. Gregory of Nazianzus DID NOT DO SO – at least, not in any writings for which we have evidence for.
Furthermore, in the very next chapter of his composition, Gregory of Nazianzus referred to the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, without referencing the
Comma Johanneum.
Taylor DeSoto did not leave that falsehood alone. He also claimed, “The
Comma Johanneum was seated at 1 John 5:7 until evangelical textual critics began deconstructing the Scriptures.”
As long as we ignore the testimony of 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth, Taylor DeSoto’s claim may be treated as if it is true.
Yes, my brothers, IF you resolve to be BLIND to these Greek manuscripts, and focus instead, like a horse wearing blinders, upon interpolated and transposed Latin texts, and on a few late manuscripts influenced by them, THEN you can say that you have a basis for keeping the
Comma Johanneum in your text of First John.
IF you are going to say that
it was a good thing that at some point in the past, the Latin text was on the throne, AND that it was a good thing that the Greek text was usurped and pushed to the side, AND that the old Latin text should usurp the Greek text today, THEN you are not recognizing the authority of the original Greek text written by John.
Finally, Mr. Taylor DeSoto asked,
“Do we gain anything by removing this passage?”
I answer: this is a trick question.
When we look at 02, 048, 0296, 018, 020, 025, 049, 0142, 1424, 1862, 1895, 2464, 044, 056, 82, 93, 175, 181, 221, 307, 326, 398, 450, 454, 456, 457, 602, 605, 619, 627, 832, 920, 1066, 1175, 1720, 1739, 1829, 1836, 1837, 1841, 1845, 1851, 1871, 1874, 1875, 1880, 1891, 2125, 2147, 35, 36, 2, 42, 43, 81, 104, 131, 133, 142, 177, 250, 302, 325, 312, 314, 424, 436, 451, 458, 459, 462, 464, 465, 466, 491, 506, 517, 547, 606, 607, 617, 623, 624, 635, 638, 639, 641, 699, 796, 901, 910, 919, 945, 1162, 1243, 1244, 1270, 1311, 1384, 1521, 1668, 1724, 1730, 1735, 1738, 1828, 1835, 1838, 1846, 1847, 1849, 1854, 1870, 1888, 2138, 2191, 2344, 2475, 2587, 2723, 2746, 3, 38, 1, 57, 88, 94, 97, 103, 105, 110, 180, 203, 226, 256, 319, 321, 323, 330, 337, 365, 431, 440, 442, 452, 618, 620, 622, 625, 632, 637, 656, 720, 876, 917, 922, 927, 1058, 1115, 1127, 1241, 1245, 1315, 1319, 1359, 1360, 1448, 1490, 1505, 1573, 1611, 1646, 1673, 1718, 1737, 1740, 1743, 1752, 1754, 1850, 1853, 1863, 1867, 1868, 1872, 1885, 1889, 1893, 1894, 1897, 2127, 2143, 2186, 2194, 2289, 2298, 2401, 2412, 2541, 2625, 2712, 2718, 2736, 2805, and so forth, NOBODY is removing the passage because IT IS NOT THERE.
My brothers, you cannot fall off a horse you never encountered.
Also: YES we certainly gain something. We gain a purer, less corrupted Greek text which more closely resembles the original inspired Greek text written by John.
Taylor DeSoto stated
in another post, “We need to receive the text as it has been passed down.”
I have pointed out to him and I point out to you (the person reading these words) the text of First John 5:7-8 that has been passed down in 99.2% of the handed-down Greek manuscripts. In 99.2% of the existing Greek manuscripts of John’s first epistle, the
Comma Johanneum is unsupported.
I point out again that the
non-inclusion of the
Comma Johanneum IS supported by 99.2% of the Greek manuscripts known to exist.
I point out that at this particular point in First John 5:7, the
Textus Receptus does not represent the text-that-was-handed-down, or the Byzantine Text, or the “Antiochan line.” This fact seems to have had no effect, as far as I can see, on Taylor DeSoto’s position.
It is clear to me that brother Taylor’s goal was NOT to defend the original text, and that brother Taylor’s goal was NOT to defend the text that has been handed down in Greek manuscripts.
Brother Taylor’s agenda was to defend the contents of the
Textus Receptus, both the good parts and the bad parts.
(In addition: one must ask,
“Which text that has been passed down?”, because the manuscripts that have survived to the present day do not always agree. When asking, “Is this reading authoritative?” the decisive sub-question is NOT,
Is it popular?, or
“Is it familiar to a particular group of people?” (such as English readers of the KJV, or formulators of a particular creed from the 1600s), but,
“IS IT ORIGINAL?.)
Second, we lose the stigma of desperation which is the inevitable consequence of treating an interpolation as if deserves to be a foundation for Christian doctrine, as if the
Textus Receptus must be right, and all those other manuscripts
must be wrong. It is morally WRONG and strategically UNWISE to employ falsehoods – such as the false claim that John wrote the
Comma Johanneum in Greek as part of his first epistle – in the service of the truth. To continue to do so would be to run the risk that onlookers will conclude that the orthodox view of the Trinity is so weak that its defenders must adopt non-original readings in order to defend it.
I point out that few early theologians expressed their adoration of our triune God as competently as Gregory of Nazianzus and Cyril of Alexandria – yet they did not use the
Comma Johanneum,
because it was not the Greek texts that they used.
Third, we gain the time that would otherwise be wasted continuing to discuss a Greek textual variant which should be easily recognized as an interpolation.
Thank you for reading carefully.