The Textual Problem at 1 John 5:7-8

The textual issue at 1 John 5:7-8 concerns an expansion in the later Textus Receptus tradition that inserts a distinctly Trinitarian statement into John’s argument about witness testimony. In the form familiar from the King James Version tradition, the passage reads in part: “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit; and these three are one. And there are three witness bearers on earth.” This addition is commonly called the Comma Johanneum, the Johannine Comma, or the heavenly witnesses. It is not an authorial reading. It is an interpolation that entered the Latin transmission first and only much later migrated into a small number of Greek witnesses, chiefly through back-translation and marginal annotation.

The text recognized by the earliest and best Greek documentary evidence reads without the Comma. After ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (“because there are three who testify”), the text continues directly with “the Spirit and the water and the blood,” and then concludes that the three converge in a single testimony. In Greek form, the continuous reading is: ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. The reading is stable in the earliest Greek witnesses and in the earliest versions, and it coheres with John’s immediate context in 1 John 5:6-12.

Modern critical editions omit the Comma because the external evidence renders the decision certain. The issue is not a close call balanced on internal probabilities. The documentary trail demonstrates a late origin, a limited geography, and a mechanism of intrusion consistent with marginal glossing in Latin copies that was later treated as though it were omitted scripture and then absorbed into the text.

The Immediate Context and John’s Argument

John’s purpose in 1 John 5 is to present God’s testimony concerning His Son, grounding assurance on what God has testified rather than on human speculation. In 1 John 5:6, John identifies Jesus Christ as the One who “came by water and blood,” not by water only, and then he adds the Spirit’s witness because the Spirit is truth. The sequence is juridical in tone. John stacks witnesses: the Spirit testifies; the water and the blood testify; the combined testimony converges.

The natural, historical-grammatical reading treats “water” and “blood” as realities anchored in Jesus’ earthly ministry. “Water” fits His baptism, the event publicly marking the commencement of His messianic work and identifying Him as God’s Son in the narrative tradition of the Gospels. “Blood” fits His death, the climactic act in which His life was poured out. John’s emphasis “not by water only” rejects a Christology that isolates Jesus’ baptism while detaching His death from God’s saving testimony. The Spirit’s witness binds the testimony together because the Spirit speaks truthfully of Jesus Christ and confirms the meaning of His ministry. In that setting, a sudden turn upward to “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit” fractures the flow, introduces a different scene, and then forces an awkward return to “on earth” before resuming the list of Spirit, water, and blood. The shorter text reads with coherence and force; the longer text reads like a secondary theological insertion.

The Comma also disrupts John’s rhetorical strategy. John is not attempting to define God’s inner life. He is establishing evidentiary grounds for confessing Jesus as the Christ and Son of God, and for recognizing God’s testimony as greater than human testimony. The witnesses named in the authentic text directly serve that evidentiary purpose in the argument.

External Documentary Evidence and the Priority of the Early Greek Tradition

Textual criticism begins with documentary evidence because manuscripts and versions are the observable data of transmission. At 1 John 5:7-8, the early Greek evidence is decisive. The Comma is absent from the major fourth-century majuscule witnesses that anchor the Alexandrian text, including Codex Vaticanus (B, 300–330 C.E.) and Codex Sinaiticus (א, 330–360 C.E.). It is absent from Codex Alexandrinus (A, 400–450 C.E.) as well. It is absent from the Greek manuscript tradition as a whole until very late, and even when it appears it is frequently confined to the margin as a variant note rather than copied as continuous text.

The Comma is also absent from the ancient versions outside of Latin. It does not appear in Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, or Slavonic traditions in their early forms. This matters because early versions reflect Greek exemplars used in their translation. If the Comma belonged to the Greek text from an early period, it would have left a broad footprint across languages and regions. Instead, the footprint is narrow and late.

When the Comma finally appears in Greek witnesses, it does so in a handful of manuscripts that are late and textually dependent. The small cluster often cited includes minuscule 61 (Codex Montfortianus, early sixteenth century), which contains the Comma in the text; minuscule 918 (sixteenth century, Escorial) and minuscule 2318 (eighteenth century, Bucharest), which reflect influence from the Latin tradition; and several manuscripts in which the Comma appears as a later marginal addition rather than as the main text, such as 88, 221, 429, and 636 with variant reading annotations added by a later hand. A related witness sometimes cited is minuscule 629 (Codex Ottobonianus 298), a bilingual manuscript tradition exhibiting Latin influence. The pattern is consistent: dependence upon a Latin form, intrusion by marginal annotation, and late Greek attestation. Such evidence cannot overturn the unified testimony of the early Greek tradition.

This is precisely the kind of textual problem where the external method yields certainty. The earliest, best, and geographically widespread Greek witnesses lack the Comma; the earliest and geographically widespread versions lack it; the earliest Greek patristic writers do not cite it; the reading that includes it arises in Latin contexts and then migrates into Greek copies under Latin pressure. The only conclusion consistent with the evidence is that the Comma is not original.

Patristic Silence and the Weight of Controversy

One of the most instructive features of this variant is the silence of the Greek Fathers, especially during the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century. Had a concise proof text explicitly naming “the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit” and concluding “these three are one” existed in the Greek text, it would have been repeatedly cited in disputes involving Sabellian and Arian claims. Instead, Greek writers quote and expound 1 John 5:6-8 without any knowledge of the Comma.

This silence is not an argument from absence in the abstract. It is an argument from expected usage in polemical context. The fourth century generated extensive writing where such a text would have been directly relevant. Yet the citations and discussions of 1 John 5 focus on the Spirit, the water, and the blood, not on a heavenly triad. When Greek writers appeal to Johannine theology, they do so through the Gospel of John’s prologue and other passages, not through a non-existent epistolary gloss.

On the Latin side, the evidentiary shape differs. The Comma, in its earliest identifiable stage, appears in a Latin treatise, and later Latin writers in North Africa and Italy cite it in varying forms. This diversity of forms is itself a mark of secondary development. An authorial reading, widely transmitted, stabilizes early and spreads broadly. A gloss, migrating from margin to text, appears unevenly and with fluctuating wording.

The Latin Origin and the Mechanism of Interpolation

The Comma’s origin is Latin. The earliest clear citation of the longer form is in the Latin treatise commonly known as Liber Apologeticus, attributed either to Priscillian (d. about 385 C.E.) or to his associate Instantius. The wording reflects a developed interpretive move: the three witnesses of verse 8 are aligned with a heavenly triad, thereby producing a doctrinal statement that is then read back into the text itself.

The mechanism by which the Comma entered the Latin biblical tradition is also clear. The authentic text in verse 8 lists three witnesses and concludes with a unity statement. In Latin, the closing words “and these three are one” (et hi tres unum sunt) invited theological reflection. A scribe or reader explained the “three” as Father, Word, and Spirit in the margin, intending an interpretation rather than a textual replacement. Once a gloss exists in the margin, later copyists can mistake it for an omitted line. From that point, the gloss is copied into the text, sometimes interlined, sometimes inserted with varied placement relative to verse 8. The result is exactly what the Latin manuscript evidence displays: a gradual, progressive absorption of an explanatory note into the main text, with instability in wording and position.

This development also explains why the Comma is absent from Jerome’s original Vulgate revision and from early Vulgate codices that preserve an older form. Where later medieval Vulgate copies do include it, they reflect the drift of the Latin ecclesiastical tradition toward incorporating doctrinally useful expansions, especially when the boundary between comment and text became blurred in the copying process.

A related feature is the false prologue sometimes attributed to Jerome that defends the Comma. The presence of such a prologue is not proof of the Comma’s authenticity. It is evidence of controversy and of an attempt to secure a disputed reading by assigning it to an authoritative name. In textual history, forged or misattributed defenses cluster precisely where a reading lacks genuine antiquity.

Cyprian and the Misuse of an Interpretive Citation

A recurring claim in defenses of the Comma is that Cyprian supports it. The argument typically relies on Cyprian’s statement that “it is written” concerning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, followed by “and these three are one.” The issue is that Cyprian’s language corresponds naturally to the ending of verse 8 in the Latin form of the authentic text, not to the Comma itself. Cyprian does not cite “in heaven,” does not cite “the Word,” and does not present the two-tier structure “in heaven” and “on earth.” His phrasing aligns with an interpretive application of verse 8 rather than with a direct quotation of a longer verse 7.

This distinction matters because it demonstrates how the Comma could arise. An interpretive reading of “the three are one” applied to Father, Son, and Spirit can be expressed homiletically and then later be treated as a textual element. Cyprian’s usage, read correctly, illustrates the kind of theological interpretation that incubates marginal glosses; it does not supply early documentary attestation for the Comma as text.

The First Greek Contact and Late Medieval Transmission

The Comma’s entry into Greek awareness is tied to Latin ecclesiastical influence. When Latin conciliar or theological materials were translated into Greek, a Latin form of the passage containing the Comma could be carried over. The Lateran Council of 1215 is often mentioned in this connection because the Latin text containing the Comma was cited in conciliar acts and later transmitted in Greek translation. From that point, Greek writers in the later medieval period cite the Comma, not because it belonged to the apostolic text, but because it had entered Greek discourse through translated Latin materials.

This explains the chronology. The Comma is absent from the continuous Greek manuscript tradition for centuries. It appears only after Latin pressure and only in late Greek witnesses, several of which preserve it as a marginal variant rather than as a stable text. The direction of dependence is not Greek to Latin; it is Latin to Greek. The Greek forms also frequently read like translation Greek rather than native transmission Greek, a symptom of back-translation from Latin phraseology.

Erasmus, the Printed Text, and the Manufactured Greek Evidence

The printing press amplified the consequences of late medieval textual developments. Early printed Greek New Testaments, including Erasmus’s first two editions, omitted the Comma because he did not find it in Greek manuscripts accessible to him. This omission triggered fierce opposition from those who treated the Latin Vulgate as the ecclesiastical standard and assumed that departure from the Vulgate signaled doctrinal danger.

Erasmus responded that he would include the Comma if even one Greek manuscript could be produced that contained it. A Greek manuscript was then brought forward, now commonly identified as Codex Montfortianus (minuscule 61), dating from the early sixteenth century. Erasmus included the Comma in his third edition of 1522, while also registering strong doubts and reasoning against the authenticity of the words. The critical point is not merely that a manuscript existed, but what kind of manuscript it was. Codex Montfortianus is late and bears marks of dependence on a Latin form. Its Greek in the Comma passage reflects translation technique rather than inherited Greek text, including features that align with Latin syntax more readily than with Greek idiom.

Once the Comma entered Erasmus’s printed text, it gained a prestige it did not earn from documentary antiquity. Subsequent editions that depended on Erasmus carried it forward. The printed Textus Receptus tradition thus became a conduit for an interpolation that had already proven its late and secondary origin.

An additional complication arose in Robert Stephens’ 1550 edition, where a misplaced critical notation created the impression that manuscript support existed where none did. The history of the printed apparatus illustrates how typographical signals and editorial decisions could mislead readers who lacked direct access to manuscripts. In effect, the Comma’s presence in the printed Greek text created a feedback loop: printed authority encouraged the copying of the Comma into later Greek manuscripts, and those late manuscripts were then cited as though they were independent witnesses supporting the printed text.

The Textual Form of the Comma and Signs of Secondary Development

The Comma does not circulate in a single stable form across its witnesses. Some witnesses omit parts of the phrasing, and some preserve it in a way that shows it has been fitted into the text rather than naturally transmitted. For example, some late Greek witnesses omit the clause “and these three are one,” while others retain it, and still others place the heavenly-witness material in the margin as a variant note. This instability is characteristic of a late addition. An authorial reading, disseminated widely from the earliest centuries, does not behave this way.

The authentic text also has a coherent syntactic shape. The phrase ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες (“because there are three who testify”) naturally anticipates a triad, which is then immediately supplied: τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα. The closing clause καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν expresses convergence. The Comma forces a double triad and introduces a heavenly group that does not serve John’s immediate evidentiary argument about Jesus Christ’s coming by water and blood.

A frequently discussed grammatical detail is the masculine participle μαρτυροῦντες paired with neuter nouns (Spirit, water, blood). Scribes sometimes adjusted the grammar by changing the participle to a neuter form in later copies. The presence of such grammatical accommodation demonstrates scribal sensitivity to the construction. It does not require the Comma as an explanation. Koine Greek often uses grammatical gender with flexibility in semantically personal or juridical categories, and “witnesses” as a conceptual category can be treated as masculine even when the items named are neuter nouns. The textual history shows that scribes corrected grammar without supplying a doctrinal expansion. The Comma is not a grammatical repair; it is a theological insertion.

The Later Controversy and the Role of Textual Criticism

The Comma’s persistence in ecclesiastical tradition ensured that controversy continued long after the manuscript evidence was available. As scholarly collation advanced, critics and defenders debated not only the reading itself but also the question of what constituted an authoritative text: ecclesiastical usage or documentary attestation.

The rise of modern textual criticism exposed the Comma’s history with increasing precision. Scholars assembled the Greek manuscript data, the versional evidence, and the patristic citations. As those lines of evidence converged, the Comma’s status as an interpolation became undeniable. The debate then shifted from evidence to institutional reluctance, particularly where confessional commitments had long treated the Comma as a doctrinally convenient text.

The episode is instructive because it shows textual criticism functioning as a discipline of restoration rather than as a tool for skepticism. The removal of the Comma from the text is not the loss of inspired scripture; it is the recovery of John’s authentic wording by separating apostolic text from later marginal interpretation. The reliability of the New Testament text is demonstrated, not threatened, when a late intrusion is detected and excised on firm documentary grounds.

A major strength of the New Testament textual tradition is its breadth. The same breadth that allows a gloss to be identified also prevents it from silently overrunning the earliest strata. The Comma’s late and localized character stands out precisely because the manuscript tradition is so extensive and because early Greek witnesses preserve a stable text at this point.

The Authentic Reading and Its Meaning for 1 John 5:6-12

With the Comma removed, the passage reads as a tightly woven evidentiary argument. Jesus Christ came by water and blood. The Spirit testifies because the Spirit is truth. There are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and the three converge in one testimony. John then presses the implication: if human testimony is accepted, God’s testimony is greater, because it is the testimony God has given concerning His Son. The structure depends on the triad of Spirit, water, and blood, not on a speculative ascent to heavenly witnesses.

The authentic reading also aligns with the broader Johannine emphasis on testimony. The Gospel of John repeatedly frames belief in terms of witness: the Baptist bears witness, the works bear witness, Scripture bears witness, and the Spirit bears witness. The Epistle continues that pattern, centering the believer’s assurance on God’s testimony rather than on rhetorical invention. The Comma is alien to that pattern in both style and function.

When the textual data are weighed according to sound method, the conclusion is fixed. The Comma Johanneum is a late Latin gloss that entered the textual stream and was later retrofitted into the Greek tradition in a small number of manuscripts under the influence of the Latin ecclesiastical text and the printed Textus Receptus.

You May Also Enjoy

Evaluating Modern English Translations: The Quest for Faithfulness to the Original Texts

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS