Authenticity of Johannine Comma

8/2/2019 Authenticity of Johannine Comma

1/37

REMARKS ON THEAUTHENTICITY OF

1 JOHN v. 7.

By ROBERT JACK, D.D.

Copyright 2001

All Rights Reserved

THE Author being engaged in a course of Lectures, in vindicationof some of the most important doctrines of the Christian Religion;

the doctrine of the Trinity naturally demanded a large share of

his attentive consideration. His thoughts were of coursepowerfully directed to this celebrated text. He soon found, that theremarks which occurred to him concerning its authenticity,

swelled to such size, as to render it impracticable to compressthem within the proportionable space to which they were entitled,

in a discourse on the general doctrine of the Trinity. He resolved,

therefore, to publish them in this form, which may be considered,

either as a separate dissertation on this particular passage, or asan appendix to his Lecture on the Trinity.

-------------------------------------

Page 1 of 37remarks

3/13/2012http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm


2/37

THE authenticity of this memorable text, we are wellaware, has been the subject of much controversy inmodern times. The result has been, that whilst some areconvinced it ought to be retained as a portion of the

divinely inspired Word; others are no less persuaded,that it must be abandoned, as an interpolationintroduced by some sacriligious hand into the sacredcanon. On a subject which has been so fully discussed,and perhaps exhausted, it may be impossible to advanceany thing new; nor do we expect to produce conviction insome minds, by what we shall state in favour of itsauthenticity. But, if we can succeed in exhibiting the

difficulties, which must be surmounted before this verseis abandoned as surreptitious, it will be at least one pointgained. We are ready to admit, the great utility of sacredcriticism, in ascertaining the meaning, and in unfoldingthe beauties of many parts of the Holy Scriptures. Incertain cases, however, may it not become the dupe ofprejudice and partiality, in support of a favourite system?When we find men collating manuscripts, examiningversions, and ransacking the writings of the fathers, inquest of materials with which to undermine the essentialdoctrines of Christianity, we ought surely to pause andreflect, before we yield an implicit assent to their boldassertions, and adventurous criticisms.

We shall endeavour to give a general view of the

argument for the authenticity of this verse, collected fromthe writings of these, who profess to have diligently andimpartially examined the subject. And then consider,whether there be any weight in the objections which havebeen advanced against its authenticity.

Some have ventured to assert, that the verse in question

Page 2 of 37remarks



3/37

is comparatively a modern addition to the Scriptures, andindeed if this could be satisfactorily proved, it wouldafford sufficient cause at once to reject it. But if it can bedemonstrated, that the Christian world have generally

received it as an authentic part of Scripture, from one ageto another, from the primitive to the present times, this,we should imagine, furnishes a strong argument forconsidering it as genuine, and not interpolated. "It isobservable," says M. Simon, "that nearly all themanuscripts, not above 600 years old, agree in retainingthis disputed verse." Reckoning from the time when hewrote, this carries us at once as high as A.D. 1100; and if

this text was then very commonly found in the copies ofthe New Testament, it is an evidence, that it was thengenerally acknowledged as an authentic part of Scripture.--- But we shall begin at a period somewhat later, andascending to the age of the Apostles, endeavour to showthe authenticity of the verse in question.

About A.D. 1360, lived Manuel Calecas, a Greek writer,

who published a treatise on the Principles of the CatholicFaith, in which this verse is inserted, an evidence, that inhis time it was not accounted spurious. --- In the sameage, but a little earlier, about A.D. 1320, Nicholas deLyra, a learned professor of Divinity, at Paris, wrote aCommentary, which was much and generally esteemed,on the Holy Scriptures. In that Commentary this verse is

found, accompanied by the Author's Annotations,without the smallest insinuation or suspicion of itsauthenticity.

The celebrated Durandus, bishop of Mende, inLanguedoc, lived about A.D. 1260. In a Rationale ofDivine Offices, composed by him for the use of his

Page 3 of 37remarks



4/37

churches, this verse is found. --- A little before him,about A.D. 1250, lived Thomas Aquinas, who in hiscommentary on the First Epistle of John, explained thisverse in common with the rest of the chapter. --- Still

earlier in the century, A.D. 1215, was held at Rome, thecouncil of Lateran, under Innocent III. This is supposedto have been the most numerous assembly of the kind,which the Christian world ever beheld. Upwards of twothousand bishops, and inferior clergy, are said to havebeen present; among whom were the Greek patriarchs ofConstantinople and Jerusalem, in person, and theseveral patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, by their

representatives. The opinions of father Joachim, who hadbeen accused of Arianism, were unanimously condemnedby the council: and in their sentence of condemnation,we find the verse in question, among other passages ofScriptures, thus particularly set forth. It is read in theCanonical Epistle of John, that "there are Three whichbear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and theHoly Spirit; and these three are one." This is an evidence,that, at that time, the authenticity of this verse wasgenerally acknowledged, both in the Eastern and Westernchurches.

Peter Lombard, who was bishop of Paris, in the twelfthcentury, about A.D. 1150, and who is commonly styledthe Master of the Sentences, expressly cites this verse in

the first book of his Sentences. His words may be thustranslated: "The Father, and the Son, are one, not byconfusion of persons, but by unity of nature, as St. Johnteaches in his Canonical Epistle, saying: "There are Threewhich bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, andthe Holy ghost, and these three are one."

Page 4 of 37remarks



5/37

Euthymius Zygabenus lived at Constantinople, in theeleventh century, in the reign of Alexis Comnenus. Hecomposed a large work against heresies, entitled PanopliaDogmatica, a Latin translation of which has been

published in the Bibliotheca Patrum, and the Greekoriginal of which has also been published. In this workhe thus refers to the verse in question: "The term ONEdenotes things, the essence and nature of which are thesame, and yet the persons are different; as in thisinstance, AND THREE ARE ONE."

The Glossa Ordinaria, the work of Walafrid Strabo, was

composed in the ninth century, a work which in everysucceeding age, has been highly esteemed by the learned.Even M. Simon confesses, that "no comment on theScriptures is of equal authority with this exposition."[1]In this work, the verse in question is not only found inthe Epistle of St. John, but commented upon in thenotes, with peculiar force and clearness.

In the middle of the eighth century, about A.D. 760,Ambrose Ansbert, Abbot of St. Vincent's in Italy, wrote acommentary upon the Apocalypse; in which this verse isapplied in explanantion of the first Chapter of theRevelations. "Although" he says "the expression of faithfulwitness found therein, refers directly to Jesus Christalone, --- yet it equally characterises the Father, the Son,and the Holy Ghost; according to these words of St.

John. There are three which bear record in heaven, theFather, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these threeare one."

About the close of the eighth century, the EmperorCharlemagne assembled all the learned men that were tobe found in that age, and placed Alciunus, and

Page 5 of 37remarks



6/37

Englishman, of great erudition at their head; instructingthem to revise the manuscripts of the Bible then in use,to settle the text, and to rectify the errors which hadcrept into it, through the haste or the ignorance of

transcribers. To effect this great purpose, he furnishedthem with every manuscript that could be procuredthroughout his very extensive dominions. In theirCorrectorium, the result of their united labours, whichwas presented in public to the Emperor, by Alciunus, thetestimony of the three (heavenly) witnesses is readwithout the smallest impeachment of its authenticity.

This very volume Baronius affirms to have been extant at

Rome in his life time, [2]in the library of the Abbey ofVaux-Celles; and he styles is "a treasure of inestimablevalue." It cannot be supposed, that these divines,assembled under the auspices of a prince zealous for therestoration of learning, would attempt to settle the text ofthe New Testament, without referring to the Greekoriginal; especially since we know, that there were, at

that time, persons eminently skilled in the Greeklanguage. They must have had access to perusemanuscripts which have long since perished; and theirresearches might in all probability extend even to the ageof the Apostles. --- Here, then, is evidence, that this versehas been acknowledged as a part of Scripture, duringmore than a thousand years.

Cassiodorus lived in Italy in the middle of the sixthcentury. Among other works, he wrote a comment onsome books of the New Testament, which he entitledComplexiones. This work had remained for agesunnoticed and unknown, in the great library at Florence,till, by the researches of the noble and learned MarquisScipione Maffei, it was brought to light, and published in

Page 6 of 37remarks



7/37

the beginning of the last century. In his annotations onthis chapter, Cassiodorus uses these words: "Threemysteries bear witness in earth, the water, the blood, andthe spirit, which are, we read, fulfilled in the passion of

our Lord: and in heaven, the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit, and these three are one GOD." Some havesupposed, with a considerable dgree of probability, thatCassiodorus in this work, only translated a preceding oneof Clemens Alexandrinus on the same subject. If thiscould be fully proved, it would give to his authority, inthe present case, a still higher importance. At any rate,his testimony is of great weight; because, as Bengelius

affirms, he was exceedingly careful to ascertain the truereading of the Scriptures; and because he livedantecedently to the revisal of the New Testament underCharlemagne.

In the beginning of the sixth century, flourishedFulgentius, bishop of Ruspe, in Africa. He opposed theArians with great zeal and fortitude, although they were

countenanced and supported by two African kings,Thrasimond and Huneric. In his works, we find thisverse, among other passages of Scripture, expressly citedand insisted upon, as conclusive against the tenets ofArius: "The blessed Apostle St. John," says he, "testifiesthat there are three which bear record in heaven, theFather, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are

one." [3]The title of a Tract, that has been ascribed tohim, is very striking. It is this: "The trinity in persons,and the unity in essence, (of the Godhead) proved fromHoly Scripture." And the manner in which in which theverse is cited therein, is as remarkable as the title. "TheApostle St. JOHN has expressly said, in speaking of theFather, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, --- And these three

Page 7 of 37remarks



8/37

are one."

A few years before Fulgentius, lived Vigilius, who was

bishop of Tapsum, situated in the same province andkingdom with Ruspe. He wrote against several heresies,without prefixing his name to the work, and sometimesunder the feigned names, of Athanasius, Augustine, andIdacius Clarus, that he might protect himself the better,against the rage and malice of his enemies. Thetestimony of this verse he urges in opposition to theerrors of Arius, in the first book of his treatise on the

Trinity; and in his contest with Varimadus the Arian."The names of the persons in the Godhead," says he, "areevidently set forth by St. John the Apostle, who say in hisEpistle, "There are three which bear record in heaven, theFather, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three areone."[4]"To what purpose is it," says he in his seventhbook addressing himself to the Arians, "that ye read in

John the Evangelist, These three are one, if ye stillpersist, that there are different natures in their persons?I ask, in what manner are the Three One, if the nature oftheir Divinity be different in each?" --- Vigilius has beensuspected by some, to be the interpolator of the verse inquestion, but no proof of this, as far as we know, isattempted to be produced. He has been represented, as awriter of no credit, and Griesbach mentions one reason

among others why he is not to be trusted, which mustappear rather a curious one. This man he says is entitled'to little credit, because he wrote many books underassumed names.' If this were a just reason fordiscrediting his testimony, what will become of thecredibility of many celebrated authors, both in ancientand in modern times?

Page 8 of 37remarks



9/37

Among the arguments in favour of the authenticity of thisverse, there is perhaps none more remarkable than thatwhich is derived from the celebrated Confession of Faithdelivered by Eugenius, and the African bishops, in the

presence of a council convened at Carthage, by Huneric,A.D. 484. --- Huneric, king of the Vandals, and an Arian,had issued an edict, requiring the bishops of hisdominions to attend that council, "to defend by theScriptures, the consubstantiality of the Son with theFather," against certain Arian opponents. The venerableEugenius, bishop of Carthage, accompanied by nearlyfour hundred bishops, from various provinces of Africa,

and from the Isles of the Mediterranean sea, accordinglyattended the council. These good men, it is probable,expected a fair and candid discussion of the question,but it soon appeared, that they were to be compelled byforce, to submit to the tenets of Arianism. For whenEugenius with his friends, entered the hall ofconsultation, they found Cyrila, their chief antagonist,seated on a kind of a throne, surrounded by armed men,prepared not to listen to, or to confute their arguments,but to offer violence to their persons. Convinced,therefore, that amidst such tumultuous and hostileappearances, they had no chance of obtaining a fairhearing, these champions for the truth withdrew from theassembly; but, not without leaving behind them, asolemn protest and declaration of their faith, in which

they especially refer, among other passages of Scripture,to the verse in question. "That it may appear," say they,"clearer than the light, that the Divinity of the Father, theSon, and the Holy Spirit, is one, see it proved by theEvangelist St. John, who writes thus: There are threewhich bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, andthe Holy Spirit, and these three are one." --- To intimate,

Page 9 of 37remarks



10/37

that they by no means entertained any peculiarsentiments on this head, they added, "This is our faith,fopunded on Evangelical and Apostolical traditions, andon the agreement of all the Catholic churches in the

world; in which, by the grace of Almighty God, we trustand hope to continue, even to the end of this our earthlypilgrimage."

Now it is to be considered, that this was not a thing donein a corner. It was transacted in the metropolis of thekingdom, in the court of the reigning prince, in the face

of antagonists exasperated by controversy, and elated bythe royal favour, and in the presence of the wholecongregated African church. These bishops must havebeen aware, that the sentiments they held on the subjectof the Trinity, and the proofs by which these weresupported, would be strictly examined, and that greatprudence and caution were requisite in their

circumstances, especially, as all the power was in thehands of their angry and watchful adversaries. They wereaware, that they must necessarily insert in theirConfession, some things at which they knew the Arianswould cavil. But is it to be supposed, that they wouldhave exposed themselves in these perilouscircumstances, to immediate and indelible infamy, byappealing in confirmation of their sentiments, to a text

known to be interpolated? Is it within the limits ofprobability, that they would have quoted a passage,concerning which, if we are to credit the adversaries ofthis verse, the Arians, instantly, and upon the spot,could have convicted them of palpable falsehood, bychallenging them to produce their authority? That theydid not do so, if they had it in their power, but were silent

Page 10 of 37remarks



11/37

on the occasion, must be utterly inexplicable, on thesupposition we are now considering. When, therefore,these bishops produced the verse in question, they couldhave no fear, that their adversaries were able to prove it

spurious. They knew either, that it could not be attacked,or that if attacked, they could produce Greek Copies ofthe New Testament, ancient Latin Copies, and ancientfathers, in vindication of its authenticity.[5]

About A.D. 434, Eucherius was consecrated bishop ofLyons, than whom there was not a bishop, in the westernworld, more revered for learning and piety. Speaking of

the Trinity, he says, "we read in the Epistle of St. John,There are Three which bear record in heaven, the Father,the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And there are Three whichbear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the Water, and theBlood." It is nearly fourteen hundred years sinceEucherius gave this testimony to the authenticity of theverse in question; and we know of no manuscript now inexistence, of a date so ancient as that period. Mr. Emlyn,

the most strenuous opponent which this verse ver had,except M. Simon, in his dispute with Mr. Martin, pastorof the French church at Utrecht, in Holland, thusingenuously confesses the embarrassment into whichthis testimony had thrown him. "The passage Mr. Martinbrings out of Eucherius , of which, indeed, I was notaware before, will need more consideration; for though it

only concerns the fifth century, yet it will carry it half acentury higher than the Confession of the Africanbishops, in Victor Vitensis: and, I confess, if the passagebe genuine, it is more to the prupose, than any, yea thanall the other testimonies, before, of after Eucherius, forsome hundreds of years; because, here we find, both theseventh and the eighth verses together, at once to show




12/37

us all the six witnesses; and that there was Father, Word,and Spirit, beside what was said of the Water, Blood, andSpirit; whereas only Father, Word, and Spirit might havebeen the same things mystically interpreted, after the

prevailing custom of that time. So that I cannot deny, butMr. Martin had some ground to say, 'this is decisive', thatis, as to its being acknowledged by Eucherius in the fifthcentury." [6]

About A.D 382, Jerome is said to have translated the OldTestament into Latin, from the Septuagint, and at the

same time corrected, what was called the Italictranslation of the New Testament. This Italic version,thus modelled and amended, is what has long beenknown in the church, by the name of the Vulgate. At theclose of this great work, he added his solemnprotestation, that in revising the New Testament, he hasadhered entirely to the Greek manuscripts. [7]In some

instances, he complained of omissions by unfaithfultranslators; but in no instance, as far as we know, washe ever accused, or having himself vitiated, orinterpolated the sacred text. ---In Jerome's version thisverse has always existed, without any doubt ofauthenticity.

Cyprian was made bishop of Carthage, A.D. 248. In histreatise, De Unitate Ecclesiae, (On The Unity of theChurch) written against Novatus, he uses these words:"Our Lord declares, I and my Father are one; and again itis written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, ---And these three are one." Here there are plainly twoquotations from the Scriptures, the one from John 10:30,




13/37

and the other from 1 John 5:7, the very verse inquestion. Some indeed have pretended, that in this lastquotation, Cyprian refers to a mystical interpretation ofthe witnesses mentioned in the eighth verse, and they

adduce Facundus, a writer of the sixth century, to provethat this was his meaning. We presume, however, it canbe easily demonstrated, that this mystical interpretationwas unknown in the days of Cyprian, and was neverheard of in the church, till many years after his time. Hismeaning is best collected from his own words, which areas plain and decisive, as can be desired. Had heintended, as some have supposed, mystically to explain

the eighth verse, he would not, after having literallyquoted one passage of Scripture, have instantly added,and again it is written, because he would, in that case,have said the thing which was not. It is not written in anypart of the eighth verse, of the Father, the Son, and theHoly Spirit, these three are one. In these particular terms,it is not written in any part of Scripture, save in the verse

in question. The testimony of Fulgentius, to which wehave already alluded, renders all argument on this headsuperfluous. "The blessed Apostle St. John," says he,"testifies, that there are three which bear record inheaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and thesethree are one: which also the most holy martyr Cypriandeclares, in his epistle De Unitate Ecclesiae." It ismanifest, therefore, that the quotation of Cyprian, stated

above, was made, and was meant to be made from thisverse of the Epistle of St. John.

In the close of the second century, lived Tertullian, whowrote a treatise against the heretic Praxeas, in which hehas been considered as plainly referring to this verse.




14/37

"The connexion," he says, "of the Father in the Son, andof the Son in the Comforter, makes an unity of thesethree, one with another, which three are one --- not oneperson; in like manner as it is said, I and my Father are

one, to denote the unity of substance, and not thesingularity of number." Here Tertullian plainly expresseshis opinion and belief, that the Father and Son are one,and in the very same sense. He speaks of the unity of thepersons in the Godhead, as a doctrine as well known, asgenerally believed, as little questioned, and as fullysupported by Scripture, as the unity of the Father andSon, of which the passage he quotes, is as decisive a

proof as any to be found in the New Testament. Thistestimony is the more valuable, not only from itsproximity to the age of the Apostles; but because heassures us, that in those times, their authentic Epistleswere actually read to the churches. [8]By this heunderstood to mean the autographs, the very originals ofthe Apostolical Epistles, which the churches to whomthey were addressed had carefully preserved. That this ishis meaning, is plain; for to these originals, he directlyappeals in the eleventh chapter of his Monogamia, whenspeaking of some erroneous opinions, which were thenattempted to be proved by Scripture, "We knowassuredly," says he, "that it is not so in the originalGreek." [9]--- We find, therefore, that about A.D. 200, notmuch more than an hundred years after this Epistle was

written, Tertullian refers to the verse in question, toprove that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one inessence; a satisfactory evidence, that this doctrine,though asserted by some in our time, to be a dangerousnovelty, was really the acknowledged faith of Christiansin those early times.




15/37

The history of this text, it is manifest, may be thus tracedup to the Apostolical age; and in every step of ourprogress, we perceive an unbroken chain of evidence in

favour of its authenticity. To us, the facts and referenceswhich have been stated on this subject, appear trulyimportant and valuable; and for many of them weacknowledge ourselves indebted to the LETTERS of Mr.

Travis to Edward Gibbon, Esq. On the Authenticity ofthis verse. --- It is now time to examine whether there beany weight in the objections which have been advancedagainst its authenticity.

It is in general objected, that this verse is aninterpolation, though its opponents have never pretendedto determine with certainty, how, or when it wasintroduced into the canon of Scripture. ---S Some assert,that the interpolation occurred in the close of the fifth

century, whilst others maintain, that the Greek and Latinwriters knew nothing of this passage, until the eighthcentury. --- Socinus pretended that Jerome was theinterpolator, or at least, that having found several Copiesof the New Testament, in which this verse was inserted,in a manner so dexterous, that the fraud could could notbe detected, he begun to defend it as genuine, inopposition to all other Greek and Latin Copies. --- M.Simon, on the contrary, denies that it was interpolated by

Jerome; and contends, that it appeared first in the formof a marginal note, as an allegorical interpretation of theeighth verse, and from thence crept into the Text. ---Erasmus, at one time, laboured to prove that the GreekCopies in which it is found, were altered from the Latin




16/37

versions. --- Others have even affirmed, that the idea wasfirst suggested by Thomas Aquinas, who lived as late asthe thirteen century, and was transferred from hiswritings into the sacred text. All these opinions, however,

are merely conjectural, unsupported by any thing likeproof; and some of them are in direct opposition, as wehave seen, to the clearest historical evidence. If weshould suppose the verse to be a forgery, it will beadmitted, we presume, that no one would think of forgingsuch a passage as this till it was needed, or imagined tobe needed, in support of the cause which he hadespoused; and would not his opponents be then naturally

upon the watch to detect and expose the fraud? TheTrinitarians could have no temptation to be guilty of anysuch fraud; because the doctrine of the Trinity appears tothem so firmly established on the authority of Scripture,as not to depend exclusively on the support of any singlepassage, however clear and decisive. Besides, noinstance, we apprehend, can be produced from therecords of history, of their having corrupted, mutilated,or interpolated the text of the Holy Scriptures.

It was, however, far otherwise with their adversaries. Weknow from the testimony of ancient writers, that theEpistle of John was very early corrupted.. Some haveasserted, that the verse in question was expunged by

Artemon, or some one of his disciples, who held thedoctrine of the simple humanity of Christ. If so, it musthave happened as early as the second century. Othershave supposed, that the corruption of this passage tookplace in the fourth century, during the violent contestsoccasioned by the Arian heresy; and that the Arians inthis, as well as in other instances, vitiated the purity of




17/37

the sacred text, in the hope that their Copies might divideat least, if not govern the Christian world. We know, thatduring the reigns of the emperors Constantius, andValens, the Arians were powerfully patronized, and

encouraged by the government. The supremeecclesiastical authority was committed into their hands,which they exercised and abused with great severity inpersecuting their opponents. If, therefore, they employedtheir power in treating the Trinitarians with great cruelty,it cannot be supposed improbable, that the more zealouisamong them, might devise means likewise, of banishingthis obnoxious text from all the Copies of the Scriptures

that came into their hands. It is well know, that theArians are expressly accused by many of the Latinfathers, of having corrupted the Scriptures, of expungingpassages, and of strangely mutilating them, during thetime that they were in power. [10]Socrates, Greekecclesiastical historian, who flourished in the fifthcentury, directly accuses them, of having garbled thisvery Epistle; for the purpose of separating, between theDivinity, and humanity of Christ. Others have supposed,that the omission of the verse in question, ought not tobe ascribed to the bad designs of ancient heretics, sinceit might arise, merely from inattention, or inadvertence,in the transcribers of the Scriptures. In whatever way,however, the event occurred, if we suppose the Text tohave been once corrupted, one single defective copy

might generate all the erroneous manuscripts, whichhave ever yet been produced; and when we consider thecircumstances of those times, the error might remain fora long while unchecked, and uncorrected.

According to Mosheim, learning was in a very low state




18/37

among Christians in those early times. [11]As yet, no lawwas enacted which excluded the ignorant and illiteratefrom ecclesiastical preferments and offices; acircumstance which would of course prevent, for some

time, the discovery of the fraud. Besides, the continuedpersecutions of the Christians in those times, woulddeprive them of opportunities of meeting together, unlessby stealth, and of mutually comparing the manuscriptsin their possession. These impediments, we know, werenot completely removed until the sixth century; for, untilthat time, Arianism was not completely subdued. When,however, the season of quiet and security returned, and

the absence of the verse in question was discovered; howwas the error to be rectified, unless by transcribing theirCopies anew, or by interlining the verse, which howeverwould be impracticable in some manuscripts, or byinserting the omission in the margin? Does not thisafford a very plausible account of the interlineation of theverse, in some manuscripts, and the exhibition of it bymarginal reference in others? And yet, this verycircumstance of interlineation , and marginal reference,has been considered by some, as a strong argumentagainst its authenticity! --- To this we may add, that inthose times, Copies of the Catholic Epistles were not sofrequently to be met with, as Copies of the Gospels, andof Paul's Epistles. Of course, they could not be sofrequently read in the public assemblies, or in the private

meetings of Christians; and for this reason among others,the omission of the verse might remain the longerundiscovered. We have at least good evidence, that inthose churches where the Syriac version was used, thisverse could not be read in their assemblies, because theCatholic Epistles, and the Book of Revelation, thoughafterwards added, were at first wanting in that version.




19/37

On a candid and impartial review, therefore, of allcircumstances, the probability is, that if any change was

introduced into this passage, it must have been byomission, rather than by interpolation. It is far moreprobable, that Anti-Trinitarians would expunge fromtheir Copies, a testimony so decidedly against them, or,that it would be omitted, by the mistake of some carelesstranscriber, than that the Trinitarian would directly forgeand interpolate the verse. If it were rejected as spurious,the Trinitarian would be deprived only of one argument,

with which to attempt the conviction of his opponent; forhis doctrine, he conceives, is abundantly supported bymany other passages; but if it be received, as anauthenticated portion of the Divine Word, all theingenuity and sophistry of its adversaries, will not availto explain away the doctrine which it contains andinculcates. Viewing the matter in the most favourable

light, the passage might at first be omitted throughmistake, without any improper design; but it could notafterwards be added to the sacred text, either at onetime, or at another, without some bad design, of whichmen ought not to be accused, unless on the clearestevidence. --- It may be thought inconsistent with thewatchful care, which we must believe Divine Providenceever exercises over the Scriptures, to suppose, that a

single passage might in any way be erased from thatinspired Book. This, however, without the interposition ofa miraculous and extraordinary providence, isunavoidable. But, if we have evidence, that Copies doexist, or have existed, by means of which the error maybe rectified, this ought to satisfy our minds. Indeed, wecan no more suppose, that Providence, vigilant, active,




20/37

and almighty, would permit any part of a revelation,which was intended to be a complete and perpetual ruleof faith, to be entirely lost, than, that it would suffer thelight of the sun to be extinguished in the heavens.

It is an observation, we apprehend, of considerableimportance, on this part of the subject, that till wedescend to modern times, no objection was everadvanced against the authenticity of the verse inquestion. Jerome complains of the omission of it byunfaithful translators; and declares, that the best Greek

manuscripts of his time contained it; for he appeals, aswe have seen, in behalf of his version, to the authority ofthese manuscripts. Jerome died A.D. 420, and ever sincehis days, the verse has not only maintained its place inthe Scriptures, but has been uniformly quoted andreferred to, by writers of the first eminence for learningand integrity, in every succeeding age. If we should

suppose for a moment, that it is spurious, is it notwonderful that this was never discovered till moderntimes? Is it not wonderful, that during the period of onethousand four hundred years, which intervened betweenthe days of Praxeas and the age of Erasmus, not a singleauthor can be mentioned who ever charged this versewith being an interpolation or forgery. Had it been, in anyof those ages, even suspected to be spurious, would its

adversaries, especially the Arians, have been merelysilent when it was produced against them? Would theynot have exclaimed aloud against those who quoted it?Would they not have filled the Christian world withinvectives against them, for their falsehood and impiety,in thus attempting to corrupt the Word of God? That theArians in those times never pretended to deny the




21/37

authenticity of the verse in question, is a phenomenonwhich should be accounted for by those who contendthat it is spurious!!

Erasmus, who lived in the beginning of the sixteenthcentury, is said to have been the first, who questionedthe authenticity of this verse. He omitted it in the firsttwo Editions of his Greek Testament, but restored it in athird Edition, declaring as his apology for the omission,that he did not find the verse in five Greek manuscripts,which he had consulted; but, that now he had replaced

it, because he found, that it did exist, in a very ancientGreek manuscript in England; and this he had done, thatthere might be no handle for calumniating him. It isknown, that Erasmus was more than secretly inclined toArianism; for he was accused of broaching in hiscommentaries on the New Testament, Arianinterpretations, and Arian tenets. If so, he could not be

an indifferent editor of the fifth Chapter of John. He hadchallenged Lopez Stunica, a learned Spaniard, withwhom he had engaged in controversy respecting this verypassage, to produce a single Greek manuscript, in whichit was found. Is it not then altogether improbable, that hehimself should have afterwards produced one, if he hadnot been irresistibly impelled by the force of truth? Is it tobe imagined, that without being first indubitably satisfied

of its existence, he would have introduced to the notice ofthe world, a manuscript, which not only thwarted hisown peculiar sentiments, but vitiated his two formerEditions of the Greek New Testaments? The suppositionviolates all the laws of prbability, and cannot for onemoment be admitted. That Erasmus was convinced, ofthe authenticity of this verse is manifest, not only from




22/37

his inserting it inhis thrid Edition of the GreekTestament, but also in his Latin Edition, published inconformity with the original Greek. [12]

It is asserted, that the verse is not to be found in anyancient Greek manuscript, and, that we have no certainevidence, that it has ever been in any Greek manuscriptat all. Its spuriousness, it is supposed, may be on thisground clearly demonstrated. --- We know, that theoriginal Copies of the New Testament, which came fromthe hands of the Apostles and Evangelists, have long

since perished; and, that the oldest manuscripts now inexistence, are probably not of higher antiquity than thefifth or sixth century. Even the Alexandrine and VaticanCopies, in both of which this passage is said to bewanting, cannot be traced, it is affirmed, to an earlierdate. [13]

Du Pin gives it as his opinion, that though the antiquityand number of Greek manuscripts be of someimportance in the present question, yet, as there arenone more than eight or nine hundred years old, weshould not solely on their authority, reject a passagewhich is found in Latin manuscripts, of equal or greaterauthority. Agreeably to this opinion, Erasmus considers

it as a good rule in criticism, that the concurrenttestimony of the Latin fathers, is sufficient to establishthe authenticity of a text of Scripture, though it shouldbe wanting in Greek manuscripts. Michaelis, to the samepurpose observes, "that wherever among the testimoniesin favour of a reading, I find the names of ClemensAlexandrinus, or of Origen, they excite in me a high




23/37

degree of respect. Even in cases where no manuscriptcan be produced for the same reading, I am ofteninduced to prefer the authority of an ancient father, tothat of all manuscripts written since his time. If it could

be shown, that the celebrated passage in the First Epistleof St. John, was quoted by a Greek father, of the third orfourth century, I should consider this as much strongerproof of its authenticity, than if it were discovered in ourmost ancient manuscripts." The reason is manifest. Themanuscripts which existed in the third and fourthcentury, were of much higher antiquity, than any whichare now extant. Admitting, therefore, the justness of this

remark of Michaelis, may it not be asked, on whatprinciple can it be fairly shown, that the authority of aLatin father, is not entitled to equal credit with that of aGreek father, on the question of the authenticity of apassage in Scripture? If it should be proved that fewancient manuscripts containing this verse, have beenpreserved to our time; yet if it can be ascertained,whether by the testimony of Latin or Greek fathers, itmakes no difference, that some of them have beenpreserved, or that such manuscripts did exist at a remoteperiod, surely their evidence is not to be rejected.

No dependence whatever could be placed on humantestimony, were it to be admitted, as some have asserted,

that we can produce no credible witness who had seenone Greek manuscript, in which this verse is found. Canwe peruse the account which is given of the labours ofLaurentius Valla, [14]of the Complutensian Editors ofthe Old and New Testaments, [15]of Robert Stephens,the Parisain printer, [16]and of Theodore Beza, [17]without believing, that they found this passage in several




24/37

valuable Greek manuscripts? All those learned andhonourable men could not surely have combined toassert, in the face of the Christian world, that they hadexamined and collated manuscripts which contained this

verse. Where would be our candour and charity, if weshould suppose them capable of such an intentional anddeliberate falsification of the Scriptures, and of doing thisin concert? Would not this be to rob them of their honestand well-earned reputation, for learning and worth, forprobity and honour, and to stigmatize them as cheatsand impostors? --- It is supposed, that those Greekmanuscripts which were used by the first Editors of the

New Testament, have been lost by being neglected, ordestroyed after they had been used for this purpose. Themanuscripts which were used by the ComplutensianEditors, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, it issaid, were never returned to the library of the Vatican,but are either lost, or lie concealed in some of thelibraries in Spain. The manuscripts which were borrowedby Robert Stephens, from the Royal Library at Paris, havenever found their way back thither, or at least, they arenot now, it is said, in that Library. NO certaininformation can be obtained, where the CodexBritannicus, to which Erasmus refers, is deposited. Inthe course of two or three hundred years, it may havepassed into the hands of new proprietors, or may havebeen lost entirely, a circumstance very likely to have

happened, when we consider how much the libraries ofEngland were dispersed and destroyed by the dissolutionof the Monasteries. Out of the many thousands ofmanuscripts which must have existed in former times, itis doubted whether there be an hundred, or an hundredand fifty that can now be produced. Though, however, itcould be proved, that there did not exist at this hour, a




25/37

single Greek manuscript which exhibited the verse inquestion, yet still the testimonies of their formerexistence, which have been produced, shouldoverbalance, it is conceived, in the view of every

unprejudiced mind, any unfavourable presumptionarising from this circumstance. If it be true, that thereare many ancient manuscripts, especially in Italy, whichhave never been collated, but lie still unexplored in thelibraries of that country; here is a field where much yetremains to be done. After all, may it not be safelyaffirmed, that a printed Copy of the New Testament iseven more authentic, than almost any manuscript now

extant? The most ancient of them were written hundredsof years after the Autographs of the Apostles hadperished, and there is reason to believe, that morelearning and deligence have been exerted to render someprinted editions correct, than were employed with respectto all the manuscripts written for a thousand yearsbefore the Reformation.

It has been affirmed, that the disputed verse is not foundin any of the ancient versions of the New Testament. ---Upon a careful examination, however, of this subject, ithas been ascertained, that the versions translated fromthe Greek, which have, and which have not, this disputedverse, are equal in number. The ancient versions made

from the original were only four, the Syria, the Coptic,the Italic or Latin, and the Armenian. The verse wasconfessedly not in the Syriac or Coptic versions, theformer supposed to have been made in the second, thelatter in the fifth century. But the omissions which occurin the Syriac and Coptic versions, are so numerous ascompletely to take away the effect of their omitting the




26/37

verse in question. Many passages of Scripture,universally acknowledged to be genuine, are said to bewanting in these version. [18]Other versions arementioned as omitting it, but they do not seem to have

been translated from the original, but from precedingversions. Some have doybted whether the verse wasfound in the Italic version, which is believed to have beenmade in the beginning of Christianity, and whether it wasin the Armenian version, which wasx made about twelvehundred years ago. The best judgment we can form, fromwhat is urged on both sides, relatives to version, is, thatthe disputed text was in the old Italic version; as appears

from its being quoted by Tertullian, Cyprian, andFulgentius, and from its being referred to byCassiodorius. Indeed, that version was the Bible ofCyprian, and of the age in which he lived, though not asingle manuscript of it is now known to exist in theworld. With respect to Jerome's Vulgate, there is nodoubt, for in the oldest Copies of his reformed version,the passage is said to be found. The Armenian versionlikewise is said to contain it. But the old Italic is of muchgreater consequence. It was much older than the mostancient Greek manuscripts which have been preserved toour time; it served as the foundation of what is termedthe Latin Vulgate; yea, it seems to have been theauthorised version of the Scriptures, in the WesternChurch, from the earliest times.

It is adduced as an objection against the authenticity ofthis verse, that it is not found in the writings of thoseancient Greek fathers, which have been transmitted tous, and in which one might expect to have found it. --- Tothis it has been observed in reply, that where a part only,




27/37

perhaps a very small part of the works of any ancientfather has descended to us, we have no authority toconclude, that a particular passage of Scripture has notbeen quoted at all by him, merely because it is not found

in that part of his works which has been preserved to ourtime. If all the writings of the fathers had survived theruins of our time, it is highly probable, that we shouldhave met with this passage in some part of them; at leasttill the contrary position can be proved, this objectionshould not be considered as having any weight. ---Besides, when we find, that the fathers, in those parts oftheir works which have come down to us, have not cited

other passages confessedly genuine, and as applicable totheir purpose, as the verse in question, it is manifest,that we can adduce on this ground, no conclusiveargument against its authenticity. It has been observed,that Clemens Alexandrinus, and other ancient fathers, inspeaking concerning the Trinity, have not referred to thewords of the baptismal institution, though this wouldhave been evidently most pertinent to their subject; and

yet none, not even the Arians themselves, evercontended, from their silence, that these words were nogenuine part of Scripture. All, therefore, that can be fairlyconclude from their silence, in this instance, is either,that they had reasons for not quoting this verse of whichwe are not informed, or, that it was not found in theirCopies of the New testament, though it might still form a

part of the original Epistle of John, and be found in otherauthentic Copies. When we consider further, thatArianism became for a season the reigning religion,especially in the eats, where it obtained much more thanin the West, may we not in this way be able to account,in some measure, for the silence of the Greek fatherswith respect to this verse? The Western Church never




28/37

became so generally Arian, as the Eastern; of course itmight be expected, that the verse was more likely to befound in the writings of Latin, than of Greek fathers; andaccordingly we perceive that this is the case.

It is not however strictly true, that this passage is notquoted in any of the works of those Greek fathers whichhave survived to our time. Among the works ofAthanasius which are generally allowed to be genuine, isa Synopsisof this Epistle. In his summary of the fifthchapter, he seems plainly to refer to this verse, when he

says, "The Apostle here teaches, the unity of the Son withthe Father." But it would be difficult to find any place inthis chapter where this unity is taught, save in theseventh verse. [19] --- Maximus, who lived in the seventhcentury, about A.D. 645, is generally supposed to havebeen the author of a dialogue in the Greek language, inwhich Athanasius and Arius are the assumed disputants.

In this dialogue, the verse in question is expresslyreferred to. "Is not that lively and saving baptism," sayshe, "whereby we receive remission of sins, administeredin the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?And moreover St. John says, AND THESE THREE AREONE." [20]--- We know too, that this passage wasreceived into the Confession of Faith of the GreekChurch, and is found in one of the Lectionaries of that

Church, entitled Apostolos, (the Apostle) which containsa collection of the Apostolical Epistles in Greek,appointed to be read in the solemnities of their religiousworship. The exact date when this public Confession ofFaith was compiled, is lost in its great antiquity. Withrespect to the antiquity of the Apostolos, we haveevidence, that it was used in the Greek Church in the




29/37

fifth century; for it is mentioned in the life of St. Sabas,who flourished at that time. [21]How long before isunknown. It is worthy of remark, that all this evidence inproof of the authenticity of this verse, occurs within the

limits of the sixth century, and prior of course to the dateof the oldest manuscripts now in existence. --- In short, ithas been denied that this verse was ever quoted in theArian controversy, or ever appealed to as havingunquestionably proceeded from the pen of the Apostle

John. The contrary, however, is manifest to those whowill take the trouble to examine the history of theChurch. Were it necessary to insist on this part of the

subject, we might refer to the testimony of Phaebadius,Jerome, and Marcus Celedensis, in the fourth century; ofEucherius, Vigilius, and Fulgentius, in the fifth and sixthcenturies; and of many Greek and Latin fathers insubsequent ages, who make frequent and direct citationsof the verse in question; and some of whom haveappealed to the Arians themselves, as acknowledging itsauthenticity.

The argument respecting the authenticity of this passage,arising from its connexion with preceding andsubsequent context, has been urged on both sides of thequestion. Those who are for rejecting it as interpolated,maintain, that the retention of it injures the sense of the

whole passage; that no connexion can be traced betweenthe verse and what precedes it; that the context would bebetter connected if it were entirely omitted; and thatthough omitted, we can perceive no chasm in themeaning. These, on the other hand, who think that theverse ought to be retained, conceive, that without it themeaning is quite is quite maimed and imperfect. In




30/37

representing the foundation of the Christian Faith, andthe various testimonies which are given to the perfectionand doctrine of Jesus Christ, it is deemed highly naturaland proper, for the Apostle to refer to the testimony of

witnesses in heaven, as well as of witnesses on earth.Supposing the verse in question to be omitted, the energyand consistency of the Apostle's argument are lost, inreferring once and again, to the water, and the blood, asthe external symbols of sanctification, and justification,by the grace and atoning blood of the Son of God, and asagreeing in one with the testimony of the Spirit: unlesswe suppose hi m likely to take notice of the testimony of

the Father from heaven, when he said concerning Jesus,This is my Beloved Son; and of the testimony of ChristHimself, confirmed by His miracles and resurrection, andby the fulfilment of His promise, in pouring the HolySpirit upon His disciples. --- Besides it is observable, thatin the ninth verse of the chapter, the witness of God, thehighest evidence that can be given to the truth of anydeclaration, is supposed to have been adduced in thepreceding context. "If we receive," says the Apostle, "thewitness of men, the witness of God is greater." But, if theseventh verse be rejected the witness of God is nowherementioned in the passage, and where, in that case, arethe premises from which the Apostle draws hisconclusion? He must be accounted, as some have termedthe Apostle Paul, an inconclusive reasoner, the chain of

his reasoning will be broken, and the meaning anddesign of the whole passage will become lame, perplexed,

yea unintelligible.

In reviewing, therefore, what has been stated respectingthe authenticity of this verse, we are constrained to infer,




31/37

that it must have proceeded from the pen of the ApostleJohn, and, by consequence it ought to be received as aninspired portion of the Holy Scriptures. We are well awarethat we shall be accused by some as injudicious,

uncandid, undiscerning, as of easy faith, and of obtuseunderstanding. Perhaps our arguments shall beconsidered, as exhibiting a lamentable contrast, to theseof our opponents; and perhaps there are those who willblush for our incorrigible obstinacy, in contending tostrenuously for the retension of a passage, which theyudge to be indisputably spurious. This, however, wecannot help. "With me," says the Apostle Paul, "it is a

very small thing that I should be judged --- of man'sudgment; but he that judgeth me is the Lord. [ 1 Cor.4:3] In allusion to the words of a learned preacher, weshall conclude by observing, that we have said thusmuch in vindication of this text, because it appears to us,in common with some texts of Scripture, and other partsof Christian history, to have been too easily given up.Some, who call themselves Christians, care not howmuch they concede. Others, who really are so, confidentof their strength, rather than contend for what might inany shape be questioned, have yielded the matter indebate. The intention of these last cannot be blamed,their judgment and their prudence perhaps may. Wehave crafty and incroaching enemies to deal with.Concessions, therefore, are dangerous, and at any rate

ought never to be made at the expence of truth. Truth isa sacred and inviolable palladium, and any part of thatevidence which God has placed to guard and secure it,we are not at liberty to give up or not, as we please.

Never can we be too deeply impressed with the solemn




32/37

and important meaning of that awful denunciation withwhich the Canon of Scripture is closed. If any man shalladd unto these things, God shall add unto him the plaguesthat are written in this Book: And if any man shall take

away from the words of this prophecy, God shall takeaway his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the HolyCity, and from the things which are written in thisBook." [Revelations 22:18 -19]

Finis

----------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

[1] M. Simon, Hist. Des Versions.

[2] He was born in or about A.D. 1538, and died in A.D 1607. Du Pin confirms this account of Baronius,v. vi. P. 122. Travis p. 24.

[3] It cannot be doubted, that Fulgentius read this verse in the Greek manuscripts, as well as in his ownBible; because he was much practised, and eminently skilled in the Greek language. Du Pin, vol. Iv, p. 13

- 14.

[4] "Et hi tres unum sunt --- Unum; non tamen unus est, quia non est in his una persona," are the wordsof the original. --- Bibli., Max., Patrum. Vol. Viii., p. 775. Travis. P. 19.

[5] It is remarkable, that these African bishops, in this Confession of their faith, style the disbelief of a




33/37

trinity of persons in the Godhead, "quandam novitatem," "A New Opinion"; and that this description wasgiven in A.D. 484. Travis. Appendix. P. 9.

Victor Vitensis, who was then an African bishop, and present at this council, has left us a circumstantialaccount of the whole transaction. Vid., Biblioth., Max., Patrum, vol., viii., p. 686. Grynaei Coll. Patr.Orthod., p. 799. Edit. Basil. A.D. 1569. --- Travis., p. 25. Victor, it is true, has been represented as aweak and credulous man, as so fond of the marvellous, that he has related in his writings miracles not to

be credited. If, however, we should even suppose him so credulous, as to relate a false miracle, does itollow, that is could not be a competent witness, respecting a matter of fact, which occurred in his ownresence, or, that he must necessarily be so wicked, as to be capable of fabricating a public record?

Would it not be strange, that so many bishops are to be considered as unworthy of credit, in quoting atext of Scripture, merely, because the man who inserts their confession in his history, details somewonderful things, which he knew not how to believe? If we discredit on this ground the testimony ofVictor, would not the same principle affect the credibility of other ancient writers, whose veracity hashitherto remained unquestioned?

[6] Emlyn's Answer to Martin's Dissert., printed in Emlyn's Tracts, London Edition, A.D. 1731. V. 2d., p.85.

[7] His words are, Novum Testamentum fidei Graecae reddidi. --- Catal. Eccles. Scriptor., ad finem.Hieromyni Opera, per Erasmus, vol. 1. Edition Parisiis. A.D. 1546. --- Travis. P. 20.

In his twenty-eight epistle, (to Lucinus) Jerome again makes the same declaration. SeptuagintaInterpretum editionem et te habere non dubito, et ante annos plurimos diligentissime emendatam,

studiosis traditi: Novum Graecae reddidi autoritate. Edit: Erasmi, Paris: A.D. 1546, vol, i., p. 71.Travis., p. 48.

[8] --- Apud qua ipsae authenticae literare eorum recitantur. Tertull., de prescript., adver. Haereticos., p.211

[9] Sciamus plane non sic esse in authentico Graeco. ---Tertullian. Monog., cap. II.

[10] This was particularly objected against them by Hilary of Poitiers, Hilary the deacon, Ambrose, andSalvianus.

[11] Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. Vol. 1., p. 180. 4to Edition.




34/37

[12] In A.D. 1574, the University of Louvain published and edition of the New Testament. The disputewhich had arisen in the beginning of that century between Erasmus and his opponents respecting thisverse, required an attention from these divines, suitable to the high reputation which their University thenenjoyed. Their judgment is given in the following words:--- "The reading of this text is supported by verymany Latin Copies; and also by two Greek Copies produced by Erasmus, one in England, the other in

Spain. We have ourselves seen several others like these. This verse is also found in all Stephen's MSS.,save that the words, in heaven, are wanting in seven of them." In the same century, Amelotte published aFrench version of the New Testament with his annotations. In his notes on this passager, he says:"Erasmus has affirmed this verse to be wanting in a Greek Ms., of the Vatican library; but I have myselfseen it in the most ancient Ms., of that library." Travis, p. 14 - 15.

[13] If the verse in question be to be wanting in the Alexandrine manuscript, may not this be accountedor on the ground, that Alexandria, the place where this manuscript is supposed to have been written, was

the place whence the Arian heresy first began to diffuse its baneful influence? Has this circumstance been

duly considered as affording a probable reason for the deficiency? --- Other instances may be producedin which manuscripts are found to be deficient. The last chapter of Mark's Gospel, for instance, is said tohave been wanting in almost all the Greek Copies. Euthymius, in his comment on the eighth verse of thesixteenth chapter of Mark, informs us, that some have considered his Gospel as terminating at that place;and that what follows, is a later addition. But M. Simon observes, "that we ought not to question theauthenticity of that chapter , which is as ancient as the other parts of the Gospel of that Evangelist." ---The case is the same with respect to the eight chapter of John's Gospel, from the first to the eleventhverse, containing the history of the woman taken in adultery. It is not to be found in many Greek Copiesof the Gospel of John; nor in some version of the Eastern church. It is wanting, as well as the verse inquestion, in the Alexandrine manuscript, and in the Syriac version; and yet has always beenacknowledged as an authentic portion of sacred Scripture.

[14] Laurentius Valla, an Italian nobleman, of high acquirements in learning, and of great taste forsacred literature, is said to have been the first person who engaged in the design of comparing the Greektext of the New Testament with the Vulgar Latin version. He lived in the former part of the fifteenthcentury, nearly a century before the time of Erasmus. By diligent and persevering enquiries, he obtainedossession of seven Greek manuscripts; a number very considerable, if we reflect, that through the

universal ignorance of those ages, the Greek language was then become almost a dead letter; and itsmanuscripts were perishing with it. With the help of these manuscripts, he composed a work entitledCollations of the New Testament, which afterwards in its unpublished state, passed into the hands ofErasmus. This circumstance is the more observable, because it took place, we know, ten or twelve years

before Erasmus published his two Greek Testaments, which left out the verse in question. In thiscommentary, Laurentius Valla carefully notices the most minute differences between the Greek text andLatin version. When he comes to the disputed verse, which was then read in the Vulgate as it is at his day,he says nothing of any difference between that and his Greek manuscript, save only, that whereas theVulgate concluded the eighth verse, the same as the seventh, Et hi tres unum sunt , and these three areone, he intimates, that according to the Greek Copies, that clause was thus expressed, kai oi treis eis toen eisi, --- Et hi tres unum sunt; and these three agree in one. But why notice this comparatively minutecircumstance, and overlook the more important one, if the verse in question was then considered asinterpolated, or was wanting in his Copy? He does not say how many of his manuscripts contained thisirst epistle o John. He might have seven Copies o the Gospels, and but one or two perhaps, o the




35/37

Catholic Epistles. But it must have been contained at least in one of them; otherwise he forfeits thatcharacter for judgment and fidelity, for which he has been so long celebrated in the learned world.

[15] The Complutensian Edition of the Old and New Testament was printed in Spain, at Complutum, or(Alcala des Henares) under the patronage of Cardinal Ximenes, A.D. 1514; but it was not published until

several years afterwards. It was the result of the labours of forty-two learned men, who were selected bythe Cardinal for that purpose, were fifteen years engaged in the work, and were furnished with all theGreek manuscripts and other aids which his great political or personal influence could procure. Thecopy, we are informed, which they made their text, was a very ancient manuscript, sent to them from theVatican library, by Pope Leo X., with orders not in the least to depart from it. Accordingly, excepting aew alterations, they faithfully transcribed the whole; namely, the Septuagint version of the Old

Testament, and the Greek New Testament, to the Revelation, which is wanting in the Vatican copy. Thistranscript they compared with a number of manuscripts, some of them furnished by the Pope, and othersby the Cardinal himself; particularly a very ancient manuscript of the Epistles, sent to Ximenes fromRhodes; and at the same time, they marked the readings of all these manuscripts which were different

rom the Vatican copy. With respect to the verse in question, Erasmus, who was contemporary with these

men, affirms, that he believes they followed the Vatican copy in the insertion of this text in their edition."Exemplar ex eadem," he says, "ni fallor Bibliotheca (Sc. Vaticana) petitum secuti sunt Hispani. "Erasmus in., loc. Dr. Macknight's Gen. Pref., to his translation and comment., on the Epistle.

[16] Robert Stephens, a celebrated printer at Paris, is acknowledged to have been a man of extensivelearning and indefatigable diligence; an assiduous investigator of truth, and an accurate and judiciouscritic. In the preface to his first edition of the Greek Testament, published in the year 1546, he tells us,that he had procured from the Royal Library at Paris, some manuscripts of admirable antiquity; thatrom them he had formed his text, in such a manner as not to have admitted a letter which was not

supported by the best manuscripts; that, among other helps, he had used the Complutensian Bible, whose

readings he found to agree wonderfully with the king's manuscripts; in short, that having collated the textwith king's manuscripts, and with the Complutensian Bible, he had admitted those readings only whichwere supported by the greatest number of the best Copies. In his third edition of the Greek Testament,ublished in the year 1550, he refers to seven out of fifteen or sixteen manuscripts in his possession, as

containing this verse, with the exception of the words, en to ourano, in heaven. --- It is observable, that tothis edition he has annexed a list of errata, or typographical errors, in which he has been so assiduously --- so correct, as to point out to the reader one comma forgotten, and another misplaced; but there is noreference in the errata to the verse in question. --- Travis, p. 9. --- Dr. Macknight's Gen. Preface.

[17] Theodore Beza, whose erudition and piety did honour to the age in which he lived, published atGeneva an edition of the New Testament with annotations, A.D. 1551. Morinus tells us, that to assist himin the prosecution of this work, Beza borrowed from Robert Stephens the sixteen manuscripts in hisossession. In his dedication to Queen Elizabeth, he himself says, that whilst he was employed in this

work, Henry Stephens, Robert's son, gave him a copy of his father's noble edition published in 1550, onwhich were marked the readings of about twenty-five manuscripts, and of almost all the printed copies. Inhis notes on the verse in question, he says, "This verse is found in the English manuscript, in theComplutensian Edition, and in some ancient manuscripts of Stephens." And he further uses thisremarkable expression: I am entirely satisfied that we ought to retain this verse. If, however, the versewas not to be ound in any o the manuscripts o Stephens, nothing can excuse Beza rom being guilty o




36/37

uttering an intentional and deliberate falsehood respecting a matter of fact. It has been surmised that hemight be mistaken; but how, in this case, could we ascertain the truth of any matter that depends ontestimony, were we at liberty to assume, that they who assert it, may be mistaken, whilst we can produceno evidence that they actually were mistaken? His evidence cannot be evaded, by saying that he mightmistake unintentionally; for he particularly notices certain differences in these ancient manuscripts fromeach other; that in some, the words Father, Word, and Spirit, were written without their articles; and,that in others, the epithet Holy, was joined to Spirit. All this affords conclusive evidence, that Beza had

given the matter a full consideration, and that no room is left for supposing him misled by anymisapprehension or mistake.

[18] The following are specified as instances of these omissions. In John's Gospel, Chapter 14:3, andChapter 16:4. --- In the Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 8:37; 15:34; and 28:29. --- In the First Epistle ofPeter, Chapter 4:14. --- These are said to be examples which have escaped even the critical eye of Beza.His annotations point out others almost innumerable. Martin's Dissertation, part 2, c. 1.

[19] Du Pin, Art. Athanasius, London Edition, vol. 8, p. 34. --- Hody ( De Bibl. Text. Originalibus, p.309.) says of the author of this Synopsis. --- "Qui, si non fuerit Athanasius, vetustissimus tamen fuit."

[20] Athanasii Opera, vol. 1., p. 126. Edit. Col. Agr,

[21] Cave, Hist., Lit.

Copyright 2001

All Rights Reserved

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored ina retrieval system, in any forms or by any means,

electronic [floppy disk, zip disk, &c.], mechanical,

photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior

permission of the Editor and Publisher.




37/37

To contact the Editor: [email protected]

To contact the Publisher: [email protected]

"For there are Three that bear record in

heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy

Spirit; and these Three are one."

I John v. 7.


Authenticity of Johannine Comma

Documents

Transcript of Authenticity of Johannine Comma