Textus Receptus - User contributions [en]

Article: Bible Babel in Proverbs by Will Kinney

2011-01-20T11:07:01Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: More examples of Bible Babel in Proverbs More Bible Babel in the Book of Proverbs Proverbs 13:7 "There is that MAKETH HIMSELF RICH, yet hath nothing: there is that MAKETH HIMSELF P...

More examples of Bible Babel in Proverbs

More Bible Babel in the Book of Proverbs

Proverbs 13:7 "There is that MAKETH HIMSELF RICH, yet hath nothing: there is that MAKETH HIMSELF POOR, yet hath great riches."

So read the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, Young's, KJV 21, and the NKJV. The Spanish Reina Valera also reads this way - "Hay quienes se hacen ricos, y no tienen nada: Y hay quienes se hacen pobres, y tienen muchas riquezas."

This Proverb is a perfect tie in to Proverbs 11:24 which says: "There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty."

The idea in the New Testament is found in the example of Christ who "though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, they ye through his poverty might be rich." 2 Cor. 8:9.

As Adam Clarke expresses it - "There is that maketh himself poor, yet hath great riches. "As poor," said St. Paul, "yet making many rich; as having nothing, yet possessing all things." The former is the rich poor man; the latter is the poor rich man."

However versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman and NIV read: "One man PRETENDS TO BE rich, yet has nothing; another PRETENDS TO BE poor, yet has great wealth." Regardless of how one might think the Hebrew text should be translated, you have to admit there is a big difference in the meaning here.

Proverbs 13:13 - KJB - "Whoso despiseth THE WORD SHALL BE DESTROYED: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded."

So read the Geneva Bible, Bishops' bible, RV, ASV, Youngs, the NKJV, RSV, NRSV, and the 2001 ESV - "Whoever despises THE WORD BRINGS DESTRUCTION ON HIMSELF, but he who reveres the commandment will be rewarded."

However in the NASB we read: - "The one who despises the word WILL BE IN DEBT TO IT, But the one who fears the commandment will be rewarded."

NIV - "He who scorns INSTRUCTION WILL PAY FOR IT, but he who respects a command is rewarded."

Proverbs 13:23 KJB - "Much food is in THE TILLAGE of the poor: but there is that is destroyed for want of judgment."

The word "tillage" is not at all archaic and it means plowed land that is cultivated for the growing of crops. It is land that produces food.

So read translations like the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, the 1917 and 1936 Jewish translations, Douay, Darby, Young, and the KJV 21st Century.

John Gill comments: Much food is in the tillage of the poor…?The poor are generally employed in tilling land; from whose labours in ploughing and sowing much food arises to men, bread to the eater, and seed to the sower: or a poor farmer, that has but a small farm, a few acres of land, to till; yet through his diligence and industry, with the blessing of God upon it, he gets a comfortable livelihood for himself and family; much food, or a sufficiency of it for the present year, and seed to sow land again the following year; but there is that is destroyed for want of judgment."

The Judaica Press Tanach has: "An abundance of food is the result of the plowing of the poor, and some perish because of lack of propriety."

Even the NIV, NRSV are OK here in the first part with: "A poor man's field may produce abundant food, but injustice sweeps it away." The Holman is OK too, reading: "The field of the poor yields abundant food".

The Message is unrecognizable with: "Banks foreclose on the farms of the poor, or else the poor lose their shirts to crooked lawyers."

However the NKJV, along with the NASB, ESV reads: "Much food is in THE FALLOW GROUND of the poor, And for lack of justice there is waste."

You might ask, What is wrong with this? Well, "fallow ground" is a field that has been plowed and then LEFT UNSEEDED. NOTHING is planted and, of course, nothing in the way of food grows there. It is the opposite of "tillage", in which we DO have food.

The TNIV has now changed even the meaning in the previous NIV and now reads: "An UNPLOWED FIELD produces food for the poor, but injustice sweeps it away."

Hebrew words have different meanings in different contexts, and it is obvious that not all "scholars" see this verse in the same way. In any case, it should be obvious that the NKJV does not carry the same meaning as found in the KJB and many others.

Proverbs 14:32 "The wicked is driven away in his wickedness: but the righteous hath HOPE IN HIS DEATH."

Implied in this verse is the hope the righteous have in the resurrection from the dead. This is also the reading of the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish Reina Valera and the Douay version.

The NKJV, RSV, NASB, and NIV change it a bit with: "but the righteous has A REFUGE in his death", BUT the RSV and the NRSV say: "but the righteous FINDS REFUGE IN HIS INTEGRITY." Then in a footnote, they tell us that the reading of "in his integrity" comes from the Greek and Syriac, but that the Hebrew texts read "in his death".

Proverbs 14:33 "Wisdom resteth in the heart of him that hath understanding: but THAT WHICH IS IN THE MIDST OF FOOLS IS MADE KNOWN."

This is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, New Life Bible, the Amplified Bible, and Darby. If wisdom is in the heart of him that understands, then the contrasting idea is that foolishness is made known from fools.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown simply comment: "fools blazon their folly", while John Gill notes: "but that which is in the midst of fools is made known ..."instead of getting the character of wise and prudent men, obtain that of fools; ...without any manner of judgment or discretion, or regard to persons, places, and seasons, vainly thrust out their knowledge, and so proclaim their folly."

However many modern versions give conflicting and opposite meanings to this verse. The RSV and the NRSV say: "Wisdom abides in the mind of a man of understanding, but IT IS NOT KNOWN in the heart of fools."

Even the badly paraphrased The Message of 2002 says: "Lady Wisdom is at home in an understanding heart-- fools never even get to say hello."

But wait! The NASB, NIV, ESV and Holman read: "Wisdom rests in the heart of one who has understanding, But in the hearts of fools IT IS MADE KNOWN." This reading teaches that wisdom IS made known to the foolish - The exact opposite! Notice that the NASB completely changed from the old ASV, and the ESV changed from the previous RSV.

Proverbs 17:7 "EXCELLENT SPEECH becometh not a fool: much less do lying lips a prince."

The meaning is obvious. It is completely out of place and incongruous that a fool would use "excellent speech", as it would be for a prince to lie. "Excellent speech" or its equivalent is the reading of the KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, RSV, Darby, and the Spanish Reina Valera.

However the NIV says: "ARROGANT LIPS are unsuited to a fool - how much worse lying lips to a ruler! " Is it not rather true that "Arrogant lips" is exactly what we would expect from a fool?

The Holman Standard tells us: "EXCESSIVE SPEECH is not appropriate on a fool's lips; how much worse are lies for a ruler." Again, "excessive speech" is exactly what we expect from a fool, but not "excellent speech" as the KJB and many others have it.

Proverbs 18:1 King James Bible - "Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh and intermeddleth with all wisdom. "

This is the same reading as found in Webster's 1833, the KJV 21st Century Version and the Third Millenium Bible.

Bishops' Bible 1568 - "Who so hath an earnest desire [to wysdome] he will sequester him selfe to seeke it, and occupie him selfe in all stedfastnesse & sounde doctrine."

The Geneva Bible 1599 - "For the desire thereof hee will separate himselfe to seeke it, and occupie himselfe in all wisdome."

Young's translation - "For an object of desire he who is separated doth seek, With all wisdom he intermeddleth."

John Gill recognizes various understandings of the meaning of this verse. Regarding the positive and good sense as found in the King James Bible, Bishops', Geneva, Third Millenium Bible and a few others, He says: "... to be understood in a good sense, of one that has a real and hearty desire after sound wisdom and knowledge, and seeks in the use of all proper means to attain it; and in order to which he separates himself from the world and the business of it, and retires to his study, and gives up himself to reading, meditation, and prayer; or goes abroad in search of it, as Aben Ezra."

Adam Clarke sides with the King James reading, saying: "The Hebrew: lethaavah yebakkesh niphrad, bechol tushiyah yithgalla. The nearest translation to the words is perhaps the following: "He who is separated shall seek the desired thing, (i.e., the object of his desire,) and shall intermeddle (mingle himself) with all realities or all essential knowledge." He finds that he can make little progress in the investigation of Divine and natural things, if he have much to do with secular or trifling matters: he therefore separates himself as well from unprofitable pursuits as from frivolous company, and then enters into the spirit of his pursuit; is not satisfied with superficial observances, but examines the substance and essence, as far as possible, of those things which have been the objects of his desire. This appears to me the best meaning: the reader may judge for himself. "

Matthew Henry says regarding the King James reading: "Our translation seems to take it as an excitement to diligence in the pursuit of wisdom. If we would get knowledge or grace, we must desire it, as that which we need and which will be of great advantage to us, 1 Corinthians 12:31. We must separate ourselves from all those things which would divert us from or retard us in the pursuit, retire out of the noise of this world's vanities, and then seek and intermeddle with all the means and instructions of wisdom, be willing to take pains and try all the methods of improving ourselves, be acquainted with a variety of opinions, that we may prove all things and hold fast that which is good."

However, the NKJV completely changes the meaning as found in the King James Bible. The NKJV reads much like the RSV, NASB, and NIV. It says: "A man who isolates himself seeks his own desire; He rages against all wise judgment."

The NIV has: "An unfriendly man pursues selfish ends; he defies all sound judgment. "

18:24 "A man that hath friends MUST SHEW HIMSELF FRIENDLY: and there is a friend that sticketh closer than a brother."

Agreeing with the King James Bible word for word or in sense are Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Barker's Bible 1615, the Italian Diodati, Young's, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, The New Life Version 1995, NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the Modern Greek Bible.

The Spanish reads: "El hombre que tiene amigos ha de mostrarse amigo; Y amigo hay más unido que un hermano." (The man who has friends must show himself friendly). Likewise the 1991 New Italian Diodati reads like the KJB with: "L'uomo che ha molti amici deve pure mostrarsi amico"

John Gill comments: A man that hath friends must show himself friendly…"Friendship ought to be mutual and reciprocal, as between David and Jonathan; a man that receives friendship ought to return it, or otherwise he is guilty of great ingratitude."

Adam Clarke writes: A man that hath friends must show himself friendly "Love begets love; and love requires love as its recompense. If a man do not maintain a friendly carriage, he cannot expect to retain his friends. Friendship is a good plant; but it requires cultivation to make it grow."

Here the NKJV reads as does the KJB but it has a footnote that supports the ridiculous reading of the NIV, NASB and Darby. The NIV and NASB say "A man of many companions MAY COME TO RUIN, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother. " (NIV). The NKJV, being in partnership to destroy faith in the words of God, includes a footnote "Or MAY COME TO RUIN". You see, some of the same "scholars" who worked on the NIV also participated in the NKJV.

The 2005 TNIV doesn't even agree with the previous NIV. It now reads: "One who has UNRELIABLE FRIENDS SOON comes to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

The Holman Standard 2003 is very similar with: "A man with many friends may be harmed."

The Message has: "FRIENDS COME AND GO, but a true friend sticks by you like family."

The Judaica Press Tanach 2001 - "A MAN ACQUIRES FRIENDS WITH WHOM TO ASSOCIATE, and there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

Douay-Rheims version reads: "A MAN AMIABLE IN SOCIETY, shall be more friendly than a brother."

Jerusalem Bible 1968 - "There are friends who lead one to ruin, others are closer than a brother.

RSV 1952 - "THERE ARE FRIENDS WHO PRETEND TO BE FRIENDS, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

NRSV 1989 - "Some friends play at friendship but a true friend sticks closer than one's nearest kin."

ESV 2001 - "A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

Good News Translation 1992 - "SOME FRIENDSHIPS DO NOT LAST, but some friends are more loyal than brothers."

Easy to Read Version 2001 - "SOME FRIENDS ARE FUN TO BE WITH. But a close friend can be even better than a brother."

Lamsa's 1936 translation - "THERE ARE FRIENDS WHO ARE MERELY FRIENDS; and there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."

The so called Greek Septuagint shows its usual confusion by omitting Proverbs 18:23 and 24, and also omitting 19:1, 2 and 3. By the way, instead of Proverbs 18:22 reading: "Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth the favor of the LORD." (KJB and an host of others), the LXX actually says: "He that PUTS AWAY A GOOD WIFE PUTS AWAY A GOOD THING, AND HE THAT KEEPS AN ADULTERESS IS FOOLISH AND UNGODLY." Yeah..., that's pretty close, isn't it?

New English Bible 1970 - "SOME COMPANIONS ARE GOOD ONLY FOR IDLE TALK, but a friend may stick closer than a brother."

As our scholarly friend James White writes: "By comparing various Bible versions we get a better idea of what God said."

Proverbs 19:18 - "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and LET NOT THY SOUL SPARE FOR HIS CRYING."

The NKJV has: "DO NOT SET YOUR HEART ON HIS DESTRUCTION." The NASB says: "do not desire his death", while the NIV says: "do not be a willing party to his death."

The New KJV then footnotes "Literally to put to death. A Hebrew tradition reads "his crying".

However there is ample reason for meaning found in the King James Bible "and let not thy soul spare for his crying". Hebrew words often have a multitude of radically different meanings according to the context. For instance, the word "soul" (which by the way is omitted in the NASB, NIV). This Hebrew word is Nephesh # 5315, and versions like the NASB, NIV have variously rendered this same word as "soul, life, death, body, corpse, throat, appetite, number, neck, and thirst." Obviously there is a wide range of different meanings to these English words.

The word rendered as "crying" in the King James Bible and other translations is normally translated as "to die, to kill, or a dead body", but if the Hebrew phrase were literally translated it could come out something like "let not your soul spare to kill him" and this would be the opposite of what is intended in the Proverb.

The ONLY time the King James Bible refers to the crying of tears in the Hebrew Old Testament is here in this proverb. All other times the word "to cry, or to cry out" means to call out or to shout; not to shed tears.

I think the King James and other Bible translators saw this passage as being figurative rather than literal, as when we say the kid got spanked and "cried bloodly murder". Other commentators and translators agree with this view.

Agreeing with the reading of "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for HIS CRYING" are the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, translation, the Bishops' Bible, Webster's 1833, the New Life Version, the KJV 21st Century Version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The Bishops' Bible 1568 - "Chasten thy sonne whyle there is hope: and let not thy soule spare for his crying."

Geneva Bible 1599 - "Chasten thy sonne while there is hope, and let not thy soule spare for his murmuring."

The Holy Scriptures 1936 "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying."

New Life Version 1969 "Punish your son if he needs it while there is hope, and do not worry about his crying."

John Gill comments: "and let not thy soul spare for his crying...the noise he makes, the tears he sheds, the entreaties he uses to keep off the rod; let not a foolish pity and tenderness prevail to lay it aside on that account the consequence of which may be bad to parent and child;....Gersom interprets the word of "crying", as we do."

Likewise Adam Clarke agrees with the King James reading. He says: " Let not thy soul spare for his crying. This is a hard precept for a parent. Nothing affects the heart of a parent so much as a child's cries and tears. But it is better that the child may be caused to cry, when the correction may be healthful to his soul, than that the parent should cry afterwards, when the child is grown to man's estate, and his evil habits are sealed for life."

Even Daniel Wallace notes: "The traditional rendering was “and let not your soul spare for his crying.” This involved a different reading than “causing his death” (J. H. Greenstone, Proverbs, 206-7).

Proverbs 21:4 "the PLOWING of the wicked is sin"

In the King James Bible we read: "An high look, and a proud heart, AND THE PLOWING of the wicked is sin."

The saying "the plowing of the wicked is sin", does not mean that the simple act of plowing a field is in itself sinful, but rather, as John Gill notes: "to plough; it only denotes that all the civil actions of a wicked man, one being put for all, are attended with sin; he sins in all he does."

John Wesley likewise comments: "The plowing - Even their civil or natural actions, which in themselves are lawful, are made sinful as they are managed by ungodly men, without any regard to the glory of God, which ought to be the end of all our actions."

"The PLOWING of the wicked is sin" is the reading found in the Bishops' Bible 1568, the King James Bible, Webster's 1833, Green's Modern KJV 1998, the NKJV 1982, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation reads: "the TILLAGE of the wicked is sin", as do Young's, and the Catholic New American Bible (St. Joseph) 1970.

However such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, AV, ASV, ESV, the Catholic Douay 1950, and the Holman Standard all read something like: "Haughty eyes and a proud heart, the LAMP of the wicked are sin." (NIV).

The New English Bible of 1970 simply omits the word altogether saying: "Haughty looks and a proud heart - these mark a wicked man."

The 2002 The Message also omits the Hebrew word, and is similar with: "Arrogance and pride--distinguishing marks in the wicked--are just plain sin."

The Contemporary English Version 1995 has: "Evil people are proud and arrogant, but sin is the only crop they produce."

J.P. Green also seems to be confused, or at least wishy-washy. In his interlinear translation of 1980 he goes with "LAMP", but in his 1998 Modern KJV translation he goes back to "THE PLOWING of the wicked is sin."

Surprisingly, even Daniel Wallace's NET bible version leans toward the reading found in the King James Bible. His NET version says: " Haughty eyes and a proud heart— THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCT of the wicked is sin."

Wallace then has some footnotes of interest when he notes: " Heb “the tillage [rn], nir] of the wicked is sin.” ... Some (NASB, NIV, NRSV) have followed the LXX and Tg. Prov 21:4 to read “lamp” instead (rn}, ner)"

The Holman Standard also changes the text and reads: "The LAMP that guides the wicked - haughty eyes and an arrogant heart- is sin." Then the Holmand footnotes: "Some Hebrew manuscripts and ancient versions read 'tillage'." The 2001 ESV also reads "lamp" in their text, but then footnote "or plowing".

Proverbs 22:20-21 "Have not I written to thee EXCELLENT THINGS in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of THE WORDS OF TRUTH; that thou mightest answer THE WORDS OF TRUTH to them that send unto thee."

"Have not I written unto thee EXCELLENT THINGS" is the reading found in the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the NKJV 1982, the NASB 1972-1995, Darby 1870, the Amplified bible 1987, Green's MKJV 1998, Third Millenium Bible, the 1997 Biblia de las Américas, and the Italian Diodati - “cose eccellenti”, the Portuguese Almeida - “excelentes coisas “, and even the 2000 Portuguese NIV called O Livro, put out by the International Bible Society - “coisas excelentes.”

Such versions as the Geneva bible, the Spanish Reina Valera and Youngs render this as: Have not I written to thee THREE THINGS...?. The Catholic versions are all over the board. The Douay says "THREE MANNER OF WAYSt"; while the St. Joseph New American Bible has "Have not I written to you "The Thirty"?, and the Jerusalem Bible has "to you the THIRTY CHAPTERS?"

Lamsa’s 1936 version differs from them all saying: “Behold, THIS IS THE THIRD TIME that I have written them to you”, but it does have “the words of truth” twice, as does the KJB and the Hebrew texts.

On the other hand, the RSV, NIV, ESV, and Holman Standard tell us: "Have I not written to you THIRTY SAYINGS...?".

The second part of these two verses is all confused and messed up in some of the modern versions as well. The King James Bible as well as the Hebrew text itself repeats the same phrase “the words of truth”, that thou mightest answer “the words of truth” to them that send unto thee.”

Agreeing with the KJB in translating both phrases as “the words of truth” are the Geneva Bible, the Jewish translations of Jewish Publication Society 1917, the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, the Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach, the RV, ASV, Darby, the NKJV 1982, Green’s literal 2000, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 and the 1996 Ostervald - “paroles de vérité”, Italian Diodati -”palavras de verdade”, the Portuguese Almeida -”palavras de verdade”, and the Spanish Reina Valera 1960, 1995 - “las palabras de verdad”.

However instead of the definite and authoritative“the words of truth” many modern versions weaken, dilute, downgrade and obscure the meaning of this phrase. Instead of “the words of truth” we now have “reliable and sound answers”, “correctly answer” and“ a dependable report”.

The NIV says: “Have I not written THIRTY SAYINGS for you, sayings of counsel and knowledge, teaching you TRUE AND RELIABLE WORDS, so that you can give SOUND ANSWERS to him who sent you? “

The NASB also weakens and downgrades the “words of truth” to this: “Have I not written to you EXCELLENT THINGS of counsels and knowledge, To make you know the certainty of the words of truth That you may CORRECTLY ANSWER him who sent you?”

The Holman Standard has: “Haven't I written for you THIRTY SAYINGS about counsel and knowledge, in order to teach you true and reliable words, so that you may give A DEPENDABLE REPORT to those who sent you?”

As is often the case, the scholars disagree with each other on how this passage should be translated. John Gill notes different ways some render the passage, but sides with the King James Bible reading. He says: "Have not I written to thee excellent things…In the Scriptures. Some render it, "three things" and think that Solomon refers to the three divisions of the Scriptures among the Jews, the law, the prophets, and holy writings; so Jarchi; but some of those writings then were not: or to the three books written by him; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs... But it is best, with Kimchi, Gersom, and Ben Melech, to render it, "excellent things", as we do."

Proverbs 27:15-16 The principal problems with these verses is found in verse 16; but to give the context we will include them both.

"A continual dropping in a very rainy day and a contentious woman are alike. Whosoever hideth her hideth the wind, AND THE OINTMENT OF HIS RIGHT HAND, WHICH BEWRAYETH ITSELF."

Perhaps the first thing we should do is look at the meaning of that old and now archaic word "bewray". The word is found four times in the King James Bible and it simply means "to reveal, to disclose, or betray (in the sense of revealing itself)". Any good modern dictionary contains this word and tells you its meaning.

Webster's online dictionary 1913 says: "To expose; to reveal; to disclose; to betray. [Obs. or Archaic]

The murder being once done, he is in less fear, and in more hope that the deed shall not be bewrayed or known. Robynson (More's Utopia. )

Thy speech bewrayeth thee. Matt. xxvi. 73.

The meaning as found in the King James Bible, and several other translations, is quite simple. Just as you cannot hide or conceal the wind or the smell of the ointment on your hands, so too you cannot hide a loud and contentious woman.

John Gill comments: "and the ointment of his right hand, which bewrayeth itself: or "will call" or "calls", and says, in effect, Here am I; for the smell of it, which cannot be hid when held in a man's hand, betrays it;... the more it diffuses its savour, and is known to be where it is; and so all attempts to stop the mouth of a brawling woman does but cause her to brawl the louder."

Adam Clarke comments: "You can no more conceal such a woman's conduct, than you can the smell of the aromatic oil with which your hand has been anointed."

Agreeing with the reading or meaning found in the King James Bible are Wycliffe 1395, the Bishops' Bible of 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's "literal" translation, the ASV footnote, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Webster's 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The 1998 Complete Jewish Bible says: "whoever can restrain her can restrain the wind or keep perfume on his hand from making itself known."

Young's 'literal' translation - "Whoso is hiding her hath hidden the wind, And the ointment of his right hand calleth out."

The Bishops' Bible 1568 - "He that stilleth her, stilleth the winde, and stoppeth the smell of the oyntment in his hande."

The Geneva Bible - "He that hideth her, hideth the winde, & she is as ye oyle in his right hand, that vttereth it selfe."

Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized Bible is similar to the KJB - "He that hideth her, hideth the wind, and, perfume, his right hand may proclaim."

HOWEVER, such versions as the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman all change the meaning as found in the King James Bible. These versions all read basically the same with the NKJV telling us: "A continual dripping on a very rainy day And a contentious woman are alike; Whoever restrains her restrains the wind, AND GRASPS OIL WITH HIS RIGHT HAND."

Several of the versions tell us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure, but it really isn't. The word translated as "bewrayeth itself" in the King James Bible is the Hebrew word #7121 qara. It is variously translated, not only in the KJB but also in the NASB, NIV, NKJV, as "to call, to cry out, to give, to proclaim, to shout, to scream, to make a proclmation, to read, to invite, or to announce."

Only ONE TIME have the NASB, NIV and NKJV translated this Hebrew word as "to grasp". It doesn't mean "to grasp", but rather the idea is that the oil on the right hand announces, calls out or proclaims itself by its fragrance. The King James Bible reading is the correct one, and the NKJV, NIV, RSV, NASB missed the point.

Other translations give totally different meanings to the verse.

The Bible in Basic English 1961 has: "He who keeps secret the secret of his friend, WILL GET HIMSELF A NAME FOR GOOD FAITH."

The 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible - "He who keeps her stores up a stormwind; HE CANNOT TELL NORTH FROM SOUTH."

Peterson's ridiculous 2002 paraphrase The Message says: "A nagging spouse is like the drip, drip, drip of a leaky faucet; You can't turn it off, and you can't get away from it. YOUR FACE MIRRORS YOUR HEART."

This is just one of many examples of where we either hold on to the sometimes "archaic" but accurate King James Bible (bewrayeth), or we abandon it for a more modern speech version that is inaccurate (grasp). I'll stick with the old but tried and true King James Bible.

Proverbs 29:10 “The bloodthirsty hate the upright: BUT THE JUST SEEK HIS SOUL.”

Agreeing word for word or in sense with the King James Bible are Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’s Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Douay, Green, Youngs, Holman, and the KJV 21st Century. There is a contrast between the bloodthirsty who hates the upright, and the just man who seeks the benefit of his soul.

NASB - “Men of bloodshed hate the blameless, But the UPRIGHT ARE ***CONCERNED FOR HIS LIFE.” Footnote: Literally “seek his soul”

NIV - “Bloodthirsty men hate a man of integrity AND SEEK TO KILL THE UPRIGHT.”

The RSV, NRSV and ESV are basically like the NIV, which teaches the exact opposite of the KJB, RV, ASV, NASB and NKJV. They also read: “The bloodthirsty hate the blameless, and THEY SEEK THE LIFE OF THE UPRIGHT.”

Holman Standard - “Bloodthirsty men hate an honest person, BUT THE UPRIGHT CARE ABOUT HIM.”

The Message - “Murderers hate honest people; MORAL FOLKS ENCOURAGE THEM.”

NKJV - “The bloodthirsty hate the blameless, BUT THE UPRIGHT SEEK HIS WELL-BEING.” ** Footnote: Literally soul.

Proverbs 29:21 "He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child SHALL HAVE HIM BECOME HIS SON at the length."

This is the reading or meaning found in such versions as the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Youngs, Darby, the NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Hebrew Names Version, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, Italian Diodati, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Commentators are all over the board on what this verse means, and some admit they have no idea. As I understand it, it basically means that when one treats his servant as if he were a son, in the end the servant will love him as a son does his father, rather than serving from the merely mechanical obedience of a servant to his master. God deals with us in this way, so that we are no longer just His "servants" but also His sons and His friends.

By the way, that "archaic expression" - "he that DELICATELY BRINGETH UP" is also found in the Geneva, the RV, ASV, Darby, Youngs, and the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936.

The RSV, NRSV and ESV are interesting. The 1952 RSV and the 2001 ESV both read: "Whoever pampers his servant from childhood will in the end find him HIS HEIR."

However the NRSV of 1989 reads: "A slave pampered from childhood WILL COME TO A BAD END." (Not quite the same, is it?)

But wait!. Now the NIV tells us: "If a man pampers his servant from youth, HE WILL BRING GRIEF in the end." BUT the brand new TNIV now says: "A servant pampered from youth WILL TURN OUT TO BE INSOLENT." The latest TNIV is very similar to the Holman Standard which also says: "A slave pampered from his youth WILL BECOME ARROGANT later on. "

"America's greatest Textual Scholar" Daniel Wallace's NET version reads: "If someone pampers his servant from youth, HE WILL BE A WEAKLING in the end."

Finally we have Peterson's 2002 The Message, which is totally unrecognizable with: "IF YOU LET PEOPLE TREAT YOU LIKE A DOORMAT, YOU'LL BE QUITE FORGOTTEN IN THE END."

Proverbs 30:1-2 "The words of Agur the son of Jakeh, even the prophecy: THE MAN SPAKE UNTO ITHIEL, EVEN UNTO ITHIEL AND UCAL, surely I am more bruthish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man."

The words "the man spake unto Ithiel, even unto Ithiel and Ucal" are found in the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936 and 1998. This is also the reading of the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, Darby, Spanish Reina Valera, the Catholic Jerusalem and New Jerusalem versions, THE RSV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and the Holman Standard.

HOWEVER, even though the RSV of 1952 reads the same as the King James Bible, the NIV, NASB and the 2003 Holman Standard, the brand new ESV (English Standard Version of 2001) actually says: "The words of Agur son of Jakeh. The oracle. THE MAN DECLARES, I AM WEARY, O GOD; I AM WEARY, O GOD, AND WORN OUT. Surely I am too stupid to be a man. I have not the understanding of a man." (Not quite the same meaning, is it?)

Though the NIV reads the same as the KJB, the brand new revision of the old NIV - the 2005 TNIV (Today's New International Version) now says: "The sayings of Agur son of Jakeh - an inspired utterance. This man's utterance to Ithiel: I AM WEARY, GOD, BUT I CAN PREVAIL. Surely I am only a brute, not a man; I do not have human understanding."

Not only does the new TNIV differ from the old NIV, BUT also from the ESV. The "I am worn out" of the ESV is not the same thing as the TNIV's "but I can prevail", is it?

Likewise the Catholic versions are all messed up. The newer Jerusalem Bible and the New Jerusalem Version both agree with the reading found in the King James Bible, but the 1950 Douay version reads: "The word of THE GATHERER the son of THE VOMITER. The vision which the man spoke WITH WHOM GOD IS, AND WHO BEING STRENGTHENED BY GOD, ABIDING WITH HIM, said: I am the most foolish of men, and the wisdom OF MEN is not with me."

But wait! There's more. Now Peterson's Paraphrase of 2003,called The Message, has come out and it says: "THE SKEPTIC SWORE, "THERE IS NO GOD! NO GOD! - I CAN DO ANYTHING I WANT! I'm more animal than human; so-called human intelligence escapes me." Hey, not to worry - It's all the same "message", right?

In closing, let's compare some of the verses in Proverbs 30, in the modern versions, to see if they contradict each other. In verse 3 we read, "I neither learned wisdom, NOR have the knowledge of the holy." The RV, ASV, Spanish, NIV, NKJV agree with the KJB.

However the NASB of 1972 says "I have not learned wisdom, BUT I have knowledge of the Holy One." - the exact opposite. Then in 1977 and again in1995, the NAS changed again to read like the KJB and others. It now reads: "Neither have I learned wisdom, NOR Do I have the knowledge of the Holy One."

In Prov. 30:11 we read, "There is A GENERATION that curseth THEIR father, and doth not bless their mother." It refers to a whole generation of people. "a generation" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young's, Darby, Holman, and the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936. However the NASB has, "There is A KIND OF MAN who curses HIS father", and the NIV, "There are THOSE WHO curse their father. . ." The Hebrew word is generation, as even the ESV footnote tells us.

In verse 17 "the young EAGLES shall eat it". "Eagles" is the reading of the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB and Youngs, while the RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman have "VULTURES".

Proverbs 30:26 "The CONIES are but a feeble folk" Conies are a kind of rabbit; it is not an archaic word. CONIES is the reading found in Coverdale, Bishops's Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NIV, Spanish Reina Valera, Bible in Basic English, the Complete Jewish Bible 1998, and Youngs. But the NKJV has "rock badgers" while the NASB of 1972 has "badgers" then in 1995 the NASB once again changed this to now read "THE SHEPHARIM". This along with verse 3 are just two of many examples where the great NASB doesn't even agree with itself from one edition to the next. Though the NIV has "coneys", now the new Today's NIV has come out and it, along with the Holman Standard, changes this to "HYRAXES". But the 2004 The Message says these are "MARMOTS".

In verse 28 "the SPIDER taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces" is the same in the KJB, NKJV, Coverdale, Bishops's Bible, the Geneva, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society version,1936 Hebrew Pub. Com. version, and 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, Youngs and 1994 KJV 21st Century version. The recent Jewish translation called the Judaica Press Tanach also reads: " The SPIDER grasps with [her] hands, and she is in a king's palaces." Also reading "spider" are the French Martin 1744, Luther's German of 1545 and the 1912 German Luther version, and the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 versions.

But the spider becomes a LIZARD in the RSV, NASB, NIV, and Holman Standard. Even Daniel Wallace notes in his NET bible version: "Older English versions, agreeing with Targum. Prov 30:28, translated this term as “spider.” But modern commentators FOLLOWING THE GREEK AND LATIN VERSIONS have “lizard.”

Finally in Proverbs 30:31 we read of four things that are comely in going "A GREYHOUND; an he goat also; and a king, against whom there is no rising up."

The reading of "a greyhound" is found in the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the KJB, NKJV, the RV, the ASV, the 1917, 1936, and the 1998 Jewish translations, Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, and the Updated Bible Version of 2004.

However the RSV of 1952 was the first major version to change "a greyhound" into THE STRUTTING COCK, and this is also found in the NASB. The NIV, NRSV, ESV and Holman read this as "the struting rooster". Now biology is not my strong point, but I'm pretty sure a struting cock is not the same thing as a greyhound. So where did the reading of "the strutting rooster" come from? Well, the RSV footnote tells us. If you look at the RSV or the NRSV footnotes they both tell us that "the strutting cock" comes from the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but that "the Hebrew is obscure". In other words, this rendering comes from other versions but not from the Hebrew itself. But if we look carefully at the alleged Greek Septuagint version there is more there than just "the strutting cock". The LXX actually reads: "A cock walking in proudly among the hens". So why didn't the RSV, NASB and NIV completely follow the LXX here and add the whole enchilada? Who knows? The Holman footnote tells us it may be rendered as "a greyhound", and the ESV tells us it could either be A MAGPIE or a greyhound!

But wait. The Darby version says it's "A HORSE GIRT IN THE LOINS", and the Bible in Basic English says it's A WAR HORSE". Let's see..."a greyhound, a strutting cock, a magpie and a war horse"...Yep, no change in meaning, it's all the same to me :-)

As can be seen from this one chapter of the Bible, the finest modern day scholars do not agree with each other, and come up with totally different renderings for the same word.

Not all of them can equally express the mind of God. If I take the modern position, I can pick and choose which rendering I personally like, go back and forth among the versions and become my own final authority for what the word of God says. That is where the "Whateverists" or the "originals only" crowd are.

I, by God's grace, believe His complete inspired words are only found preserved in the King James Bible. On this issue, I part company with the modern version proponents.

[[Will Kinney]]

== External Link ==

* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/babelproverbs.htm Bible Babel in Proverbs] by [[Will Kinney]]

English grammar

2011-01-20T07:07:53Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''English grammar''' is the body of rules describing the properties of the [[English language]]. A language is such that its elements must be combined according to certain patterns. This article is concerned with (and restricted to) [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]], the building blocks of language; and [[syntax]], the construction of meaningful [[phrases]], [[clauses]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentences]] with the use of [[morphemes]] and [[word]]s.

The [[grammar]] of any language is commonly approached in two different ways: ''descriptive'', usually based on a systematic analysis of a large [[text corpus]] and describing grammatical structures thereupon; and ''prescriptive'', which attempts to use the identified rules of a given language as a tool to govern the linguistic behaviour of speakers (see [[Descriptive linguistics]] and [[Linguistic prescription]]). Prescriptive grammar further concerns itself with several open [[disputes in English grammar]], often representing changes in usage over time. This article predominantly concerns itself with descriptive grammar.

There are historical, social and regional variations of English. For example, [[British English]] and [[American English]] have several [[lexical]] differences; however, the grammatical differences are not equally conspicuous, and will be mentioned only when appropriate. Further, the many [[List of dialects of the English language|dialects of English]] have divergences from the grammar described here; they are only cursorily mentioned. This article describes a generalized present-day [[Standard English]], the form of speech found in types of public discourse including broadcasting, education, entertainment, government, and news reporting. Standard English includes both formal and informal speech.

==Word classes and phrase classes==
Seven major word classes are described here. These are: [[noun]], [[verb]], [[adjective]], [[adverb]], [[preposition]], [[Grammatical conjunction|conjunction]], and [[Determiner (linguistics)|determiner]]. The first six are traditionally referred to as "parts of speech." There are minor word classes, such as [[interjection]]s, but these do not fit into the [[clause]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentence]] structure of English.[]

;Open and closed classes
[[Open class (linguistics)|Open word class]]es allow new members; [[closed class|closed word class]]es seldom do.[] Nouns such as "[[celebutante]]", (a celebrity who frequents the fashion circles)" and "mentee," (a person advised by a mentor) and adverbs such as "[[24/7]]" ("I am working on it 24/7") are relatively new words; nouns and adverbs are therefore open classes.[] However, invented pronouns, such as the "[[Spivak pronouns]]", as a [[Gender-neutral pronoun|gender-neutral singular]] replacement for the "his or her" (as in: "The student should bring eir books.") have gained only niche acceptance during their existence; pronouns, in consequence, form a closed class.[]

;Word classes and grammatical forms
A word can sometimes belong to several word classes. The class version of a word is called a "[[lexeme]]".[] For example, the word "run" is usually a verb, but it can also be a noun ("It is a ten mile run to [[Tipperary]]."); these are two different lexemes.<v> Further, the same lexeme may be [[inflected]] to express different grammatical categories: for example, as a verb lexeme, "run" has several forms such as "runs," "ran," and "running."[] Words in one class can sometimes be [[Derivation (linguistics)|derived]] from those in another and new words be created. The noun "aerobics," for example, has recently given rise to the adjective "aerobicized" ("the aerobicized bodies of Beverly Hills celebutantes."[])

;Phrase classes
Words combine to form [[phrase]]s which themselves can take on the attributes of a word class. These classes are called
phrase classes.[] The phrase: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth" functions as a noun in the sentence: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth was shrunken hard and dry." ([[Thomas Hardy]], ''[[The Darkling Thrush]]'') It is therefore a ''noun phrase''. Other phrase classes are: [[verb phrase]]s, [[adjectival phrase|adjective phrase]]s, [[adverbial phrase|adverb phrase]]s, [[adpositional phrase|prepositional phrase]]s, and [[determiner phrase]]s.[]

===Nouns and determiners===
Nouns form the largest word class. According to Carter and McCarthy, they denote "classes and categories of things in the world, including people, animals, inanimate things, places, events, qualities and states."[] Consequently, the words "Mandela," "jaguar," "mansion," "volcano," "Timbuktoo," "blockade," "mercy," and "liquid" are all nouns. Nouns are not commonly identified by their form; however, some common [[suffix]]es such as "-age" ("shrinkage"), "-hood" ("sisterhood"), "-ism" ("journalism"), "-ist" ("lyricist"), "-ment" ("adornment"), "-ship" ("companionship"), "-tude" ("latitude"), and so forth, are usually identifiers of nouns.[] There are exceptions, of course: "assuage" and "disparage" are verbs; "augment" is a verb, "lament" and "worship" can be verbs. Nouns can also be created by [[Conversion (linguistics)|conversion]] of verbs or adjectives. Examples include the nouns in: "a boring talk," "a five-week run," "the long caress," "the utter disdain," and so forth.

;Number, gender, type, and syntactic features.
Nouns have [[Grammatical number|singular]] and [[plural]] forms.[] Many plural forms have -s or -es endings (dog/dogs, referee/referees, bush/bushes), but by no means all (woman/women, axis/axes, medium/media). Unlike some other languages, in English, nouns do not have [[grammatical gender]].[] However, many nouns can refer to masculine or feminine animate objects (mother/father, tiger/tigress, alumnus/alumna, male/female).[] Nouns can be classified semantically, i.e. by their meanings: [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|common noun]]s ("sugar," "maple," "syrup," "wood"), [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|proper noun]]s ("Cyrus," "China"), [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|concrete noun]]s ("book," "laptop"), and [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|abstract noun]]s ("heat," "prejudice").[]
Alternatively, they can be distinguished grammatically: [[count noun]]s ("clock," "city," "colour") and [[mass noun|non-count noun]]s ("milk," "decor," "foliage").[] Nouns have several [[syntax|syntactic]] features that can aid in their identification.[] Nouns (example: common noun "cat") may be
#[[Grammatical modifier|modified]] by adjectives ("the ''beautiful'' [[Turkish Angora|Angora cat]]"),
#preceded by determiners ("''the'' beautiful Angora cat"), or
#pre-modified by other nouns ("the beautiful ''[[Ankara|Angora]]'' cat").[]

===Noun phrases===
Noun phrases are phrases that function grammatically as nouns within sentences. In addition, nouns serve as "heads," or main words of noun phrases.[]
Examples (the heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' of smoky days."[]
#"The real raw-knuckle '''boys''' who know what fighting means, ..."[]
#"The idle '''spear and shield''' ..."[]

The head can have ''modifiers'', a ''complement'', or both. Modifiers can occur before the head ("The real raw-knuckle boys ...," or "The burnt-out ends ..." and they are then called ''pre-modifiers''; or, they can occur after the head ("who know what fighting means ...") and are called ''post-modifiers''.[] Example: "The rough, seamy-faced, raw-boned College '''Servitor''' ..."[] The pre-modifying phrase, for example, is composed of determiners ("The"), adjectives ("rough," "seamy-faced," ...) and other nouns ("College").

''Complements'' occur after the head as well; however, they are essential for completing the meaning of the noun phrase in a way that post-modifiers are not.[] Examples (complements are italicized; heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' ''of smoky days''."[]
#"The '''suggestion''' ''that Mr. Touchett should invite me'' appeared to have come from Miss Stackpole."[]
#"The ancient '''pulse''' ''of germ and birth'' was shrunken hard and dry."[]

Within a sentence, a noun phrase can be a part of the grammatical subject, the object, or the complement. Examples (the noun phrase is italicized, and the head boldfaced):[]
#grammatical subject: "''Some mute inglorious '''Milton''''' here may rest."[]
#object: "Dr. Pavlov ... delivered ''many long propaganda '''harangues''''' ..."[])
#complement: "'All they see is ''some frumpy, wrinkled-up '''person''' passing by in a carriage waving at a crowd''."[]

===Verbs===
Verbs form the second largest word class after nouns. According to Carter and McCarthy, verbs denote "actions, events, processes, and states."[] Consequently, "smile," "stab," "climb," "confront," "liquefy," "wake," "reflect" are all verbs. Some examples of verb endings, which while not dead giveaways, are often associated, include: "-ate" ("formulate"), "-iate" ("inebriate"), "-ify" ("electrify"), and "-ise" ("realise").[] There are exceptions, of course: "chocolate" is a noun, "immediate" is an adjective, "prize" can be a noun, and "maize" is a noun. Prefixes can also be used to create new verbs. Examples are: "un-" ("unmask"), "out-" ("outlast"), "over-" ("overtake"), and "under-" ("undervalue").[] Just as nouns can be formed from verbs by conversion, the reverse is also possible:[]
*"so are the sons of men '''snared''' in an evil time"[]
*"[a national convention] '''nosed''' parliament in the very seat of its authority"[]

Verbs can also be formed from adjectives:[]

*"To '''dry''' the old oak's sap, and cherish springs."[]
*"Time's glory is to '''calm''' contending kings"[]

;Regular and irregular verbs

A verb is said to be ''regular'' if its base form does not change when inflections are added to create new
forms.[] An example is: base form: climb; present form: climb; -s form: climb'''s'''; -ing form: climb'''ing'''; past form: climb'''ed'''; -ed participle: climb'''ed'''.[]
Irregular verbs are ones in which the base form changes; the endings corresponding to each form are not always unique.[] Examples:

*base form: catch; present form: catch; -s form: catches; -ing form: catching; past form: caught; -ed participle: caught.
*base form: choose; present form: choose; -s form: chooses; -ing form: choosing; past form: chose; -ed participle: chosen.

The verb "be" is the only verb in English which has distinct inflectional forms for each of the categories of grammatical forms: base form: be; present form: am, are; -s form: is; -ing form: being; past form: was, were; -ed participle: been.[]

;Type and characteristics

Verbs come in three grammatical types: lexical, auxiliary, and modal.[] Lexical verbs form an open class which includes most verbs (state, action, processes, and events). For example, "dive," "soar," "swoon," "revive," "breathe," "choke," "lament," "celebrate," "consider," "ignore" are all lexical verbs.[]
Auxiliary verbs form a closed class consisting of only three members: be, do, and have.[] Although auxiliary verbs are lexical verbs as well, their main function is to add information to other lexical verbs. This information indicates (a) aspect (progressive, perfect), (b) passive voice, and (c) clause type (interrogative, negative).[] In the following examples, the auxiliary is in boldface and the lexical verb is italicized.
#aspect (progressive): "'She '''is''' ''breathing'' Granny; we've got to make her keep it up, that's all—just keep her breathing."[]
#aspect (perfect): "'Yes, I want a coach,' said Maurice, and bade the coachman draw up to the stone where the poor man who '''had''' ''swooned'' was sitting."[]
# passive voice: "When she was admitted into the house Beautiful, care '''was''' ''taken'' to inquire into the religious knowledge of her children."[]
#clause type (interrogative): (Old joke) Boy: "Excuse me sir, How '''do''' I ''get'' to [[Carnegie Hall]]?" Man on street: "Practice, Practice, Practice."
#clause type (negative): '''Wasn't''' she monstrously ''surprised''?"[]

[[English modal verb|Modal verbs]] also form a closed class which consists of the core modals ("can," "could," "shall," "should," "will," "would," "may," "might," "must"), semi-modals ("dare," "need," "ought to," "used to"), and modal expressions ("be able to," "have to").[] Modals add information to lexical verbs about degrees of certainty and necessity.[] Examples:
* less certain: "Before the snow '''could''' ''melt'' for good, an ice storm covered the lowcountry and we learned the deeper treachery of ice."[]
*more certain: "Eat your eggs in Lent and the snow '''will''' ''melt''. That's what I say to our people when they get noisy over their cups at San Gallo ..."[]
*expressing necessity: "But I should think there must be some stream somewhere about. The snow '''must''' ''melt''; besides, these great herds of deer must drink somewhere."[]

Modal verbs do not inflect for person, number or tense.[] Examples:
* person: "I/you/she '''might''' consider it."
* number: "I/We/She/They '''might''' consider it"
* tense: "They '''might''' have considered/be considering/have been considering it."

Verbs too have features that aid in their recognition:
# they follow the (grammatical) subject noun phrase (in italics): "''The real raw-knuckle boys who know what fighting means'' '''enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in number: "The real raw-knuckle ''boy/boys'' who knows/know what fighting means '''enters/enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in person: "I/He, the real raw-knuckle boy who knows what fighting means, enter/enters the arena without fanfare", and
#with the exception of modal verbs, they can express tense:"The boys ... '''had been entering''' the arena without fanfare."

===Verb phrases===
====Forms====

Verb phrases are formed entirely of verbs. The verbs can be lexical, auxiliary, and modal. The head is the first verb in the verb phrase.[] Example:
* "I didn't notice Rowen around tonight," remarked Don, as they began to prepare for bed. "'''Might have been sulking''' in his tent," grinned Terry."[] Here, the verb phrase "might have been sulking" has the form "modal-auxiliary-auxiliary-lexical."

In a verb phrase, the modal comes first, then the auxiliary or several auxiliaries, and finally the lexical (main) verb.[] When a verb phrase has a combination of modal and auxiliaries, it is constituted usually in the following order: modal verb >> perfect ''have'' >> progressive ''be'' >> passive ''be'' >> Lexical verb.[] Examples:
*"He '''might have been being used''' by the CIA as part of their debriefing procedure, but he might just as easily have been part of the Russians' plans to use Oswald in America."[] Here, the verb phrase is: might (modal) have (perfect) been (progressive) being (passive) used (lexical).
* The modal expression "be able to" is an exception: "It is best to know that she '''has''' (perfect) '''been''' (progressive) '''able to''' (modal expression) '''balance''' (lexical verb) these qualities and quantities with a grace which has not fallen short of greatness ...."[]

====Tense====

Verb phrases can vary with tense, in which case they are called "tensed verb phrases."[] Example:
* "They '''have accomplished''' a lot this year, but they '''had accomplished''' even more last year."
There are many [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed forms]] as well:
#base form of a lexical verb used as an [[Imperative mood|imperative]].[] Example: "'''Halt'''!"
#base form of the lexical verb occurring as a [[Subjunctive mood|subjunctive]].<v> Example: "'If he is a spy,' said Gorgik, 'I would rather he not '''know''' who I am."[]
#the [[infinitive]] with "to."[] Examples:
##"Did you see her, chief—did you get a glimpse of her pleasant countenance, or come close enough to her ear, to sing in it the song she ''loves'' '''to hear'''?'"[]
##"She got so she could tell big stories herself from listening to the rest. Because she loved to hear it, and the men ''loved'' '''to hear''' themselves, they would 'woof' and 'boogerboo' around the games to the limit."[]
#the "-ing" form, shared between the [[gerund]] and [[Participle|present participle]].[] Examples:
##"Biological diversity ''is'' '''plummeting''', mainly due to habitat degradation and loss, pollution, overexploitation, competition from alien species, disease, and changing climates."[]
##"Then it was swooping downward, and in the next second, a huge metal magpie, with wings outstretched in full flight, ''was'' '''plummeting''' toward them."[]
# the "-ed" [[participle]].[] Examples:
##"I also know that the painter ''has'' '''dined''' twice with the Prince Regent."<v>
##"Which in all probability means that you ''had'' '''dined''' together," replied Monte Cristo, laughing, "I am glad to see you are more sober than he was."[]

The time frame of a non-tensed verb phrase is determined by examining that of the main clause verb.[] Examples:
*"From the very beginning, Coltrane was an indefatigable worker at his saxophone spending hours upon hours '''practicing''' every day."[]
* "By assuming a good position and by '''practicing''' every day he will in time acquire a feeling and an appearance of ease before people."[]

In the first case, the time frame (past) of "practicing" is determined by "was" in the main clause; in the second, the time frame (present and future) of "practicing" is determined by "will in time," also in the main clause.

====Aspect====
Verb phrases can also express two [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]]: ''[[Progressive aspect|progressive]]'' and ''[[perfect (grammar)|perfect]]''. Aspect provides additional information on
the speaker's perception of time.

;[[Progressive aspect]]

The progressive aspect consists of the [[Auxiliary verb|auxiliary]] ''be'' form and the ''-ing'' form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* "Landlord, chambermaid, waiter rush to the door; but just as some distinguished guests '''are arriving''', the curtains close, and the invisible theatrical manager cries out, 'Second syllable!' "[]
*"She made her curtsy, and '''was departing''' when the wretched young captain sprang up, looked at her, and sank back on the sofa with another wild laugh."[]
Properties:
*Progressive aspect may be found in verb phrases containing [[Modal verb|modals]].[]
**"Restless, exciting and witty, he cannot resist a fantastic theory ..., so that one '''might be meeting''' Synge, Fielding, and Aldous Huxley, and on the same page."[]
*[[Non-finite verb|Non-tensed]] ''-ing'' forms, however, do not have the progressive aspect.<v>
**"By '''working''' every day, he had learned the peculiarities, the weaknesses and strengths, of opposing batters ..."[] It cannot be changed to "By ''being'' working every day, ...."
*Progressive aspect can be combined with "to"-[[infinitive]] forms in a verb phrase.[]
**"He loved to sit by the open window when the wind was east, and seemed '''to be dreaming''' of faraway scenes."[]

;[[Perfect (grammar)|Perfect]]

The ''perfect'' aspect is created by the auxiliary "have" and the "-ed" participle form of the lexical verb.[] It refers to a time period that includes the present moment.[] Contrast "The flowers didn't bloom this summer" with "The flowers haven't bloomed this summer." The latter sentence suggests that the summer is not over yet.

Properties:

*The perfect can pair with [[modal verbs]].[]
**"You '''might''' (modal) '''have invited''' (perfect) the [[The Hatter|Hatter]] to the tea-party."
*The perfect can be combined with the -ing and the to-infinitive forms.[]
**"'''Having turned''' the TV '''on''', he now mindlessly flicked through the channels."
**"'''To have run''' the marathon, she would have needed to be in good shape."

Finally, the two aspects, progressive and perfect, can be combined in a verb phrase: "They''''ve been laughing''' so hard that their sides hurt."

====Voice====
The ''[[passive voice]]'', which provides information about the roles of different participants in an event, is formed with the auxiliary "be" and the "-ed" [[participle]] form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* (Sentence) "The older critics '''slammed''' the play with vituperation inexplicable unless one attributes it to homophobia."<v>
*(passive voice) "Ever notice how she '''was''' (past of "be") '''slammed''' (-ed participle) by the critics until the actors started doing it themselves?"[]

Properties:
*[[Modal verbs]] can occur in passive voice.[]
**"And if they couldn't get a handle on it soon, cities and towns all up and down the Eastern Seaboard '''could''' (modal) '''be slammed''' (passive) by the biggest storm of the year ...."[]
*Passive voice can be combined with [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed verbs]] such as "-ing" form and the "to-" [[infinitive]].[]
**"There he was—'''getting slammed''' by the critics—and still taking the high road."[]
**"We were about '''to be slammed''' by an 80-foot breaking wave."[]
*Passive voice can combine with both the progressive and the perfect [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]].[]
**(passive, progressive): "The wind had picked up. The boat '''was being slammed''' by the swells, and floundering."[]
**(passive, perfect): "Although, alas, it's not such an exclusive club. I've sent them to everyone who '''has been slammed''' by that dreadful woman."[]

====Mood====
A verb phrase can also express mood, which refers to the "factual or non-factual status of events."[] There are three moods in English: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive.[]
;Indicative mood
The indicative is the most common mood in English.[] It is a factual mood, and most constructions involving the various choices of person, tense, number, aspect, modality are in the indicative mood.[] Examples:
*"She will have a hangover tomorrow morning."
*"The Prime Minister and his cabinet were discussing the matter on that fateful day in 1939."

;Imperative mood
The imperative mood is a non-factual mood and is employed for issuing directives:[]
*"'''[[Keep Your Eyes on the Prize|Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on]]'''"[]
* "'Your father's urn is on the backseat. '''Just leave the keys in the cup holder'''."[]

;Subjunctive mood
The subjunctive mood is also a non-factual mood which refers to demands, desires, etc.[] It uses the base form of the verb ''without inflections''.<ref name=carter-mccarthy-p307/> It is rare in English and is used after only a handful of words such as "demand," "request," "suggest," "ask," "plead," "pray," "insist," and so forth.[] Examples:
*"I demanded that Sheriff Jeanfreau '''stay'''. I even wanted worthless and annoying Ugly Henderson to stay."[]
*"'I suggest that you '''not exercise''' your temper overmuch,' Mayne said, and the French tinge in his voice sounded truly dangerous now." []

Properties:
*Subjunctives can be used after conditional subordinators.[]
**"I accepted on the condition that I '''not be given''' a starring role."[]
*Subjunctives can also be used after expressions of necessity.[]
**"Two nuns are asked to paint a room in the convent, and the last instruction of Mother Superior is that they '''not get''' even a drop of paint on their habits."[]
*The subjunctive form of the verb "be" can occur as the base form "be".[]
**"Whenever a prisoner alleges physical abuse, it is imperative that the prisoner '''be seen''' by an officer at the earliest possible opportunity."[]
*In its "were" form the subjunctive is used to express a hypothetical situation.[]
**"'Lin said, turning toward Pei, "I'm afraid she's excited at seeing me home again." Pei smiled. "I would be too, if I '''were''' she."[]

===Adjectives===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Adjectives describe properties, qualities, and states attributed to a noun or a pronoun."<rsup>[] As was the case with nouns and verbs, the class of adjectives cannot be identified by the forms of its constituents.[] However, adjectives are commonly formed by adding the some suffixes to nouns.[] Examples: "-al" ("habitual," "multidimensional," "visceral"), "-ful" ("blissful," "pitiful," "woeful"), "-ic" ("atomic," "gigantic," "pedantic"), "-ish" ("impish," "peckish," "youngish"), "-ous" ("fabulous," "hazardous"). As with nouns and verbs, there are exceptions: "homosexual" can be a noun, "earful" is a noun, "anesthetic" can be a noun, "brandish" is a verb. Adjectives can also be formed from other adjectives through the addition of a suffix or more commonly a prefix:[] weakish, implacable, disloyal, irredeemable, unforeseen. A number of adjectives are formed by adding "a" as a prefix to a verb: "adrift," "astride," "awry."

;Gradability

Adjectives come in two varieties: gradable and non-gradable.[] In a gradable adjective, the properties or qualities associated with it, exist along a scale.[] In the case of the adjective "hot," for example, we can speak of: not at all hot, ever so slightly hot, only just hot, quite hot, very hot, extremely hot, dangerously hot, and so forth. Consequently, "hot" is a gradable adjective. Gradable adjectives usually have antonyms: hot/cold, hard/soft, smart/dumb, light/heavy.[]
Some adjectives do not have room for qualification or modification. These are the non-gradable adjectives, such as: pregnant, married, incarcerated, condemned, adolescent (as adjective), dead, and so forth.

In figurative or literary language, a non-gradable adjective can sometimes be treated as gradable, especially in order to emphasize some aspect:
* "When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with a forward child, understanding, it strikes a man '''more dead''' than a great reckoning in a little room."[]

A non-gradable adjective might have another connotation in which it is gradable. For example, "dead" when applied to sounds can mean dull, or not vibrant. In this meaning, it has been used as a gradable adjective:
* "... the bell seemed to sound '''more dead''' than it did when just before it sounded in open air."[]

Gradable adjectives can occur in comparative and superlative forms.[] For many common adjectives, these are formed by adding "-er" and "-est" to the base form:<v> cold, colder, coldest; hot, hotter, hottest; dry, drier, driest, and so forth; however, for other adjectives, "more" and "most" are needed to provide the necessary qualification: more apparent, most apparent; more iconic, most iconic; more hazardous, most hazardous. Some gradable adjectives change forms atypically:[] good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; little, less, least; some/many, more, most.

===Adjective phrases===
;Forms

An ''adjective phrase'' may consist of just one adjective, or a single adjective which has been modified or complemented.[]

Adjectives are usually modified by adverb phrases (adverb in boldface; adjective in italics):[]
* "... placing himself in a dignified and '''truly''' ''imposing'' attitude, began to draw from his mouth yard after yard of red tape ..."[]
*"Families did certainly come, beguiled by representations of '''impossibly''' ''cheap'' provisions, though the place was '''in reality very''' ''expensive'', for every tradesman was a monopolist at heart."[]
*"... of anger frequent but '''generally''' ''silent'', ..."[]

An adjective phrase can also consist of an adjective followed by a complement, usually a prepositional phrase, or by a "that" clause.[] Different adjectives require different patterns of complementation (adjective in italics; complement in bold facesup>[]
*"... during that brief time I was ''proud'' '''of myself''', and I grew to love the heave and roll of the Ghost ..."[]
*"... her bosom ''angry'' '''at his intrusion''', ..."[]
*"Dr. Drew is especially ''keen'' '''on good congregational singing'''."[]

Examples of "that" clause in the adjective phrase (adjective in italics; clause in boldface):
*"Was ''sure'' '''that the shrill voice was that of a man'''—a Frenchman."[]
*"The ''longest'' day '''that ever was'''; so she raves, restless and impatient."[]

An adjective phrase can combine pre-modification by an adverb phrase and post-modification by a complement,[] as in (adjective in italics; adverb phrase and complement in boldface):
*"Few people were '''ever more''' ''proud'' '''of civic honours than the Thane of Fife'''."[]

;Attributive and predicative

An adjective phrase is attributive when it modifies a noun or a pronoun (adjective phrase in boldface; noun in italics):[]
*"'''Truly selfish''' ''genes'' do arise, in the sense that they reproduce themselves at a cost to the other genes in the genome."[]
*"Luisa Rosado: a ''woman'' '''proud of being a midwife'''"[]

An adjective phrase is predicative when it occurs in the predicate of a sentence (adjective phrase in boldface):[]
*"No, no, I didn't really think so," returned Dora; "but I am '''a little tired''', and it made me '''silly for a moment''' ..."[]
*"She was ill at ease, and looked '''more than usually stern and forbidding''' as she entered the Hales' little drawing room."[]

===Adverbs===
Adverbs typically modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. They perform a wide range of functions and are especially important for indicating "time, manner, place, degree, and frequency of an event, action, or process."[] Adjectives and adverbs are often derived from the same word, the majority being formed by adding the "-ly" ending to the corresponding adjective form.[] Recall the adjectives, "habitual", "pitiful", "impish", We can use them to form the adverbs:
*"habitually": "... shining out of the New England reserve with which Holgrave '''habitually''' masked whatever lay near his heart."[]
*"pitifully": "The lamb tottered along far behind, near exhaustion, bleating '''pitifully'''."[]
*"impishly": "Well," and he grinned '''impishly''', "it was one doggone good party while it lasted!"[]

Some suffixes that are commonly found in adverbs are "-ward(s)" and "-wise":[]
*"homeward": "The plougman '''homeward''' plods his weary way."[]
* "downward": "In tumbling turning, clustering loops, straight '''downward''' falling, ..."[]
* "lengthwise": "2 to 3 medium carrots, peeled, halved '''lengthwise''', and cut into 1-inch pieces."[]

Some adverbs have the same form as the adjectives:[]
*"outside":
**Adverb: "'You'd best begin, or you'll be sorry—it's raining '''outside'''."[]
**Adjective: "It would be possible to winter the colonies in the barn if each colony is provided with a separate '''outside''' entrance; ..."[]
*"straight"
**Adverb: "Five cigars, very dry, smoked '''straight''' except where wrapper loosened, as it did in two cases."[]
**Adjective: "Numbering among the ranks of the "young and evil" in this text are ... '''straight''' women who fall in love with gay men, ..."[]

Some adverbs are not related to adjectives:[]
*"quite": "Mr. Bingley was obliged to be in town the following day, and ... Mrs. Bennet was '''quite''' disconcerted."[]
*"too": "... like a child that, having devoured its plumcake '''too''' hastily, sits sucking its fingers, ...."[]
* "so": "... oh! ... would she heave one little sigh to see a bright young life '''so''' rudely blighted, ...?"[]

Some adverbs inflect for comparative and superlative forms:[]
* "soon"
**"O error, '''soon''' conceived, Thou never comest unto a happy birth, ..."[]
**"Nerissa: 'superfluity comes '''sooner''' by white hairs, but competency lives longer."[]
**"'Least said, '''soonest''' mended!' "[]
* "well"
**"Valrosa '''well''' deserved its name, for in that climate of perpetual summer roses blossomed everywhere."[]
**"'I'm afraid your appearance in the Phycological Quarterly was '''better''' deserved,' said Mrs. Arkwright, without removing her eyes from the microscope ..."[]
**"Who among the typical Victorians '''best''' deserved his hate?"[]

====Adverb placement====
Adverbs are most usually placed at the end of a phrase. Time adverbs (''yesterday, soon, habitually'') are the most flexible exception. "Connecting Adverbs", such as ''next, then, however'', may also be placed at the beginning of a clause. Other exceptions include "focusing adverbs", which can occupy a middle position for emphasis. "[]

===Adverb phrases===
;Forms
An adverb phrase is a phrase that collectively acts as an adverb within a sentence; in other words, it modifies a verb (or verb phrase), an adjective (or adjective phrase), or another adverb.[] The head of an adverb phrase (roman boldface), which is an adverb, may be modified by another adverb (italics boldface) or followed by a complement (italics boldface):[]
*"Yet '''''all too'' suddenly''' Rosy popped back into the conversation, ...."[]
*"'''Oddly ''enough''''', that very shudder did the business."[]
* "The Stoics said, '''''perhaps'' shockingly ''for us''''', that a father ceases to be a father when his child dies."[]

An adverb phrase can be part of the complement of the verb "be." It then usually indicates location (adverbe phrase in boldface; form of "be" in italics):[]
* "'... it ''is'' '''underneath''' the pink slip that I wore on Wednesday with my Mechlin.'"[]
* "... '''north-by-northeast''' ''was'' Rich Mountain, ..."[]

Adverb phrases are frequently modifiers of verbs:[]
* "They plow through a heavy fog, and Enrique ''sleeps'' '''soundly'''—'''too soundly'''."[]
* "'''Sleepily, very sleepily''', you ''stagger'' to your feet and collapse into the nearest chair."[]

Adverb phrases are also frequently modifiers of adjectives and other adverbs (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* (adjectives) "Then to the swish of waters as the sailors sluice the decks all around and under you, you fall into a '''really''' ''deep'' sleep."[]
* (adverbs) "'My grandma's kinda deaf and she sleeps like '''really''' ''heavily''."[]

Adverb phrases can also be modifiers of noun phrases (or pronoun phrases) and prepositional phrases (adverb phrases in boldface; modified phrases in italics):[]
* (noun phrase): "She stayed out in the middle of the wild sea, and told them that was '''quite''' ''the loveliest place'', you could see for many miles all round you, ...."[]
* (pronoun phrase): "... the typical structure of glioma is that of spherical and cylindrical lobules, '''almost''' ''each and everyone of which'' has a centrally located blood vessel."[]
*(prepositional phrase): "'''About halfway''' ''through the movie'', I decided to ..."[]

Adverb phrases also modify determiners (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* "The devil knows best what he said, but at least she became his tool and was in the habit of seeing him '''nearly''' ''every'' evening."[]
* "'''Nearly if not quite''' ''all'' civilized peoples and ourselves '''above almost''' ''all'' others, are heavily burdened with the interest upon their public debt."[]
;Functions
According to Carter and McCarthy, "As well as giving information on the time, place, manner and degree of an action, event, or process, adverb phrases can also have a commenting function, indicating the attitude and point of view of the speaker or writer towards a whole sentence or utterance."[] Examples:
* "'''Frankly''', my dear, I don't give a damn."[]
* "'''Astonishingly''', she'd shelled every nut, leaving me only the inner skin to remove."[]

Adverb phrases also indicate the relation between two clauses in a sentence.[] Such adverbs are usually called "linking adverbs." Example:
* "... they concluded from the similarities of their bodies, that mine must contain at least 1724 of theirs, and '''consequently''' would require as much food as was necessary to support that number of Lilliputians."[]

===Prepositions===
Prepositions relate two events in time or two people or things in space.[] They also represent abstract relations between two entities:[] Examples:
# ("after":) "We came home from Mr. Boythorn's '''after''' six pleasant weeks."[]
#("after":) "The body of a little wizened Gond lay with its feet in the ashes, and Bagheera looked inquiringly at Mowgli. "That was done with a bamboo," said the boy, '''after''' one glance.[]
#("to":) "I must go down '''to''' the seas again, '''to''' the vagrant gypsy life, ..."[]
#("between" and "through":) "'''Between''' two golden tufts of summer grass, I see the world '''through''' hot air '''as through''' glass, ..."[]
#("during":) "'''During''' these years at Florence, Leonardo's history is the history of his art; he himself is lost in the bright cloud of it."[]
#("of":) "When to the sessions '''of''' sweet silent thought I summon up remembrances of things past."[]

Prepositions are accompanied by prepositional complements;[] these are usually noun phrases.[] In the above examples, the prepositional
complements are:
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "six pleasant weeks"
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "one glance"
#preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the seas"; preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the vagrant gypsy life";
#preposition: "Between"; prepositional complement: "two golden tufts of summer grass,"; preposition: "through"; prepositional complement: "hot air"; preposition: "as through"; prepositional complement: "glass."
#preposition: "during"; prepositional complement: "these years at Florence."
#preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "sweet silent thought"; preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "things past."

===Prepositional phrases===
A prepositional phrase is formed when a preposition combines with its complement.[] In the above examples, the prepositional phrases are:

#prepositional phrase: "after six pleasant weeks"
#prepositional phrase: "after one glance"
#prepositional phrases: "to the seas" and "to the vagrant gypsy life"
#prepositional phrases: "Between two golden tufts of summer grass," "through hot air" and "as through glass."
#prepositional phrase: "During these years at Florence."
#prepositional phrases "of sweet silent thought" and "of things past."
#prepositional phrases:The one Tani Love Vikey and daniel love marryjane"

===Conjunctions===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Conjunctions express a variety of logical relations between phrases, clauses and sentences."[] There are two kinds of conjunctions: coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions.[]

;Coordinating

Coordinating conjunctions link "elements of equal grammatical status."[] The elements in questions may vary from a prefix to an entire sentence.[] Examples:
*(prefixes): "The doctor must provide facilities for ''pre-'' '''and''' ''post'' test counselling and have his own strict procedures for the storing of that confidential information."[]
* (words): "'No, I'll never love ''anybody'' '''but''' ''you'', Tom, and I'll never marry anybody but you--and you ain't to ever marry ''anybody'' '''but''' ''me'', either."[]
* (phrases): "Can ''storied urn'' '''or''' ''animated'' bust back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?"[]
* (subordinate clauses): "''Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life'', '''or''' ''whether that station will be held by anybody else'', these pages must show.[]
*(independent clauses): "Well, ''I think you're here, plain enough'', '''but''' ''I think you're a tangle-headed old fool'', Jim."[]
*(sentences): "He said we were neither of us much to look at and we were as sour as we looked. '''But''' I don't feel as sour as I used to before I knew robin and Dickon."[]

A ''correlative conjunction'' is a pair of constituent elements, each of which is associated with the grammatical unit to be coordinated.[] The common correlatives in English are:
* "either ... or":
**"The clergyman stayed to exchange a few sentences, '''either''' ''of admonition'' '''or''' ''reproof'', with his haughty parishioner ...."[]
**"...; for I could not divest myself of a misgiving that something might happen to London in the meanwhile, and that, when I got there, it would be '''either''' ''greatly deteriorated'' '''or''' ''clean gone''."[]
* "neither ... nor":
**"Buck made no effort. He lay quietly where he had fallen. The lash bit into him again and again, but he '''neither''' ''whined'' '''nor''' ''struggled''."[]
** "For I have '''neither''' ''wit'', '''nor''' ''words'', '''nor''' ''worth, action'', '''nor''' ''utterance'', '''nor''' ''the power of speech, to stir men's blood'': I only speak right on; ..."[]
* "both ... and"
**"There was no mistaking her sincerity—it breathed in every tone of her voice. '''Both''' ''Marilla'' '''and''' ''Mrs. Lynde'' recognized its unmistakable ring."[]
**"There messages have '''both''' ''ethical'' '''and''' ''pragmatic'' overtones, urging women to recognize that even if they do suffer from physical and social disadvantages, their lives are far from being determined by their biology."[]
* "Not only ... but also"
**"The director of ''A Doll's House'', the brilliant Zhang Min, ..., was impressed with Lin '''not only''' ''professionally'' '''but also''' ''personally''."[]
**"... she attempted to persuade her husband to give up his affair. '''Not only''' ''did he refuse'', '''but''' ''he'' '''also''' ''told her he loved them both'' ...."[]

;Subordinating conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction relate only clauses to one another. They make the clause associated with them into a subordinate clause.[] Some common subordinating conjunctions in English are: (of time) after, before, since, until, when, while; (cause and effect): because, since, now that, as, in order that, so; (opposition): although, though, even though, whereas, while; (condition): if, unless, only if, whether or not, whether or no, even if, in case (that), and so forth.[] Examples:
* (time: "before"): "Perhaps Homo erectus had already died out '''before''' ''Homo sapiens arrived''.[]
*(cause and effect: "in order that"): "'''In order that''' ''feelings, representations, ideas and the like should attain a certain degree of memorability'', it is important that they should not remain isolated ..."[]
* (opposition: "although"): "Ultimately there were seven more sessions, in which, '''although''' ''she remained talkative'', she increasingly clearly conveyed a sense that she did not wish to come any more."[]
*(condition: "even if"): "'''Even if''' ''Sethe could deal with the return of the spirit'', Stamp didn't believe her daughter could."[]

==Sentence and clause patterns==
Identified in English by a capitalized initial letter in its first word and by a period (or full stop) at the end of its last word, the sentence is the largest constituent of grammar.[] A text that contains more than one sentence is no longer in the realm of grammar, but rather of discourse, as are all conversations, howsoever brief.[] Sentences themselves consist of clauses which are the principal constituents of grammar. A clause consists of a subject, which is usually a noun phrase, and a predicate which is usually a verb phrase with an accompanying grammatical unit in the form of an object or complement.[]

===Verb complementation===

===Clause types===

===Clause combination===

===Adjuncts===

==History of English grammar writing==

''See Also [[History of English grammars]]''

The first '''English grammar''', Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, written with the ostensible goal of demonstrating that English was just as rule-bound as Latin, was published in 1586. Bullokar’s grammar was faithfully modeled on William Lily’s Latin grammar, Rudimenta Grammatices (1534), which was being used in schools in England at that time, having been “prescribed” for them in 1542 by Henry VIII. Although Bullokar wrote his grammar in English and used a “reformed spelling system” of his own invention, many English grammars, for much of the century after Bullokar’s effort, were written in Latin, especially by authors who were aiming to be scholarly. John Wallis’s Grammatica Linguæ Anglicanæ (1685) was the last English grammar written in Latin.

Even as late as the early 19th century, Lindley Murray, the author of one of the most widely used grammars of the day, was having to cite “grammatical authorities” to bolster the claim that grammatical cases in English are different from those in Ancient Greek or Latin.

== See also ==
* [[Apokoinu construction]]
* [[Capitalization]]
* [[Conditional sentence]]
* [[Disputes in English grammar]]
* [[Do-support|''Do''-support]]
* [[English noun phrase]]
* [[English prefixes]]
* [[English verbs]]
* [[Grammar checker]]
* ''[[Grammar Ray: A Graphic Guide to Grammar]]'' (series of six books)
* [[nominal group (language)|Nominal group]]
* [[Thematic equative]]
* [[French grammar]]
* [[Spanish grammar]]
* [[German grammar]]

== Notes and references ==

== Bibliography ==
=== Grammar books ===
* Curme, George O., College English Grammar, Richmond, VA, 1925, Johnson Publishing company, 414 pages . A revised edition ''Principles and Practice of English Grammar'' was published by Barnes & Noble, in 1947.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1984) ''Introduction to the grammar of English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1988) ''English grammar: An outline''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
grammar|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=320|isbn=0521612888}}
* Jespersen, Otto. (1937). ''Analytic Syntax''. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1937. 170 p.
* Jespersen, Otto. (1909–1949). ''A modern English grammar on historical principles'' (Vols. 1-7). Heidelberg: C. Winter.
* [[Korsakov Andrey|Korsakov]], A. K. (Andreĭ Konstantinovich). 1969. The use of tenses in English. Korsakov, A. K. Structure of Modern English pt. 1. oai:gial.edu:26766 at http://www.language-archives.org/item/oai:gial.edu:26766
* Poutsma, Hendrik. A grammar of late modern English, Groningen, P. Noordhoff, 1914–29, 2 pt. in 5 v. Contents: pt. I. The sentence: 1st half. The elements of the sentence, 1928. 2d half. The composite sentence, 1929.--pt. II. The parts of speech: section I, A. Nouns, adjectives and articles, 1914. section I, B. Pronouns and numerals, 1916. section II. The verb and the particles, 1926.
* Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; & Svartvik, Jan. (1972). ''A grammar of contemporary English''. Harlow: Longman.
* Sinclair, John, ed. (1991) ''Collins COBUILD - English Grammar'' London: Collins ISBN 000370257X second edition, 2005 ISBN 0007183879. Huddleston and Pullman say they found this grammar 'useful' in their ''Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' (p. 1765) A CD-Rom version of the 1st edition is available on the Collins COBUILD Resource Pack ISBN 0007169213
* Sledd, James. (1959) ''A short introduction to English grammar'' Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
* Strang, Barbara M. H. (1968) ''Modern English structure'' (2nd ed.) London: Arnold.
* Whitney, William Dwight, (1877) ''Essentials of English Grammar'', Boston: Ginn & Heath.
* Zandvoort, R. W. (1972) ''A handbook of English grammar'' (2nd ed.) London: Longmans.

=== Monographs ===
* Adams, Valerie. (1973). ''An introduction to modern English word-formation''. London: Longman.
* Bauer, Laurie. (1983). ''English word-formation''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Fries, Charles Carpenter. (1952). ''The structure of English; an introduction to the construction of English sentences''. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
* Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/94). ''Spoken and written language''. [[Deakin University]] Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1976). ''An introduction to English transformational syntax''. Longman.
* Kruisinga, E. (1925). ''A handbook of present-day English''. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.
* Leech, Geoffrey N. (1971). ''Meaning and the English verb''. London: Longman.
* Marchand, Hans. (1969). ''The categories and types of present-day English word-formation'' (2nd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.
* McCawley, James D. (1998). ''The syntactic phenomena of English'' (2nd ed.). ''Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
* Onions, C. T. (Charles Talbut), (1904—1st edition) ''An advanced English syntax based on the principles and requirements of the Grammatical society''. London: Keegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & co. A new edition of ''An advanced English syntax'', prepared from the author’s materials by B. D. H. Miller, was published as ''Modern English syntax'' in 1971.
* Palmer, F. R. (1974). ''The English verb''. London: Longman.
* Palmer, F. R. (1979). ''Modality and the English modals''. London: Longman.
* Plag, Ingo. (2003). ''Word-formation in English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Scheurweghs, Gustave. (1959). ''Present-day English syntax: A survey of sentence patterns''. London: Longmans.

== External links ==
* [[b:English|English Grammar]], [[wikibooks|wikibook]] in [[English (language)|English]]
* [http://www.beaugrande.com/UPLOADGRAMMARHEADER.htm A Friendly Grammar of English] by Robert de Beaugrande
* [http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/ Modern English Grammar] by Daniel Kies
* [http://www.englishgrammar.org/ Grammar lessons, rules, and news for everyday use] by Jennifer Frost
* [http://www.bartleby.com/64/ The American Heritage Book of English Usage.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996. [Date of Printout].
* [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/home.htm The Internet Grammar of English].
* [http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/laurie-bauer/Bauer-adj-compound.pdf Adjectives, Compounds and Words] (Laurie Bauer)

{{DEFAULTSORT:English Grammar}}
[[Category:English grammar|*]]
[[Category:Grammars of specific languages]]

English grammar

2011-01-20T07:07:41Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

{{Template: English Grammar}}
'''English grammar''' is the body of rules describing the properties of the [[English language]]. A language is such that its elements must be combined according to certain patterns. This article is concerned with (and restricted to) [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]], the building blocks of language; and [[syntax]], the construction of meaningful [[phrases]], [[clauses]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentences]] with the use of [[morphemes]] and [[word]]s.

The [[grammar]] of any language is commonly approached in two different ways: ''descriptive'', usually based on a systematic analysis of a large [[text corpus]] and describing grammatical structures thereupon; and ''prescriptive'', which attempts to use the identified rules of a given language as a tool to govern the linguistic behaviour of speakers (see [[Descriptive linguistics]] and [[Linguistic prescription]]). Prescriptive grammar further concerns itself with several open [[disputes in English grammar]], often representing changes in usage over time. This article predominantly concerns itself with descriptive grammar.

There are historical, social and regional variations of English. For example, [[British English]] and [[American English]] have several [[lexical]] differences; however, the grammatical differences are not equally conspicuous, and will be mentioned only when appropriate. Further, the many [[List of dialects of the English language|dialects of English]] have divergences from the grammar described here; they are only cursorily mentioned. This article describes a generalized present-day [[Standard English]], the form of speech found in types of public discourse including broadcasting, education, entertainment, government, and news reporting. Standard English includes both formal and informal speech.

==Word classes and phrase classes==
Seven major word classes are described here. These are: [[noun]], [[verb]], [[adjective]], [[adverb]], [[preposition]], [[Grammatical conjunction|conjunction]], and [[Determiner (linguistics)|determiner]]. The first six are traditionally referred to as "parts of speech." There are minor word classes, such as [[interjection]]s, but these do not fit into the [[clause]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentence]] structure of English.[]

;Open and closed classes
[[Open class (linguistics)|Open word class]]es allow new members; [[closed class|closed word class]]es seldom do.[] Nouns such as "[[celebutante]]", (a celebrity who frequents the fashion circles)" and "mentee," (a person advised by a mentor) and adverbs such as "[[24/7]]" ("I am working on it 24/7") are relatively new words; nouns and adverbs are therefore open classes.[] However, invented pronouns, such as the "[[Spivak pronouns]]", as a [[Gender-neutral pronoun|gender-neutral singular]] replacement for the "his or her" (as in: "The student should bring eir books.") have gained only niche acceptance during their existence; pronouns, in consequence, form a closed class.[]

;Word classes and grammatical forms
A word can sometimes belong to several word classes. The class version of a word is called a "[[lexeme]]".[] For example, the word "run" is usually a verb, but it can also be a noun ("It is a ten mile run to [[Tipperary]]."); these are two different lexemes.<v> Further, the same lexeme may be [[inflected]] to express different grammatical categories: for example, as a verb lexeme, "run" has several forms such as "runs," "ran," and "running."[] Words in one class can sometimes be [[Derivation (linguistics)|derived]] from those in another and new words be created. The noun "aerobics," for example, has recently given rise to the adjective "aerobicized" ("the aerobicized bodies of Beverly Hills celebutantes."[])

;Phrase classes
Words combine to form [[phrase]]s which themselves can take on the attributes of a word class. These classes are called
phrase classes.[] The phrase: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth" functions as a noun in the sentence: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth was shrunken hard and dry." ([[Thomas Hardy]], ''[[The Darkling Thrush]]'') It is therefore a ''noun phrase''. Other phrase classes are: [[verb phrase]]s, [[adjectival phrase|adjective phrase]]s, [[adverbial phrase|adverb phrase]]s, [[adpositional phrase|prepositional phrase]]s, and [[determiner phrase]]s.[]

===Nouns and determiners===
Nouns form the largest word class. According to Carter and McCarthy, they denote "classes and categories of things in the world, including people, animals, inanimate things, places, events, qualities and states."[] Consequently, the words "Mandela," "jaguar," "mansion," "volcano," "Timbuktoo," "blockade," "mercy," and "liquid" are all nouns. Nouns are not commonly identified by their form; however, some common [[suffix]]es such as "-age" ("shrinkage"), "-hood" ("sisterhood"), "-ism" ("journalism"), "-ist" ("lyricist"), "-ment" ("adornment"), "-ship" ("companionship"), "-tude" ("latitude"), and so forth, are usually identifiers of nouns.[] There are exceptions, of course: "assuage" and "disparage" are verbs; "augment" is a verb, "lament" and "worship" can be verbs. Nouns can also be created by [[Conversion (linguistics)|conversion]] of verbs or adjectives. Examples include the nouns in: "a boring talk," "a five-week run," "the long caress," "the utter disdain," and so forth.

;Number, gender, type, and syntactic features.
Nouns have [[Grammatical number|singular]] and [[plural]] forms.[] Many plural forms have -s or -es endings (dog/dogs, referee/referees, bush/bushes), but by no means all (woman/women, axis/axes, medium/media). Unlike some other languages, in English, nouns do not have [[grammatical gender]].[] However, many nouns can refer to masculine or feminine animate objects (mother/father, tiger/tigress, alumnus/alumna, male/female).[] Nouns can be classified semantically, i.e. by their meanings: [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|common noun]]s ("sugar," "maple," "syrup," "wood"), [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|proper noun]]s ("Cyrus," "China"), [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|concrete noun]]s ("book," "laptop"), and [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|abstract noun]]s ("heat," "prejudice").[]
Alternatively, they can be distinguished grammatically: [[count noun]]s ("clock," "city," "colour") and [[mass noun|non-count noun]]s ("milk," "decor," "foliage").[] Nouns have several [[syntax|syntactic]] features that can aid in their identification.[] Nouns (example: common noun "cat") may be
#[[Grammatical modifier|modified]] by adjectives ("the ''beautiful'' [[Turkish Angora|Angora cat]]"),
#preceded by determiners ("''the'' beautiful Angora cat"), or
#pre-modified by other nouns ("the beautiful ''[[Ankara|Angora]]'' cat").[]

===Noun phrases===
Noun phrases are phrases that function grammatically as nouns within sentences. In addition, nouns serve as "heads," or main words of noun phrases.[]
Examples (the heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' of smoky days."[]
#"The real raw-knuckle '''boys''' who know what fighting means, ..."[]
#"The idle '''spear and shield''' ..."[]

The head can have ''modifiers'', a ''complement'', or both. Modifiers can occur before the head ("The real raw-knuckle boys ...," or "The burnt-out ends ..." and they are then called ''pre-modifiers''; or, they can occur after the head ("who know what fighting means ...") and are called ''post-modifiers''.[] Example: "The rough, seamy-faced, raw-boned College '''Servitor''' ..."[] The pre-modifying phrase, for example, is composed of determiners ("The"), adjectives ("rough," "seamy-faced," ...) and other nouns ("College").

''Complements'' occur after the head as well; however, they are essential for completing the meaning of the noun phrase in a way that post-modifiers are not.[] Examples (complements are italicized; heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' ''of smoky days''."[]
#"The '''suggestion''' ''that Mr. Touchett should invite me'' appeared to have come from Miss Stackpole."[]
#"The ancient '''pulse''' ''of germ and birth'' was shrunken hard and dry."[]

Within a sentence, a noun phrase can be a part of the grammatical subject, the object, or the complement. Examples (the noun phrase is italicized, and the head boldfaced):[]
#grammatical subject: "''Some mute inglorious '''Milton''''' here may rest."[]
#object: "Dr. Pavlov ... delivered ''many long propaganda '''harangues''''' ..."[])
#complement: "'All they see is ''some frumpy, wrinkled-up '''person''' passing by in a carriage waving at a crowd''."[]

===Verbs===
Verbs form the second largest word class after nouns. According to Carter and McCarthy, verbs denote "actions, events, processes, and states."[] Consequently, "smile," "stab," "climb," "confront," "liquefy," "wake," "reflect" are all verbs. Some examples of verb endings, which while not dead giveaways, are often associated, include: "-ate" ("formulate"), "-iate" ("inebriate"), "-ify" ("electrify"), and "-ise" ("realise").[] There are exceptions, of course: "chocolate" is a noun, "immediate" is an adjective, "prize" can be a noun, and "maize" is a noun. Prefixes can also be used to create new verbs. Examples are: "un-" ("unmask"), "out-" ("outlast"), "over-" ("overtake"), and "under-" ("undervalue").[] Just as nouns can be formed from verbs by conversion, the reverse is also possible:[]
*"so are the sons of men '''snared''' in an evil time"[]
*"[a national convention] '''nosed''' parliament in the very seat of its authority"[]

Verbs can also be formed from adjectives:[]

*"To '''dry''' the old oak's sap, and cherish springs."[]
*"Time's glory is to '''calm''' contending kings"[]

;Regular and irregular verbs

A verb is said to be ''regular'' if its base form does not change when inflections are added to create new
forms.[] An example is: base form: climb; present form: climb; -s form: climb'''s'''; -ing form: climb'''ing'''; past form: climb'''ed'''; -ed participle: climb'''ed'''.[]
Irregular verbs are ones in which the base form changes; the endings corresponding to each form are not always unique.[] Examples:

*base form: catch; present form: catch; -s form: catches; -ing form: catching; past form: caught; -ed participle: caught.
*base form: choose; present form: choose; -s form: chooses; -ing form: choosing; past form: chose; -ed participle: chosen.

The verb "be" is the only verb in English which has distinct inflectional forms for each of the categories of grammatical forms: base form: be; present form: am, are; -s form: is; -ing form: being; past form: was, were; -ed participle: been.[]

;Type and characteristics

Verbs come in three grammatical types: lexical, auxiliary, and modal.[] Lexical verbs form an open class which includes most verbs (state, action, processes, and events). For example, "dive," "soar," "swoon," "revive," "breathe," "choke," "lament," "celebrate," "consider," "ignore" are all lexical verbs.[]
Auxiliary verbs form a closed class consisting of only three members: be, do, and have.[] Although auxiliary verbs are lexical verbs as well, their main function is to add information to other lexical verbs. This information indicates (a) aspect (progressive, perfect), (b) passive voice, and (c) clause type (interrogative, negative).[] In the following examples, the auxiliary is in boldface and the lexical verb is italicized.
#aspect (progressive): "'She '''is''' ''breathing'' Granny; we've got to make her keep it up, that's all—just keep her breathing."[]
#aspect (perfect): "'Yes, I want a coach,' said Maurice, and bade the coachman draw up to the stone where the poor man who '''had''' ''swooned'' was sitting."[]
# passive voice: "When she was admitted into the house Beautiful, care '''was''' ''taken'' to inquire into the religious knowledge of her children."[]
#clause type (interrogative): (Old joke) Boy: "Excuse me sir, How '''do''' I ''get'' to [[Carnegie Hall]]?" Man on street: "Practice, Practice, Practice."
#clause type (negative): '''Wasn't''' she monstrously ''surprised''?"[]

[[English modal verb|Modal verbs]] also form a closed class which consists of the core modals ("can," "could," "shall," "should," "will," "would," "may," "might," "must"), semi-modals ("dare," "need," "ought to," "used to"), and modal expressions ("be able to," "have to").[] Modals add information to lexical verbs about degrees of certainty and necessity.[] Examples:
* less certain: "Before the snow '''could''' ''melt'' for good, an ice storm covered the lowcountry and we learned the deeper treachery of ice."[]
*more certain: "Eat your eggs in Lent and the snow '''will''' ''melt''. That's what I say to our people when they get noisy over their cups at San Gallo ..."[]
*expressing necessity: "But I should think there must be some stream somewhere about. The snow '''must''' ''melt''; besides, these great herds of deer must drink somewhere."[]

Modal verbs do not inflect for person, number or tense.[] Examples:
* person: "I/you/she '''might''' consider it."
* number: "I/We/She/They '''might''' consider it"
* tense: "They '''might''' have considered/be considering/have been considering it."

Verbs too have features that aid in their recognition:
# they follow the (grammatical) subject noun phrase (in italics): "''The real raw-knuckle boys who know what fighting means'' '''enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in number: "The real raw-knuckle ''boy/boys'' who knows/know what fighting means '''enters/enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in person: "I/He, the real raw-knuckle boy who knows what fighting means, enter/enters the arena without fanfare", and
#with the exception of modal verbs, they can express tense:"The boys ... '''had been entering''' the arena without fanfare."

===Verb phrases===
====Forms====

Verb phrases are formed entirely of verbs. The verbs can be lexical, auxiliary, and modal. The head is the first verb in the verb phrase.[] Example:
* "I didn't notice Rowen around tonight," remarked Don, as they began to prepare for bed. "'''Might have been sulking''' in his tent," grinned Terry."[] Here, the verb phrase "might have been sulking" has the form "modal-auxiliary-auxiliary-lexical."

In a verb phrase, the modal comes first, then the auxiliary or several auxiliaries, and finally the lexical (main) verb.[] When a verb phrase has a combination of modal and auxiliaries, it is constituted usually in the following order: modal verb >> perfect ''have'' >> progressive ''be'' >> passive ''be'' >> Lexical verb.[] Examples:
*"He '''might have been being used''' by the CIA as part of their debriefing procedure, but he might just as easily have been part of the Russians' plans to use Oswald in America."[] Here, the verb phrase is: might (modal) have (perfect) been (progressive) being (passive) used (lexical).
* The modal expression "be able to" is an exception: "It is best to know that she '''has''' (perfect) '''been''' (progressive) '''able to''' (modal expression) '''balance''' (lexical verb) these qualities and quantities with a grace which has not fallen short of greatness ...."[]

====Tense====

Verb phrases can vary with tense, in which case they are called "tensed verb phrases."[] Example:
* "They '''have accomplished''' a lot this year, but they '''had accomplished''' even more last year."
There are many [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed forms]] as well:
#base form of a lexical verb used as an [[Imperative mood|imperative]].[] Example: "'''Halt'''!"
#base form of the lexical verb occurring as a [[Subjunctive mood|subjunctive]].<v> Example: "'If he is a spy,' said Gorgik, 'I would rather he not '''know''' who I am."[]
#the [[infinitive]] with "to."[] Examples:
##"Did you see her, chief—did you get a glimpse of her pleasant countenance, or come close enough to her ear, to sing in it the song she ''loves'' '''to hear'''?'"[]
##"She got so she could tell big stories herself from listening to the rest. Because she loved to hear it, and the men ''loved'' '''to hear''' themselves, they would 'woof' and 'boogerboo' around the games to the limit."[]
#the "-ing" form, shared between the [[gerund]] and [[Participle|present participle]].[] Examples:
##"Biological diversity ''is'' '''plummeting''', mainly due to habitat degradation and loss, pollution, overexploitation, competition from alien species, disease, and changing climates."[]
##"Then it was swooping downward, and in the next second, a huge metal magpie, with wings outstretched in full flight, ''was'' '''plummeting''' toward them."[]
# the "-ed" [[participle]].[] Examples:
##"I also know that the painter ''has'' '''dined''' twice with the Prince Regent."<v>
##"Which in all probability means that you ''had'' '''dined''' together," replied Monte Cristo, laughing, "I am glad to see you are more sober than he was."[]

The time frame of a non-tensed verb phrase is determined by examining that of the main clause verb.[] Examples:
*"From the very beginning, Coltrane was an indefatigable worker at his saxophone spending hours upon hours '''practicing''' every day."[]
* "By assuming a good position and by '''practicing''' every day he will in time acquire a feeling and an appearance of ease before people."[]

In the first case, the time frame (past) of "practicing" is determined by "was" in the main clause; in the second, the time frame (present and future) of "practicing" is determined by "will in time," also in the main clause.

====Aspect====
Verb phrases can also express two [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]]: ''[[Progressive aspect|progressive]]'' and ''[[perfect (grammar)|perfect]]''. Aspect provides additional information on
the speaker's perception of time.

;[[Progressive aspect]]

The progressive aspect consists of the [[Auxiliary verb|auxiliary]] ''be'' form and the ''-ing'' form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* "Landlord, chambermaid, waiter rush to the door; but just as some distinguished guests '''are arriving''', the curtains close, and the invisible theatrical manager cries out, 'Second syllable!' "[]
*"She made her curtsy, and '''was departing''' when the wretched young captain sprang up, looked at her, and sank back on the sofa with another wild laugh."[]
Properties:
*Progressive aspect may be found in verb phrases containing [[Modal verb|modals]].[]
**"Restless, exciting and witty, he cannot resist a fantastic theory ..., so that one '''might be meeting''' Synge, Fielding, and Aldous Huxley, and on the same page."[]
*[[Non-finite verb|Non-tensed]] ''-ing'' forms, however, do not have the progressive aspect.<v>
**"By '''working''' every day, he had learned the peculiarities, the weaknesses and strengths, of opposing batters ..."[] It cannot be changed to "By ''being'' working every day, ...."
*Progressive aspect can be combined with "to"-[[infinitive]] forms in a verb phrase.[]
**"He loved to sit by the open window when the wind was east, and seemed '''to be dreaming''' of faraway scenes."[]

;[[Perfect (grammar)|Perfect]]

The ''perfect'' aspect is created by the auxiliary "have" and the "-ed" participle form of the lexical verb.[] It refers to a time period that includes the present moment.[] Contrast "The flowers didn't bloom this summer" with "The flowers haven't bloomed this summer." The latter sentence suggests that the summer is not over yet.

Properties:

*The perfect can pair with [[modal verbs]].[]
**"You '''might''' (modal) '''have invited''' (perfect) the [[The Hatter|Hatter]] to the tea-party."
*The perfect can be combined with the -ing and the to-infinitive forms.[]
**"'''Having turned''' the TV '''on''', he now mindlessly flicked through the channels."
**"'''To have run''' the marathon, she would have needed to be in good shape."

Finally, the two aspects, progressive and perfect, can be combined in a verb phrase: "They''''ve been laughing''' so hard that their sides hurt."

====Voice====
The ''[[passive voice]]'', which provides information about the roles of different participants in an event, is formed with the auxiliary "be" and the "-ed" [[participle]] form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* (Sentence) "The older critics '''slammed''' the play with vituperation inexplicable unless one attributes it to homophobia."<v>
*(passive voice) "Ever notice how she '''was''' (past of "be") '''slammed''' (-ed participle) by the critics until the actors started doing it themselves?"[]

Properties:
*[[Modal verbs]] can occur in passive voice.[]
**"And if they couldn't get a handle on it soon, cities and towns all up and down the Eastern Seaboard '''could''' (modal) '''be slammed''' (passive) by the biggest storm of the year ...."[]
*Passive voice can be combined with [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed verbs]] such as "-ing" form and the "to-" [[infinitive]].[]
**"There he was—'''getting slammed''' by the critics—and still taking the high road."[]
**"We were about '''to be slammed''' by an 80-foot breaking wave."[]
*Passive voice can combine with both the progressive and the perfect [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]].[]
**(passive, progressive): "The wind had picked up. The boat '''was being slammed''' by the swells, and floundering."[]
**(passive, perfect): "Although, alas, it's not such an exclusive club. I've sent them to everyone who '''has been slammed''' by that dreadful woman."[]

====Mood====
A verb phrase can also express mood, which refers to the "factual or non-factual status of events."[] There are three moods in English: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive.[]
;Indicative mood
The indicative is the most common mood in English.[] It is a factual mood, and most constructions involving the various choices of person, tense, number, aspect, modality are in the indicative mood.[] Examples:
*"She will have a hangover tomorrow morning."
*"The Prime Minister and his cabinet were discussing the matter on that fateful day in 1939."

;Imperative mood
The imperative mood is a non-factual mood and is employed for issuing directives:[]
*"'''[[Keep Your Eyes on the Prize|Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on]]'''"[]
* "'Your father's urn is on the backseat. '''Just leave the keys in the cup holder'''."[]

;Subjunctive mood
The subjunctive mood is also a non-factual mood which refers to demands, desires, etc.[] It uses the base form of the verb ''without inflections''.<ref name=carter-mccarthy-p307/> It is rare in English and is used after only a handful of words such as "demand," "request," "suggest," "ask," "plead," "pray," "insist," and so forth.[] Examples:
*"I demanded that Sheriff Jeanfreau '''stay'''. I even wanted worthless and annoying Ugly Henderson to stay."[]
*"'I suggest that you '''not exercise''' your temper overmuch,' Mayne said, and the French tinge in his voice sounded truly dangerous now." []

Properties:
*Subjunctives can be used after conditional subordinators.[]
**"I accepted on the condition that I '''not be given''' a starring role."[]
*Subjunctives can also be used after expressions of necessity.[]
**"Two nuns are asked to paint a room in the convent, and the last instruction of Mother Superior is that they '''not get''' even a drop of paint on their habits."[]
*The subjunctive form of the verb "be" can occur as the base form "be".[]
**"Whenever a prisoner alleges physical abuse, it is imperative that the prisoner '''be seen''' by an officer at the earliest possible opportunity."[]
*In its "were" form the subjunctive is used to express a hypothetical situation.[]
**"'Lin said, turning toward Pei, "I'm afraid she's excited at seeing me home again." Pei smiled. "I would be too, if I '''were''' she."[]

===Adjectives===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Adjectives describe properties, qualities, and states attributed to a noun or a pronoun."<rsup>[] As was the case with nouns and verbs, the class of adjectives cannot be identified by the forms of its constituents.[] However, adjectives are commonly formed by adding the some suffixes to nouns.[] Examples: "-al" ("habitual," "multidimensional," "visceral"), "-ful" ("blissful," "pitiful," "woeful"), "-ic" ("atomic," "gigantic," "pedantic"), "-ish" ("impish," "peckish," "youngish"), "-ous" ("fabulous," "hazardous"). As with nouns and verbs, there are exceptions: "homosexual" can be a noun, "earful" is a noun, "anesthetic" can be a noun, "brandish" is a verb. Adjectives can also be formed from other adjectives through the addition of a suffix or more commonly a prefix:[] weakish, implacable, disloyal, irredeemable, unforeseen. A number of adjectives are formed by adding "a" as a prefix to a verb: "adrift," "astride," "awry."

;Gradability

Adjectives come in two varieties: gradable and non-gradable.[] In a gradable adjective, the properties or qualities associated with it, exist along a scale.[] In the case of the adjective "hot," for example, we can speak of: not at all hot, ever so slightly hot, only just hot, quite hot, very hot, extremely hot, dangerously hot, and so forth. Consequently, "hot" is a gradable adjective. Gradable adjectives usually have antonyms: hot/cold, hard/soft, smart/dumb, light/heavy.[]
Some adjectives do not have room for qualification or modification. These are the non-gradable adjectives, such as: pregnant, married, incarcerated, condemned, adolescent (as adjective), dead, and so forth.

In figurative or literary language, a non-gradable adjective can sometimes be treated as gradable, especially in order to emphasize some aspect:
* "When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with a forward child, understanding, it strikes a man '''more dead''' than a great reckoning in a little room."[]

A non-gradable adjective might have another connotation in which it is gradable. For example, "dead" when applied to sounds can mean dull, or not vibrant. In this meaning, it has been used as a gradable adjective:
* "... the bell seemed to sound '''more dead''' than it did when just before it sounded in open air."[]

Gradable adjectives can occur in comparative and superlative forms.[] For many common adjectives, these are formed by adding "-er" and "-est" to the base form:<v> cold, colder, coldest; hot, hotter, hottest; dry, drier, driest, and so forth; however, for other adjectives, "more" and "most" are needed to provide the necessary qualification: more apparent, most apparent; more iconic, most iconic; more hazardous, most hazardous. Some gradable adjectives change forms atypically:[] good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; little, less, least; some/many, more, most.

===Adjective phrases===
;Forms

An ''adjective phrase'' may consist of just one adjective, or a single adjective which has been modified or complemented.[]

Adjectives are usually modified by adverb phrases (adverb in boldface; adjective in italics):[]
* "... placing himself in a dignified and '''truly''' ''imposing'' attitude, began to draw from his mouth yard after yard of red tape ..."[]
*"Families did certainly come, beguiled by representations of '''impossibly''' ''cheap'' provisions, though the place was '''in reality very''' ''expensive'', for every tradesman was a monopolist at heart."[]
*"... of anger frequent but '''generally''' ''silent'', ..."[]

An adjective phrase can also consist of an adjective followed by a complement, usually a prepositional phrase, or by a "that" clause.[] Different adjectives require different patterns of complementation (adjective in italics; complement in bold facesup>[]
*"... during that brief time I was ''proud'' '''of myself''', and I grew to love the heave and roll of the Ghost ..."[]
*"... her bosom ''angry'' '''at his intrusion''', ..."[]
*"Dr. Drew is especially ''keen'' '''on good congregational singing'''."[]

Examples of "that" clause in the adjective phrase (adjective in italics; clause in boldface):
*"Was ''sure'' '''that the shrill voice was that of a man'''—a Frenchman."[]
*"The ''longest'' day '''that ever was'''; so she raves, restless and impatient."[]

An adjective phrase can combine pre-modification by an adverb phrase and post-modification by a complement,[] as in (adjective in italics; adverb phrase and complement in boldface):
*"Few people were '''ever more''' ''proud'' '''of civic honours than the Thane of Fife'''."[]

;Attributive and predicative

An adjective phrase is attributive when it modifies a noun or a pronoun (adjective phrase in boldface; noun in italics):[]
*"'''Truly selfish''' ''genes'' do arise, in the sense that they reproduce themselves at a cost to the other genes in the genome."[]
*"Luisa Rosado: a ''woman'' '''proud of being a midwife'''"[]

An adjective phrase is predicative when it occurs in the predicate of a sentence (adjective phrase in boldface):[]
*"No, no, I didn't really think so," returned Dora; "but I am '''a little tired''', and it made me '''silly for a moment''' ..."[]
*"She was ill at ease, and looked '''more than usually stern and forbidding''' as she entered the Hales' little drawing room."[]

===Adverbs===
Adverbs typically modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. They perform a wide range of functions and are especially important for indicating "time, manner, place, degree, and frequency of an event, action, or process."[] Adjectives and adverbs are often derived from the same word, the majority being formed by adding the "-ly" ending to the corresponding adjective form.[] Recall the adjectives, "habitual", "pitiful", "impish", We can use them to form the adverbs:
*"habitually": "... shining out of the New England reserve with which Holgrave '''habitually''' masked whatever lay near his heart."[]
*"pitifully": "The lamb tottered along far behind, near exhaustion, bleating '''pitifully'''."[]
*"impishly": "Well," and he grinned '''impishly''', "it was one doggone good party while it lasted!"[]

Some suffixes that are commonly found in adverbs are "-ward(s)" and "-wise":[]
*"homeward": "The plougman '''homeward''' plods his weary way."[]
* "downward": "In tumbling turning, clustering loops, straight '''downward''' falling, ..."[]
* "lengthwise": "2 to 3 medium carrots, peeled, halved '''lengthwise''', and cut into 1-inch pieces."[]

Some adverbs have the same form as the adjectives:[]
*"outside":
**Adverb: "'You'd best begin, or you'll be sorry—it's raining '''outside'''."[]
**Adjective: "It would be possible to winter the colonies in the barn if each colony is provided with a separate '''outside''' entrance; ..."[]
*"straight"
**Adverb: "Five cigars, very dry, smoked '''straight''' except where wrapper loosened, as it did in two cases."[]
**Adjective: "Numbering among the ranks of the "young and evil" in this text are ... '''straight''' women who fall in love with gay men, ..."[]

Some adverbs are not related to adjectives:[]
*"quite": "Mr. Bingley was obliged to be in town the following day, and ... Mrs. Bennet was '''quite''' disconcerted."[]
*"too": "... like a child that, having devoured its plumcake '''too''' hastily, sits sucking its fingers, ...."[]
* "so": "... oh! ... would she heave one little sigh to see a bright young life '''so''' rudely blighted, ...?"[]

Some adverbs inflect for comparative and superlative forms:[]
* "soon"
**"O error, '''soon''' conceived, Thou never comest unto a happy birth, ..."[]
**"Nerissa: 'superfluity comes '''sooner''' by white hairs, but competency lives longer."[]
**"'Least said, '''soonest''' mended!' "[]
* "well"
**"Valrosa '''well''' deserved its name, for in that climate of perpetual summer roses blossomed everywhere."[]
**"'I'm afraid your appearance in the Phycological Quarterly was '''better''' deserved,' said Mrs. Arkwright, without removing her eyes from the microscope ..."[]
**"Who among the typical Victorians '''best''' deserved his hate?"[]

====Adverb placement====
Adverbs are most usually placed at the end of a phrase. Time adverbs (''yesterday, soon, habitually'') are the most flexible exception. "Connecting Adverbs", such as ''next, then, however'', may also be placed at the beginning of a clause. Other exceptions include "focusing adverbs", which can occupy a middle position for emphasis. "[]

===Adverb phrases===
;Forms
An adverb phrase is a phrase that collectively acts as an adverb within a sentence; in other words, it modifies a verb (or verb phrase), an adjective (or adjective phrase), or another adverb.[] The head of an adverb phrase (roman boldface), which is an adverb, may be modified by another adverb (italics boldface) or followed by a complement (italics boldface):[]
*"Yet '''''all too'' suddenly''' Rosy popped back into the conversation, ...."[]
*"'''Oddly ''enough''''', that very shudder did the business."[]
* "The Stoics said, '''''perhaps'' shockingly ''for us''''', that a father ceases to be a father when his child dies."[]

An adverb phrase can be part of the complement of the verb "be." It then usually indicates location (adverbe phrase in boldface; form of "be" in italics):[]
* "'... it ''is'' '''underneath''' the pink slip that I wore on Wednesday with my Mechlin.'"[]
* "... '''north-by-northeast''' ''was'' Rich Mountain, ..."[]

Adverb phrases are frequently modifiers of verbs:[]
* "They plow through a heavy fog, and Enrique ''sleeps'' '''soundly'''—'''too soundly'''."[]
* "'''Sleepily, very sleepily''', you ''stagger'' to your feet and collapse into the nearest chair."[]

Adverb phrases are also frequently modifiers of adjectives and other adverbs (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* (adjectives) "Then to the swish of waters as the sailors sluice the decks all around and under you, you fall into a '''really''' ''deep'' sleep."[]
* (adverbs) "'My grandma's kinda deaf and she sleeps like '''really''' ''heavily''."[]

Adverb phrases can also be modifiers of noun phrases (or pronoun phrases) and prepositional phrases (adverb phrases in boldface; modified phrases in italics):[]
* (noun phrase): "She stayed out in the middle of the wild sea, and told them that was '''quite''' ''the loveliest place'', you could see for many miles all round you, ...."[]
* (pronoun phrase): "... the typical structure of glioma is that of spherical and cylindrical lobules, '''almost''' ''each and everyone of which'' has a centrally located blood vessel."[]
*(prepositional phrase): "'''About halfway''' ''through the movie'', I decided to ..."[]

Adverb phrases also modify determiners (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* "The devil knows best what he said, but at least she became his tool and was in the habit of seeing him '''nearly''' ''every'' evening."[]
* "'''Nearly if not quite''' ''all'' civilized peoples and ourselves '''above almost''' ''all'' others, are heavily burdened with the interest upon their public debt."[]
;Functions
According to Carter and McCarthy, "As well as giving information on the time, place, manner and degree of an action, event, or process, adverb phrases can also have a commenting function, indicating the attitude and point of view of the speaker or writer towards a whole sentence or utterance."[] Examples:
* "'''Frankly''', my dear, I don't give a damn."[]
* "'''Astonishingly''', she'd shelled every nut, leaving me only the inner skin to remove."[]

Adverb phrases also indicate the relation between two clauses in a sentence.[] Such adverbs are usually called "linking adverbs." Example:
* "... they concluded from the similarities of their bodies, that mine must contain at least 1724 of theirs, and '''consequently''' would require as much food as was necessary to support that number of Lilliputians."[]

===Prepositions===
Prepositions relate two events in time or two people or things in space.[] They also represent abstract relations between two entities:[] Examples:
# ("after":) "We came home from Mr. Boythorn's '''after''' six pleasant weeks."[]
#("after":) "The body of a little wizened Gond lay with its feet in the ashes, and Bagheera looked inquiringly at Mowgli. "That was done with a bamboo," said the boy, '''after''' one glance.[]
#("to":) "I must go down '''to''' the seas again, '''to''' the vagrant gypsy life, ..."[]
#("between" and "through":) "'''Between''' two golden tufts of summer grass, I see the world '''through''' hot air '''as through''' glass, ..."[]
#("during":) "'''During''' these years at Florence, Leonardo's history is the history of his art; he himself is lost in the bright cloud of it."[]
#("of":) "When to the sessions '''of''' sweet silent thought I summon up remembrances of things past."[]

Prepositions are accompanied by prepositional complements;[] these are usually noun phrases.[] In the above examples, the prepositional
complements are:
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "six pleasant weeks"
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "one glance"
#preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the seas"; preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the vagrant gypsy life";
#preposition: "Between"; prepositional complement: "two golden tufts of summer grass,"; preposition: "through"; prepositional complement: "hot air"; preposition: "as through"; prepositional complement: "glass."
#preposition: "during"; prepositional complement: "these years at Florence."
#preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "sweet silent thought"; preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "things past."

===Prepositional phrases===
A prepositional phrase is formed when a preposition combines with its complement.[] In the above examples, the prepositional phrases are:

#prepositional phrase: "after six pleasant weeks"
#prepositional phrase: "after one glance"
#prepositional phrases: "to the seas" and "to the vagrant gypsy life"
#prepositional phrases: "Between two golden tufts of summer grass," "through hot air" and "as through glass."
#prepositional phrase: "During these years at Florence."
#prepositional phrases "of sweet silent thought" and "of things past."
#prepositional phrases:The one Tani Love Vikey and daniel love marryjane"

===Conjunctions===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Conjunctions express a variety of logical relations between phrases, clauses and sentences."[] There are two kinds of conjunctions: coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions.[]

;Coordinating

Coordinating conjunctions link "elements of equal grammatical status."[] The elements in questions may vary from a prefix to an entire sentence.[] Examples:
*(prefixes): "The doctor must provide facilities for ''pre-'' '''and''' ''post'' test counselling and have his own strict procedures for the storing of that confidential information."[]
* (words): "'No, I'll never love ''anybody'' '''but''' ''you'', Tom, and I'll never marry anybody but you--and you ain't to ever marry ''anybody'' '''but''' ''me'', either."[]
* (phrases): "Can ''storied urn'' '''or''' ''animated'' bust back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?"[]
* (subordinate clauses): "''Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life'', '''or''' ''whether that station will be held by anybody else'', these pages must show.[]
*(independent clauses): "Well, ''I think you're here, plain enough'', '''but''' ''I think you're a tangle-headed old fool'', Jim."[]
*(sentences): "He said we were neither of us much to look at and we were as sour as we looked. '''But''' I don't feel as sour as I used to before I knew robin and Dickon."[]

A ''correlative conjunction'' is a pair of constituent elements, each of which is associated with the grammatical unit to be coordinated.[] The common correlatives in English are:
* "either ... or":
**"The clergyman stayed to exchange a few sentences, '''either''' ''of admonition'' '''or''' ''reproof'', with his haughty parishioner ...."[]
**"...; for I could not divest myself of a misgiving that something might happen to London in the meanwhile, and that, when I got there, it would be '''either''' ''greatly deteriorated'' '''or''' ''clean gone''."[]
* "neither ... nor":
**"Buck made no effort. He lay quietly where he had fallen. The lash bit into him again and again, but he '''neither''' ''whined'' '''nor''' ''struggled''."[]
** "For I have '''neither''' ''wit'', '''nor''' ''words'', '''nor''' ''worth, action'', '''nor''' ''utterance'', '''nor''' ''the power of speech, to stir men's blood'': I only speak right on; ..."[]
* "both ... and"
**"There was no mistaking her sincerity—it breathed in every tone of her voice. '''Both''' ''Marilla'' '''and''' ''Mrs. Lynde'' recognized its unmistakable ring."[]
**"There messages have '''both''' ''ethical'' '''and''' ''pragmatic'' overtones, urging women to recognize that even if they do suffer from physical and social disadvantages, their lives are far from being determined by their biology."[]
* "Not only ... but also"
**"The director of ''A Doll's House'', the brilliant Zhang Min, ..., was impressed with Lin '''not only''' ''professionally'' '''but also''' ''personally''."[]
**"... she attempted to persuade her husband to give up his affair. '''Not only''' ''did he refuse'', '''but''' ''he'' '''also''' ''told her he loved them both'' ...."[]

;Subordinating conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction relate only clauses to one another. They make the clause associated with them into a subordinate clause.[] Some common subordinating conjunctions in English are: (of time) after, before, since, until, when, while; (cause and effect): because, since, now that, as, in order that, so; (opposition): although, though, even though, whereas, while; (condition): if, unless, only if, whether or not, whether or no, even if, in case (that), and so forth.[] Examples:
* (time: "before"): "Perhaps Homo erectus had already died out '''before''' ''Homo sapiens arrived''.[]
*(cause and effect: "in order that"): "'''In order that''' ''feelings, representations, ideas and the like should attain a certain degree of memorability'', it is important that they should not remain isolated ..."[]
* (opposition: "although"): "Ultimately there were seven more sessions, in which, '''although''' ''she remained talkative'', she increasingly clearly conveyed a sense that she did not wish to come any more."[]
*(condition: "even if"): "'''Even if''' ''Sethe could deal with the return of the spirit'', Stamp didn't believe her daughter could."[]

==Sentence and clause patterns==
Identified in English by a capitalized initial letter in its first word and by a period (or full stop) at the end of its last word, the sentence is the largest constituent of grammar.[] A text that contains more than one sentence is no longer in the realm of grammar, but rather of discourse, as are all conversations, howsoever brief.[] Sentences themselves consist of clauses which are the principal constituents of grammar. A clause consists of a subject, which is usually a noun phrase, and a predicate which is usually a verb phrase with an accompanying grammatical unit in the form of an object or complement.[]

===Verb complementation===

===Clause types===

===Clause combination===

===Adjuncts===

==History of English grammar writing==

''See Also [[History of English grammars]]''

The first '''English grammar''', Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, written with the ostensible goal of demonstrating that English was just as rule-bound as Latin, was published in 1586. Bullokar’s grammar was faithfully modeled on William Lily’s Latin grammar, Rudimenta Grammatices (1534), which was being used in schools in England at that time, having been “prescribed” for them in 1542 by Henry VIII. Although Bullokar wrote his grammar in English and used a “reformed spelling system” of his own invention, many English grammars, for much of the century after Bullokar’s effort, were written in Latin, especially by authors who were aiming to be scholarly. John Wallis’s Grammatica Linguæ Anglicanæ (1685) was the last English grammar written in Latin.

Even as late as the early 19th century, Lindley Murray, the author of one of the most widely used grammars of the day, was having to cite “grammatical authorities” to bolster the claim that grammatical cases in English are different from those in Ancient Greek or Latin.

== See also ==
* [[Apokoinu construction]]
* [[Capitalization]]
* [[Conditional sentence]]
* [[Disputes in English grammar]]
* [[Do-support|''Do''-support]]
* [[English noun phrase]]
* [[English prefixes]]
* [[English verbs]]
* [[Grammar checker]]
* ''[[Grammar Ray: A Graphic Guide to Grammar]]'' (series of six books)
* [[nominal group (language)|Nominal group]]
* [[Thematic equative]]
* [[French grammar]]
* [[Spanish grammar]]
* [[German grammar]]

== Notes and references ==

== Bibliography ==
=== Grammar books ===
* Curme, George O., College English Grammar, Richmond, VA, 1925, Johnson Publishing company, 414 pages . A revised edition ''Principles and Practice of English Grammar'' was published by Barnes & Noble, in 1947.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1984) ''Introduction to the grammar of English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1988) ''English grammar: An outline''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
grammar|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=320|isbn=0521612888}}
* Jespersen, Otto. (1937). ''Analytic Syntax''. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1937. 170 p.
* Jespersen, Otto. (1909–1949). ''A modern English grammar on historical principles'' (Vols. 1-7). Heidelberg: C. Winter.
* [[Korsakov Andrey|Korsakov]], A. K. (Andreĭ Konstantinovich). 1969. The use of tenses in English. Korsakov, A. K. Structure of Modern English pt. 1. oai:gial.edu:26766 at http://www.language-archives.org/item/oai:gial.edu:26766
* Poutsma, Hendrik. A grammar of late modern English, Groningen, P. Noordhoff, 1914–29, 2 pt. in 5 v. Contents: pt. I. The sentence: 1st half. The elements of the sentence, 1928. 2d half. The composite sentence, 1929.--pt. II. The parts of speech: section I, A. Nouns, adjectives and articles, 1914. section I, B. Pronouns and numerals, 1916. section II. The verb and the particles, 1926.
* Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; & Svartvik, Jan. (1972). ''A grammar of contemporary English''. Harlow: Longman.
* Sinclair, John, ed. (1991) ''Collins COBUILD - English Grammar'' London: Collins ISBN 000370257X second edition, 2005 ISBN 0007183879. Huddleston and Pullman say they found this grammar 'useful' in their ''Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' (p. 1765) A CD-Rom version of the 1st edition is available on the Collins COBUILD Resource Pack ISBN 0007169213
* Sledd, James. (1959) ''A short introduction to English grammar'' Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
* Strang, Barbara M. H. (1968) ''Modern English structure'' (2nd ed.) London: Arnold.
* Whitney, William Dwight, (1877) ''Essentials of English Grammar'', Boston: Ginn & Heath.
* Zandvoort, R. W. (1972) ''A handbook of English grammar'' (2nd ed.) London: Longmans.

=== Monographs ===
* Adams, Valerie. (1973). ''An introduction to modern English word-formation''. London: Longman.
* Bauer, Laurie. (1983). ''English word-formation''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Fries, Charles Carpenter. (1952). ''The structure of English; an introduction to the construction of English sentences''. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
* Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/94). ''Spoken and written language''. [[Deakin University]] Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1976). ''An introduction to English transformational syntax''. Longman.
* Kruisinga, E. (1925). ''A handbook of present-day English''. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.
* Leech, Geoffrey N. (1971). ''Meaning and the English verb''. London: Longman.
* Marchand, Hans. (1969). ''The categories and types of present-day English word-formation'' (2nd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.
* McCawley, James D. (1998). ''The syntactic phenomena of English'' (2nd ed.). ''Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
* Onions, C. T. (Charles Talbut), (1904—1st edition) ''An advanced English syntax based on the principles and requirements of the Grammatical society''. London: Keegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & co. A new edition of ''An advanced English syntax'', prepared from the author’s materials by B. D. H. Miller, was published as ''Modern English syntax'' in 1971.
* Palmer, F. R. (1974). ''The English verb''. London: Longman.
* Palmer, F. R. (1979). ''Modality and the English modals''. London: Longman.
* Plag, Ingo. (2003). ''Word-formation in English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Scheurweghs, Gustave. (1959). ''Present-day English syntax: A survey of sentence patterns''. London: Longmans.

== External links ==
* [[b:English|English Grammar]], [[wikibooks|wikibook]] in [[English (language)|English]]
* [http://www.beaugrande.com/UPLOADGRAMMARHEADER.htm A Friendly Grammar of English] by Robert de Beaugrande
* [http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/ Modern English Grammar] by Daniel Kies
* [http://www.englishgrammar.org/ Grammar lessons, rules, and news for everyday use] by Jennifer Frost
* [http://www.bartleby.com/64/ The American Heritage Book of English Usage.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996. [Date of Printout].
* [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/home.htm The Internet Grammar of English].
* [http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/laurie-bauer/Bauer-adj-compound.pdf Adjectives, Compounds and Words] (Laurie Bauer)

{{DEFAULTSORT:English Grammar}}
[[Category:English grammar|*]]
[[Category:Grammars of specific languages]]

Template:English Grammar

2011-01-20T07:07:00Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

{| class="infobox" style="clear:right; float:right; width:auto;"
|-
!style="padding-bottom:0.5em; border-bottom:1px solid #ccf;"| [[English language|English]] [[Grammar|grammar series]]
|-
|style="padding:0.25em 0 0.5em; border-bottom:1px solid #ccf; text-align:left;"|
[[English grammar]]
*[[Contraction (grammar)|Contraction]]
*[[Disputes in English grammar]]
*[[English compound]]
*[[English honorifics]]
*[[English personal pronouns]]
*[[English plural]]
*[[English relative clauses]]
*[[English verbs]]
**[[English conjugation tables]]
**[[English irregular verbs]]
**[[English modal verb]]
*[[Gender in English]]
|-
| |-
|

English grammar

2011-01-20T07:06:15Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

{{English Grammar}}
'''English grammar''' is the body of rules describing the properties of the [[English language]]. A language is such that its elements must be combined according to certain patterns. This article is concerned with (and restricted to) [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]], the building blocks of language; and [[syntax]], the construction of meaningful [[phrases]], [[clauses]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentences]] with the use of [[morphemes]] and [[word]]s.

The [[grammar]] of any language is commonly approached in two different ways: ''descriptive'', usually based on a systematic analysis of a large [[text corpus]] and describing grammatical structures thereupon; and ''prescriptive'', which attempts to use the identified rules of a given language as a tool to govern the linguistic behaviour of speakers (see [[Descriptive linguistics]] and [[Linguistic prescription]]). Prescriptive grammar further concerns itself with several open [[disputes in English grammar]], often representing changes in usage over time. This article predominantly concerns itself with descriptive grammar.

There are historical, social and regional variations of English. For example, [[British English]] and [[American English]] have several [[lexical]] differences; however, the grammatical differences are not equally conspicuous, and will be mentioned only when appropriate. Further, the many [[List of dialects of the English language|dialects of English]] have divergences from the grammar described here; they are only cursorily mentioned. This article describes a generalized present-day [[Standard English]], the form of speech found in types of public discourse including broadcasting, education, entertainment, government, and news reporting. Standard English includes both formal and informal speech.

==Word classes and phrase classes==
Seven major word classes are described here. These are: [[noun]], [[verb]], [[adjective]], [[adverb]], [[preposition]], [[Grammatical conjunction|conjunction]], and [[Determiner (linguistics)|determiner]]. The first six are traditionally referred to as "parts of speech." There are minor word classes, such as [[interjection]]s, but these do not fit into the [[clause]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentence]] structure of English.[]

;Open and closed classes
[[Open class (linguistics)|Open word class]]es allow new members; [[closed class|closed word class]]es seldom do.[] Nouns such as "[[celebutante]]", (a celebrity who frequents the fashion circles)" and "mentee," (a person advised by a mentor) and adverbs such as "[[24/7]]" ("I am working on it 24/7") are relatively new words; nouns and adverbs are therefore open classes.[] However, invented pronouns, such as the "[[Spivak pronouns]]", as a [[Gender-neutral pronoun|gender-neutral singular]] replacement for the "his or her" (as in: "The student should bring eir books.") have gained only niche acceptance during their existence; pronouns, in consequence, form a closed class.[]

;Word classes and grammatical forms
A word can sometimes belong to several word classes. The class version of a word is called a "[[lexeme]]".[] For example, the word "run" is usually a verb, but it can also be a noun ("It is a ten mile run to [[Tipperary]]."); these are two different lexemes.<v> Further, the same lexeme may be [[inflected]] to express different grammatical categories: for example, as a verb lexeme, "run" has several forms such as "runs," "ran," and "running."[] Words in one class can sometimes be [[Derivation (linguistics)|derived]] from those in another and new words be created. The noun "aerobics," for example, has recently given rise to the adjective "aerobicized" ("the aerobicized bodies of Beverly Hills celebutantes."[])

;Phrase classes
Words combine to form [[phrase]]s which themselves can take on the attributes of a word class. These classes are called
phrase classes.[] The phrase: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth" functions as a noun in the sentence: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth was shrunken hard and dry." ([[Thomas Hardy]], ''[[The Darkling Thrush]]'') It is therefore a ''noun phrase''. Other phrase classes are: [[verb phrase]]s, [[adjectival phrase|adjective phrase]]s, [[adverbial phrase|adverb phrase]]s, [[adpositional phrase|prepositional phrase]]s, and [[determiner phrase]]s.[]

===Nouns and determiners===
Nouns form the largest word class. According to Carter and McCarthy, they denote "classes and categories of things in the world, including people, animals, inanimate things, places, events, qualities and states."[] Consequently, the words "Mandela," "jaguar," "mansion," "volcano," "Timbuktoo," "blockade," "mercy," and "liquid" are all nouns. Nouns are not commonly identified by their form; however, some common [[suffix]]es such as "-age" ("shrinkage"), "-hood" ("sisterhood"), "-ism" ("journalism"), "-ist" ("lyricist"), "-ment" ("adornment"), "-ship" ("companionship"), "-tude" ("latitude"), and so forth, are usually identifiers of nouns.[] There are exceptions, of course: "assuage" and "disparage" are verbs; "augment" is a verb, "lament" and "worship" can be verbs. Nouns can also be created by [[Conversion (linguistics)|conversion]] of verbs or adjectives. Examples include the nouns in: "a boring talk," "a five-week run," "the long caress," "the utter disdain," and so forth.

;Number, gender, type, and syntactic features.
Nouns have [[Grammatical number|singular]] and [[plural]] forms.[] Many plural forms have -s or -es endings (dog/dogs, referee/referees, bush/bushes), but by no means all (woman/women, axis/axes, medium/media). Unlike some other languages, in English, nouns do not have [[grammatical gender]].[] However, many nouns can refer to masculine or feminine animate objects (mother/father, tiger/tigress, alumnus/alumna, male/female).[] Nouns can be classified semantically, i.e. by their meanings: [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|common noun]]s ("sugar," "maple," "syrup," "wood"), [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|proper noun]]s ("Cyrus," "China"), [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|concrete noun]]s ("book," "laptop"), and [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|abstract noun]]s ("heat," "prejudice").[]
Alternatively, they can be distinguished grammatically: [[count noun]]s ("clock," "city," "colour") and [[mass noun|non-count noun]]s ("milk," "decor," "foliage").[] Nouns have several [[syntax|syntactic]] features that can aid in their identification.[] Nouns (example: common noun "cat") may be
#[[Grammatical modifier|modified]] by adjectives ("the ''beautiful'' [[Turkish Angora|Angora cat]]"),
#preceded by determiners ("''the'' beautiful Angora cat"), or
#pre-modified by other nouns ("the beautiful ''[[Ankara|Angora]]'' cat").[]

===Noun phrases===
Noun phrases are phrases that function grammatically as nouns within sentences. In addition, nouns serve as "heads," or main words of noun phrases.[]
Examples (the heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' of smoky days."[]
#"The real raw-knuckle '''boys''' who know what fighting means, ..."[]
#"The idle '''spear and shield''' ..."[]

The head can have ''modifiers'', a ''complement'', or both. Modifiers can occur before the head ("The real raw-knuckle boys ...," or "The burnt-out ends ..." and they are then called ''pre-modifiers''; or, they can occur after the head ("who know what fighting means ...") and are called ''post-modifiers''.[] Example: "The rough, seamy-faced, raw-boned College '''Servitor''' ..."[] The pre-modifying phrase, for example, is composed of determiners ("The"), adjectives ("rough," "seamy-faced," ...) and other nouns ("College").

''Complements'' occur after the head as well; however, they are essential for completing the meaning of the noun phrase in a way that post-modifiers are not.[] Examples (complements are italicized; heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' ''of smoky days''."[]
#"The '''suggestion''' ''that Mr. Touchett should invite me'' appeared to have come from Miss Stackpole."[]
#"The ancient '''pulse''' ''of germ and birth'' was shrunken hard and dry."[]

Within a sentence, a noun phrase can be a part of the grammatical subject, the object, or the complement. Examples (the noun phrase is italicized, and the head boldfaced):[]
#grammatical subject: "''Some mute inglorious '''Milton''''' here may rest."[]
#object: "Dr. Pavlov ... delivered ''many long propaganda '''harangues''''' ..."[])
#complement: "'All they see is ''some frumpy, wrinkled-up '''person''' passing by in a carriage waving at a crowd''."[]

===Verbs===
Verbs form the second largest word class after nouns. According to Carter and McCarthy, verbs denote "actions, events, processes, and states."[] Consequently, "smile," "stab," "climb," "confront," "liquefy," "wake," "reflect" are all verbs. Some examples of verb endings, which while not dead giveaways, are often associated, include: "-ate" ("formulate"), "-iate" ("inebriate"), "-ify" ("electrify"), and "-ise" ("realise").[] There are exceptions, of course: "chocolate" is a noun, "immediate" is an adjective, "prize" can be a noun, and "maize" is a noun. Prefixes can also be used to create new verbs. Examples are: "un-" ("unmask"), "out-" ("outlast"), "over-" ("overtake"), and "under-" ("undervalue").[] Just as nouns can be formed from verbs by conversion, the reverse is also possible:[]
*"so are the sons of men '''snared''' in an evil time"[]
*"[a national convention] '''nosed''' parliament in the very seat of its authority"[]

Verbs can also be formed from adjectives:[]

*"To '''dry''' the old oak's sap, and cherish springs."[]
*"Time's glory is to '''calm''' contending kings"[]

;Regular and irregular verbs

A verb is said to be ''regular'' if its base form does not change when inflections are added to create new
forms.[] An example is: base form: climb; present form: climb; -s form: climb'''s'''; -ing form: climb'''ing'''; past form: climb'''ed'''; -ed participle: climb'''ed'''.[]
Irregular verbs are ones in which the base form changes; the endings corresponding to each form are not always unique.[] Examples:

*base form: catch; present form: catch; -s form: catches; -ing form: catching; past form: caught; -ed participle: caught.
*base form: choose; present form: choose; -s form: chooses; -ing form: choosing; past form: chose; -ed participle: chosen.

The verb "be" is the only verb in English which has distinct inflectional forms for each of the categories of grammatical forms: base form: be; present form: am, are; -s form: is; -ing form: being; past form: was, were; -ed participle: been.[]

;Type and characteristics

Verbs come in three grammatical types: lexical, auxiliary, and modal.[] Lexical verbs form an open class which includes most verbs (state, action, processes, and events). For example, "dive," "soar," "swoon," "revive," "breathe," "choke," "lament," "celebrate," "consider," "ignore" are all lexical verbs.[]
Auxiliary verbs form a closed class consisting of only three members: be, do, and have.[] Although auxiliary verbs are lexical verbs as well, their main function is to add information to other lexical verbs. This information indicates (a) aspect (progressive, perfect), (b) passive voice, and (c) clause type (interrogative, negative).[] In the following examples, the auxiliary is in boldface and the lexical verb is italicized.
#aspect (progressive): "'She '''is''' ''breathing'' Granny; we've got to make her keep it up, that's all—just keep her breathing."[]
#aspect (perfect): "'Yes, I want a coach,' said Maurice, and bade the coachman draw up to the stone where the poor man who '''had''' ''swooned'' was sitting."[]
# passive voice: "When she was admitted into the house Beautiful, care '''was''' ''taken'' to inquire into the religious knowledge of her children."[]
#clause type (interrogative): (Old joke) Boy: "Excuse me sir, How '''do''' I ''get'' to [[Carnegie Hall]]?" Man on street: "Practice, Practice, Practice."
#clause type (negative): '''Wasn't''' she monstrously ''surprised''?"[]

[[English modal verb|Modal verbs]] also form a closed class which consists of the core modals ("can," "could," "shall," "should," "will," "would," "may," "might," "must"), semi-modals ("dare," "need," "ought to," "used to"), and modal expressions ("be able to," "have to").[] Modals add information to lexical verbs about degrees of certainty and necessity.[] Examples:
* less certain: "Before the snow '''could''' ''melt'' for good, an ice storm covered the lowcountry and we learned the deeper treachery of ice."[]
*more certain: "Eat your eggs in Lent and the snow '''will''' ''melt''. That's what I say to our people when they get noisy over their cups at San Gallo ..."[]
*expressing necessity: "But I should think there must be some stream somewhere about. The snow '''must''' ''melt''; besides, these great herds of deer must drink somewhere."[]

Modal verbs do not inflect for person, number or tense.[] Examples:
* person: "I/you/she '''might''' consider it."
* number: "I/We/She/They '''might''' consider it"
* tense: "They '''might''' have considered/be considering/have been considering it."

Verbs too have features that aid in their recognition:
# they follow the (grammatical) subject noun phrase (in italics): "''The real raw-knuckle boys who know what fighting means'' '''enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in number: "The real raw-knuckle ''boy/boys'' who knows/know what fighting means '''enters/enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in person: "I/He, the real raw-knuckle boy who knows what fighting means, enter/enters the arena without fanfare", and
#with the exception of modal verbs, they can express tense:"The boys ... '''had been entering''' the arena without fanfare."

===Verb phrases===
====Forms====

Verb phrases are formed entirely of verbs. The verbs can be lexical, auxiliary, and modal. The head is the first verb in the verb phrase.[] Example:
* "I didn't notice Rowen around tonight," remarked Don, as they began to prepare for bed. "'''Might have been sulking''' in his tent," grinned Terry."[] Here, the verb phrase "might have been sulking" has the form "modal-auxiliary-auxiliary-lexical."

In a verb phrase, the modal comes first, then the auxiliary or several auxiliaries, and finally the lexical (main) verb.[] When a verb phrase has a combination of modal and auxiliaries, it is constituted usually in the following order: modal verb >> perfect ''have'' >> progressive ''be'' >> passive ''be'' >> Lexical verb.[] Examples:
*"He '''might have been being used''' by the CIA as part of their debriefing procedure, but he might just as easily have been part of the Russians' plans to use Oswald in America."[] Here, the verb phrase is: might (modal) have (perfect) been (progressive) being (passive) used (lexical).
* The modal expression "be able to" is an exception: "It is best to know that she '''has''' (perfect) '''been''' (progressive) '''able to''' (modal expression) '''balance''' (lexical verb) these qualities and quantities with a grace which has not fallen short of greatness ...."[]

====Tense====

Verb phrases can vary with tense, in which case they are called "tensed verb phrases."[] Example:
* "They '''have accomplished''' a lot this year, but they '''had accomplished''' even more last year."
There are many [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed forms]] as well:
#base form of a lexical verb used as an [[Imperative mood|imperative]].[] Example: "'''Halt'''!"
#base form of the lexical verb occurring as a [[Subjunctive mood|subjunctive]].<v> Example: "'If he is a spy,' said Gorgik, 'I would rather he not '''know''' who I am."[]
#the [[infinitive]] with "to."[] Examples:
##"Did you see her, chief—did you get a glimpse of her pleasant countenance, or come close enough to her ear, to sing in it the song she ''loves'' '''to hear'''?'"[]
##"She got so she could tell big stories herself from listening to the rest. Because she loved to hear it, and the men ''loved'' '''to hear''' themselves, they would 'woof' and 'boogerboo' around the games to the limit."[]
#the "-ing" form, shared between the [[gerund]] and [[Participle|present participle]].[] Examples:
##"Biological diversity ''is'' '''plummeting''', mainly due to habitat degradation and loss, pollution, overexploitation, competition from alien species, disease, and changing climates."[]
##"Then it was swooping downward, and in the next second, a huge metal magpie, with wings outstretched in full flight, ''was'' '''plummeting''' toward them."[]
# the "-ed" [[participle]].[] Examples:
##"I also know that the painter ''has'' '''dined''' twice with the Prince Regent."<v>
##"Which in all probability means that you ''had'' '''dined''' together," replied Monte Cristo, laughing, "I am glad to see you are more sober than he was."[]

The time frame of a non-tensed verb phrase is determined by examining that of the main clause verb.[] Examples:
*"From the very beginning, Coltrane was an indefatigable worker at his saxophone spending hours upon hours '''practicing''' every day."[]
* "By assuming a good position and by '''practicing''' every day he will in time acquire a feeling and an appearance of ease before people."[]

In the first case, the time frame (past) of "practicing" is determined by "was" in the main clause; in the second, the time frame (present and future) of "practicing" is determined by "will in time," also in the main clause.

====Aspect====
Verb phrases can also express two [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]]: ''[[Progressive aspect|progressive]]'' and ''[[perfect (grammar)|perfect]]''. Aspect provides additional information on
the speaker's perception of time.

;[[Progressive aspect]]

The progressive aspect consists of the [[Auxiliary verb|auxiliary]] ''be'' form and the ''-ing'' form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* "Landlord, chambermaid, waiter rush to the door; but just as some distinguished guests '''are arriving''', the curtains close, and the invisible theatrical manager cries out, 'Second syllable!' "[]
*"She made her curtsy, and '''was departing''' when the wretched young captain sprang up, looked at her, and sank back on the sofa with another wild laugh."[]
Properties:
*Progressive aspect may be found in verb phrases containing [[Modal verb|modals]].[]
**"Restless, exciting and witty, he cannot resist a fantastic theory ..., so that one '''might be meeting''' Synge, Fielding, and Aldous Huxley, and on the same page."[]
*[[Non-finite verb|Non-tensed]] ''-ing'' forms, however, do not have the progressive aspect.<v>
**"By '''working''' every day, he had learned the peculiarities, the weaknesses and strengths, of opposing batters ..."[] It cannot be changed to "By ''being'' working every day, ...."
*Progressive aspect can be combined with "to"-[[infinitive]] forms in a verb phrase.[]
**"He loved to sit by the open window when the wind was east, and seemed '''to be dreaming''' of faraway scenes."[]

;[[Perfect (grammar)|Perfect]]

The ''perfect'' aspect is created by the auxiliary "have" and the "-ed" participle form of the lexical verb.[] It refers to a time period that includes the present moment.[] Contrast "The flowers didn't bloom this summer" with "The flowers haven't bloomed this summer." The latter sentence suggests that the summer is not over yet.

Properties:

*The perfect can pair with [[modal verbs]].[]
**"You '''might''' (modal) '''have invited''' (perfect) the [[The Hatter|Hatter]] to the tea-party."
*The perfect can be combined with the -ing and the to-infinitive forms.[]
**"'''Having turned''' the TV '''on''', he now mindlessly flicked through the channels."
**"'''To have run''' the marathon, she would have needed to be in good shape."

Finally, the two aspects, progressive and perfect, can be combined in a verb phrase: "They''''ve been laughing''' so hard that their sides hurt."

====Voice====
The ''[[passive voice]]'', which provides information about the roles of different participants in an event, is formed with the auxiliary "be" and the "-ed" [[participle]] form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* (Sentence) "The older critics '''slammed''' the play with vituperation inexplicable unless one attributes it to homophobia."<v>
*(passive voice) "Ever notice how she '''was''' (past of "be") '''slammed''' (-ed participle) by the critics until the actors started doing it themselves?"[]

Properties:
*[[Modal verbs]] can occur in passive voice.[]
**"And if they couldn't get a handle on it soon, cities and towns all up and down the Eastern Seaboard '''could''' (modal) '''be slammed''' (passive) by the biggest storm of the year ...."[]
*Passive voice can be combined with [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed verbs]] such as "-ing" form and the "to-" [[infinitive]].[]
**"There he was—'''getting slammed''' by the critics—and still taking the high road."[]
**"We were about '''to be slammed''' by an 80-foot breaking wave."[]
*Passive voice can combine with both the progressive and the perfect [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]].[]
**(passive, progressive): "The wind had picked up. The boat '''was being slammed''' by the swells, and floundering."[]
**(passive, perfect): "Although, alas, it's not such an exclusive club. I've sent them to everyone who '''has been slammed''' by that dreadful woman."[]

====Mood====
A verb phrase can also express mood, which refers to the "factual or non-factual status of events."[] There are three moods in English: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive.[]
;Indicative mood
The indicative is the most common mood in English.[] It is a factual mood, and most constructions involving the various choices of person, tense, number, aspect, modality are in the indicative mood.[] Examples:
*"She will have a hangover tomorrow morning."
*"The Prime Minister and his cabinet were discussing the matter on that fateful day in 1939."

;Imperative mood
The imperative mood is a non-factual mood and is employed for issuing directives:[]
*"'''[[Keep Your Eyes on the Prize|Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on]]'''"[]
* "'Your father's urn is on the backseat. '''Just leave the keys in the cup holder'''."[]

;Subjunctive mood
The subjunctive mood is also a non-factual mood which refers to demands, desires, etc.[] It uses the base form of the verb ''without inflections''.<ref name=carter-mccarthy-p307/> It is rare in English and is used after only a handful of words such as "demand," "request," "suggest," "ask," "plead," "pray," "insist," and so forth.[] Examples:
*"I demanded that Sheriff Jeanfreau '''stay'''. I even wanted worthless and annoying Ugly Henderson to stay."[]
*"'I suggest that you '''not exercise''' your temper overmuch,' Mayne said, and the French tinge in his voice sounded truly dangerous now." []

Properties:
*Subjunctives can be used after conditional subordinators.[]
**"I accepted on the condition that I '''not be given''' a starring role."[]
*Subjunctives can also be used after expressions of necessity.[]
**"Two nuns are asked to paint a room in the convent, and the last instruction of Mother Superior is that they '''not get''' even a drop of paint on their habits."[]
*The subjunctive form of the verb "be" can occur as the base form "be".[]
**"Whenever a prisoner alleges physical abuse, it is imperative that the prisoner '''be seen''' by an officer at the earliest possible opportunity."[]
*In its "were" form the subjunctive is used to express a hypothetical situation.[]
**"'Lin said, turning toward Pei, "I'm afraid she's excited at seeing me home again." Pei smiled. "I would be too, if I '''were''' she."[]

===Adjectives===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Adjectives describe properties, qualities, and states attributed to a noun or a pronoun."<rsup>[] As was the case with nouns and verbs, the class of adjectives cannot be identified by the forms of its constituents.[] However, adjectives are commonly formed by adding the some suffixes to nouns.[] Examples: "-al" ("habitual," "multidimensional," "visceral"), "-ful" ("blissful," "pitiful," "woeful"), "-ic" ("atomic," "gigantic," "pedantic"), "-ish" ("impish," "peckish," "youngish"), "-ous" ("fabulous," "hazardous"). As with nouns and verbs, there are exceptions: "homosexual" can be a noun, "earful" is a noun, "anesthetic" can be a noun, "brandish" is a verb. Adjectives can also be formed from other adjectives through the addition of a suffix or more commonly a prefix:[] weakish, implacable, disloyal, irredeemable, unforeseen. A number of adjectives are formed by adding "a" as a prefix to a verb: "adrift," "astride," "awry."

;Gradability

Adjectives come in two varieties: gradable and non-gradable.[] In a gradable adjective, the properties or qualities associated with it, exist along a scale.[] In the case of the adjective "hot," for example, we can speak of: not at all hot, ever so slightly hot, only just hot, quite hot, very hot, extremely hot, dangerously hot, and so forth. Consequently, "hot" is a gradable adjective. Gradable adjectives usually have antonyms: hot/cold, hard/soft, smart/dumb, light/heavy.[]
Some adjectives do not have room for qualification or modification. These are the non-gradable adjectives, such as: pregnant, married, incarcerated, condemned, adolescent (as adjective), dead, and so forth.

In figurative or literary language, a non-gradable adjective can sometimes be treated as gradable, especially in order to emphasize some aspect:
* "When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with a forward child, understanding, it strikes a man '''more dead''' than a great reckoning in a little room."[]

A non-gradable adjective might have another connotation in which it is gradable. For example, "dead" when applied to sounds can mean dull, or not vibrant. In this meaning, it has been used as a gradable adjective:
* "... the bell seemed to sound '''more dead''' than it did when just before it sounded in open air."[]

Gradable adjectives can occur in comparative and superlative forms.[] For many common adjectives, these are formed by adding "-er" and "-est" to the base form:<v> cold, colder, coldest; hot, hotter, hottest; dry, drier, driest, and so forth; however, for other adjectives, "more" and "most" are needed to provide the necessary qualification: more apparent, most apparent; more iconic, most iconic; more hazardous, most hazardous. Some gradable adjectives change forms atypically:[] good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; little, less, least; some/many, more, most.

===Adjective phrases===
;Forms

An ''adjective phrase'' may consist of just one adjective, or a single adjective which has been modified or complemented.[]

Adjectives are usually modified by adverb phrases (adverb in boldface; adjective in italics):[]
* "... placing himself in a dignified and '''truly''' ''imposing'' attitude, began to draw from his mouth yard after yard of red tape ..."[]
*"Families did certainly come, beguiled by representations of '''impossibly''' ''cheap'' provisions, though the place was '''in reality very''' ''expensive'', for every tradesman was a monopolist at heart."[]
*"... of anger frequent but '''generally''' ''silent'', ..."[]

An adjective phrase can also consist of an adjective followed by a complement, usually a prepositional phrase, or by a "that" clause.[] Different adjectives require different patterns of complementation (adjective in italics; complement in bold facesup>[]
*"... during that brief time I was ''proud'' '''of myself''', and I grew to love the heave and roll of the Ghost ..."[]
*"... her bosom ''angry'' '''at his intrusion''', ..."[]
*"Dr. Drew is especially ''keen'' '''on good congregational singing'''."[]

Examples of "that" clause in the adjective phrase (adjective in italics; clause in boldface):
*"Was ''sure'' '''that the shrill voice was that of a man'''—a Frenchman."[]
*"The ''longest'' day '''that ever was'''; so she raves, restless and impatient."[]

An adjective phrase can combine pre-modification by an adverb phrase and post-modification by a complement,[] as in (adjective in italics; adverb phrase and complement in boldface):
*"Few people were '''ever more''' ''proud'' '''of civic honours than the Thane of Fife'''."[]

;Attributive and predicative

An adjective phrase is attributive when it modifies a noun or a pronoun (adjective phrase in boldface; noun in italics):[]
*"'''Truly selfish''' ''genes'' do arise, in the sense that they reproduce themselves at a cost to the other genes in the genome."[]
*"Luisa Rosado: a ''woman'' '''proud of being a midwife'''"[]

An adjective phrase is predicative when it occurs in the predicate of a sentence (adjective phrase in boldface):[]
*"No, no, I didn't really think so," returned Dora; "but I am '''a little tired''', and it made me '''silly for a moment''' ..."[]
*"She was ill at ease, and looked '''more than usually stern and forbidding''' as she entered the Hales' little drawing room."[]

===Adverbs===
Adverbs typically modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. They perform a wide range of functions and are especially important for indicating "time, manner, place, degree, and frequency of an event, action, or process."[] Adjectives and adverbs are often derived from the same word, the majority being formed by adding the "-ly" ending to the corresponding adjective form.[] Recall the adjectives, "habitual", "pitiful", "impish", We can use them to form the adverbs:
*"habitually": "... shining out of the New England reserve with which Holgrave '''habitually''' masked whatever lay near his heart."[]
*"pitifully": "The lamb tottered along far behind, near exhaustion, bleating '''pitifully'''."[]
*"impishly": "Well," and he grinned '''impishly''', "it was one doggone good party while it lasted!"[]

Some suffixes that are commonly found in adverbs are "-ward(s)" and "-wise":[]
*"homeward": "The plougman '''homeward''' plods his weary way."[]
* "downward": "In tumbling turning, clustering loops, straight '''downward''' falling, ..."[]
* "lengthwise": "2 to 3 medium carrots, peeled, halved '''lengthwise''', and cut into 1-inch pieces."[]

Some adverbs have the same form as the adjectives:[]
*"outside":
**Adverb: "'You'd best begin, or you'll be sorry—it's raining '''outside'''."[]
**Adjective: "It would be possible to winter the colonies in the barn if each colony is provided with a separate '''outside''' entrance; ..."[]
*"straight"
**Adverb: "Five cigars, very dry, smoked '''straight''' except where wrapper loosened, as it did in two cases."[]
**Adjective: "Numbering among the ranks of the "young and evil" in this text are ... '''straight''' women who fall in love with gay men, ..."[]

Some adverbs are not related to adjectives:[]
*"quite": "Mr. Bingley was obliged to be in town the following day, and ... Mrs. Bennet was '''quite''' disconcerted."[]
*"too": "... like a child that, having devoured its plumcake '''too''' hastily, sits sucking its fingers, ...."[]
* "so": "... oh! ... would she heave one little sigh to see a bright young life '''so''' rudely blighted, ...?"[]

Some adverbs inflect for comparative and superlative forms:[]
* "soon"
**"O error, '''soon''' conceived, Thou never comest unto a happy birth, ..."[]
**"Nerissa: 'superfluity comes '''sooner''' by white hairs, but competency lives longer."[]
**"'Least said, '''soonest''' mended!' "[]
* "well"
**"Valrosa '''well''' deserved its name, for in that climate of perpetual summer roses blossomed everywhere."[]
**"'I'm afraid your appearance in the Phycological Quarterly was '''better''' deserved,' said Mrs. Arkwright, without removing her eyes from the microscope ..."[]
**"Who among the typical Victorians '''best''' deserved his hate?"[]

====Adverb placement====
Adverbs are most usually placed at the end of a phrase. Time adverbs (''yesterday, soon, habitually'') are the most flexible exception. "Connecting Adverbs", such as ''next, then, however'', may also be placed at the beginning of a clause. Other exceptions include "focusing adverbs", which can occupy a middle position for emphasis. "[]

===Adverb phrases===
;Forms
An adverb phrase is a phrase that collectively acts as an adverb within a sentence; in other words, it modifies a verb (or verb phrase), an adjective (or adjective phrase), or another adverb.[] The head of an adverb phrase (roman boldface), which is an adverb, may be modified by another adverb (italics boldface) or followed by a complement (italics boldface):[]
*"Yet '''''all too'' suddenly''' Rosy popped back into the conversation, ...."[]
*"'''Oddly ''enough''''', that very shudder did the business."[]
* "The Stoics said, '''''perhaps'' shockingly ''for us''''', that a father ceases to be a father when his child dies."[]

An adverb phrase can be part of the complement of the verb "be." It then usually indicates location (adverbe phrase in boldface; form of "be" in italics):[]
* "'... it ''is'' '''underneath''' the pink slip that I wore on Wednesday with my Mechlin.'"[]
* "... '''north-by-northeast''' ''was'' Rich Mountain, ..."[]

Adverb phrases are frequently modifiers of verbs:[]
* "They plow through a heavy fog, and Enrique ''sleeps'' '''soundly'''—'''too soundly'''."[]
* "'''Sleepily, very sleepily''', you ''stagger'' to your feet and collapse into the nearest chair."[]

Adverb phrases are also frequently modifiers of adjectives and other adverbs (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* (adjectives) "Then to the swish of waters as the sailors sluice the decks all around and under you, you fall into a '''really''' ''deep'' sleep."[]
* (adverbs) "'My grandma's kinda deaf and she sleeps like '''really''' ''heavily''."[]

Adverb phrases can also be modifiers of noun phrases (or pronoun phrases) and prepositional phrases (adverb phrases in boldface; modified phrases in italics):[]
* (noun phrase): "She stayed out in the middle of the wild sea, and told them that was '''quite''' ''the loveliest place'', you could see for many miles all round you, ...."[]
* (pronoun phrase): "... the typical structure of glioma is that of spherical and cylindrical lobules, '''almost''' ''each and everyone of which'' has a centrally located blood vessel."[]
*(prepositional phrase): "'''About halfway''' ''through the movie'', I decided to ..."[]

Adverb phrases also modify determiners (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* "The devil knows best what he said, but at least she became his tool and was in the habit of seeing him '''nearly''' ''every'' evening."[]
* "'''Nearly if not quite''' ''all'' civilized peoples and ourselves '''above almost''' ''all'' others, are heavily burdened with the interest upon their public debt."[]
;Functions
According to Carter and McCarthy, "As well as giving information on the time, place, manner and degree of an action, event, or process, adverb phrases can also have a commenting function, indicating the attitude and point of view of the speaker or writer towards a whole sentence or utterance."[] Examples:
* "'''Frankly''', my dear, I don't give a damn."[]
* "'''Astonishingly''', she'd shelled every nut, leaving me only the inner skin to remove."[]

Adverb phrases also indicate the relation between two clauses in a sentence.[] Such adverbs are usually called "linking adverbs." Example:
* "... they concluded from the similarities of their bodies, that mine must contain at least 1724 of theirs, and '''consequently''' would require as much food as was necessary to support that number of Lilliputians."[]

===Prepositions===
Prepositions relate two events in time or two people or things in space.[] They also represent abstract relations between two entities:[] Examples:
# ("after":) "We came home from Mr. Boythorn's '''after''' six pleasant weeks."[]
#("after":) "The body of a little wizened Gond lay with its feet in the ashes, and Bagheera looked inquiringly at Mowgli. "That was done with a bamboo," said the boy, '''after''' one glance.[]
#("to":) "I must go down '''to''' the seas again, '''to''' the vagrant gypsy life, ..."[]
#("between" and "through":) "'''Between''' two golden tufts of summer grass, I see the world '''through''' hot air '''as through''' glass, ..."[]
#("during":) "'''During''' these years at Florence, Leonardo's history is the history of his art; he himself is lost in the bright cloud of it."[]
#("of":) "When to the sessions '''of''' sweet silent thought I summon up remembrances of things past."[]

Prepositions are accompanied by prepositional complements;[] these are usually noun phrases.[] In the above examples, the prepositional
complements are:
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "six pleasant weeks"
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "one glance"
#preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the seas"; preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the vagrant gypsy life";
#preposition: "Between"; prepositional complement: "two golden tufts of summer grass,"; preposition: "through"; prepositional complement: "hot air"; preposition: "as through"; prepositional complement: "glass."
#preposition: "during"; prepositional complement: "these years at Florence."
#preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "sweet silent thought"; preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "things past."

===Prepositional phrases===
A prepositional phrase is formed when a preposition combines with its complement.[] In the above examples, the prepositional phrases are:

#prepositional phrase: "after six pleasant weeks"
#prepositional phrase: "after one glance"
#prepositional phrases: "to the seas" and "to the vagrant gypsy life"
#prepositional phrases: "Between two golden tufts of summer grass," "through hot air" and "as through glass."
#prepositional phrase: "During these years at Florence."
#prepositional phrases "of sweet silent thought" and "of things past."
#prepositional phrases:The one Tani Love Vikey and daniel love marryjane"

===Conjunctions===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Conjunctions express a variety of logical relations between phrases, clauses and sentences."[] There are two kinds of conjunctions: coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions.[]

;Coordinating

Coordinating conjunctions link "elements of equal grammatical status."[] The elements in questions may vary from a prefix to an entire sentence.[] Examples:
*(prefixes): "The doctor must provide facilities for ''pre-'' '''and''' ''post'' test counselling and have his own strict procedures for the storing of that confidential information."[]
* (words): "'No, I'll never love ''anybody'' '''but''' ''you'', Tom, and I'll never marry anybody but you--and you ain't to ever marry ''anybody'' '''but''' ''me'', either."[]
* (phrases): "Can ''storied urn'' '''or''' ''animated'' bust back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?"[]
* (subordinate clauses): "''Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life'', '''or''' ''whether that station will be held by anybody else'', these pages must show.[]
*(independent clauses): "Well, ''I think you're here, plain enough'', '''but''' ''I think you're a tangle-headed old fool'', Jim."[]
*(sentences): "He said we were neither of us much to look at and we were as sour as we looked. '''But''' I don't feel as sour as I used to before I knew robin and Dickon."[]

A ''correlative conjunction'' is a pair of constituent elements, each of which is associated with the grammatical unit to be coordinated.[] The common correlatives in English are:
* "either ... or":
**"The clergyman stayed to exchange a few sentences, '''either''' ''of admonition'' '''or''' ''reproof'', with his haughty parishioner ...."[]
**"...; for I could not divest myself of a misgiving that something might happen to London in the meanwhile, and that, when I got there, it would be '''either''' ''greatly deteriorated'' '''or''' ''clean gone''."[]
* "neither ... nor":
**"Buck made no effort. He lay quietly where he had fallen. The lash bit into him again and again, but he '''neither''' ''whined'' '''nor''' ''struggled''."[]
** "For I have '''neither''' ''wit'', '''nor''' ''words'', '''nor''' ''worth, action'', '''nor''' ''utterance'', '''nor''' ''the power of speech, to stir men's blood'': I only speak right on; ..."[]
* "both ... and"
**"There was no mistaking her sincerity—it breathed in every tone of her voice. '''Both''' ''Marilla'' '''and''' ''Mrs. Lynde'' recognized its unmistakable ring."[]
**"There messages have '''both''' ''ethical'' '''and''' ''pragmatic'' overtones, urging women to recognize that even if they do suffer from physical and social disadvantages, their lives are far from being determined by their biology."[]
* "Not only ... but also"
**"The director of ''A Doll's House'', the brilliant Zhang Min, ..., was impressed with Lin '''not only''' ''professionally'' '''but also''' ''personally''."[]
**"... she attempted to persuade her husband to give up his affair. '''Not only''' ''did he refuse'', '''but''' ''he'' '''also''' ''told her he loved them both'' ...."[]

;Subordinating conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction relate only clauses to one another. They make the clause associated with them into a subordinate clause.[] Some common subordinating conjunctions in English are: (of time) after, before, since, until, when, while; (cause and effect): because, since, now that, as, in order that, so; (opposition): although, though, even though, whereas, while; (condition): if, unless, only if, whether or not, whether or no, even if, in case (that), and so forth.[] Examples:
* (time: "before"): "Perhaps Homo erectus had already died out '''before''' ''Homo sapiens arrived''.[]
*(cause and effect: "in order that"): "'''In order that''' ''feelings, representations, ideas and the like should attain a certain degree of memorability'', it is important that they should not remain isolated ..."[]
* (opposition: "although"): "Ultimately there were seven more sessions, in which, '''although''' ''she remained talkative'', she increasingly clearly conveyed a sense that she did not wish to come any more."[]
*(condition: "even if"): "'''Even if''' ''Sethe could deal with the return of the spirit'', Stamp didn't believe her daughter could."[]

==Sentence and clause patterns==
Identified in English by a capitalized initial letter in its first word and by a period (or full stop) at the end of its last word, the sentence is the largest constituent of grammar.[] A text that contains more than one sentence is no longer in the realm of grammar, but rather of discourse, as are all conversations, howsoever brief.[] Sentences themselves consist of clauses which are the principal constituents of grammar. A clause consists of a subject, which is usually a noun phrase, and a predicate which is usually a verb phrase with an accompanying grammatical unit in the form of an object or complement.[]

===Verb complementation===

===Clause types===

===Clause combination===

===Adjuncts===

==History of English grammar writing==

''See Also [[History of English grammars]]''

The first '''English grammar''', Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, written with the ostensible goal of demonstrating that English was just as rule-bound as Latin, was published in 1586. Bullokar’s grammar was faithfully modeled on William Lily’s Latin grammar, Rudimenta Grammatices (1534), which was being used in schools in England at that time, having been “prescribed” for them in 1542 by Henry VIII. Although Bullokar wrote his grammar in English and used a “reformed spelling system” of his own invention, many English grammars, for much of the century after Bullokar’s effort, were written in Latin, especially by authors who were aiming to be scholarly. John Wallis’s Grammatica Linguæ Anglicanæ (1685) was the last English grammar written in Latin.

Even as late as the early 19th century, Lindley Murray, the author of one of the most widely used grammars of the day, was having to cite “grammatical authorities” to bolster the claim that grammatical cases in English are different from those in Ancient Greek or Latin.

== See also ==
* [[Apokoinu construction]]
* [[Capitalization]]
* [[Conditional sentence]]
* [[Disputes in English grammar]]
* [[Do-support|''Do''-support]]
* [[English noun phrase]]
* [[English prefixes]]
* [[English verbs]]
* [[Grammar checker]]
* ''[[Grammar Ray: A Graphic Guide to Grammar]]'' (series of six books)
* [[nominal group (language)|Nominal group]]
* [[Thematic equative]]
* [[French grammar]]
* [[Spanish grammar]]
* [[German grammar]]

== Notes and references ==

== Bibliography ==
=== Grammar books ===
* Curme, George O., College English Grammar, Richmond, VA, 1925, Johnson Publishing company, 414 pages . A revised edition ''Principles and Practice of English Grammar'' was published by Barnes & Noble, in 1947.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1984) ''Introduction to the grammar of English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1988) ''English grammar: An outline''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
grammar|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=320|isbn=0521612888}}
* Jespersen, Otto. (1937). ''Analytic Syntax''. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1937. 170 p.
* Jespersen, Otto. (1909–1949). ''A modern English grammar on historical principles'' (Vols. 1-7). Heidelberg: C. Winter.
* [[Korsakov Andrey|Korsakov]], A. K. (Andreĭ Konstantinovich). 1969. The use of tenses in English. Korsakov, A. K. Structure of Modern English pt. 1. oai:gial.edu:26766 at http://www.language-archives.org/item/oai:gial.edu:26766
* Poutsma, Hendrik. A grammar of late modern English, Groningen, P. Noordhoff, 1914–29, 2 pt. in 5 v. Contents: pt. I. The sentence: 1st half. The elements of the sentence, 1928. 2d half. The composite sentence, 1929.--pt. II. The parts of speech: section I, A. Nouns, adjectives and articles, 1914. section I, B. Pronouns and numerals, 1916. section II. The verb and the particles, 1926.
* Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; & Svartvik, Jan. (1972). ''A grammar of contemporary English''. Harlow: Longman.
* Sinclair, John, ed. (1991) ''Collins COBUILD - English Grammar'' London: Collins ISBN 000370257X second edition, 2005 ISBN 0007183879. Huddleston and Pullman say they found this grammar 'useful' in their ''Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' (p. 1765) A CD-Rom version of the 1st edition is available on the Collins COBUILD Resource Pack ISBN 0007169213
* Sledd, James. (1959) ''A short introduction to English grammar'' Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
* Strang, Barbara M. H. (1968) ''Modern English structure'' (2nd ed.) London: Arnold.
* Whitney, William Dwight, (1877) ''Essentials of English Grammar'', Boston: Ginn & Heath.
* Zandvoort, R. W. (1972) ''A handbook of English grammar'' (2nd ed.) London: Longmans.

=== Monographs ===
* Adams, Valerie. (1973). ''An introduction to modern English word-formation''. London: Longman.
* Bauer, Laurie. (1983). ''English word-formation''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Fries, Charles Carpenter. (1952). ''The structure of English; an introduction to the construction of English sentences''. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
* Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/94). ''Spoken and written language''. [[Deakin University]] Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1976). ''An introduction to English transformational syntax''. Longman.
* Kruisinga, E. (1925). ''A handbook of present-day English''. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.
* Leech, Geoffrey N. (1971). ''Meaning and the English verb''. London: Longman.
* Marchand, Hans. (1969). ''The categories and types of present-day English word-formation'' (2nd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.
* McCawley, James D. (1998). ''The syntactic phenomena of English'' (2nd ed.). ''Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
* Onions, C. T. (Charles Talbut), (1904—1st edition) ''An advanced English syntax based on the principles and requirements of the Grammatical society''. London: Keegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & co. A new edition of ''An advanced English syntax'', prepared from the author’s materials by B. D. H. Miller, was published as ''Modern English syntax'' in 1971.
* Palmer, F. R. (1974). ''The English verb''. London: Longman.
* Palmer, F. R. (1979). ''Modality and the English modals''. London: Longman.
* Plag, Ingo. (2003). ''Word-formation in English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Scheurweghs, Gustave. (1959). ''Present-day English syntax: A survey of sentence patterns''. London: Longmans.

== External links ==
* [[b:English|English Grammar]], [[wikibooks|wikibook]] in [[English (language)|English]]
* [http://www.beaugrande.com/UPLOADGRAMMARHEADER.htm A Friendly Grammar of English] by Robert de Beaugrande
* [http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/ Modern English Grammar] by Daniel Kies
* [http://www.englishgrammar.org/ Grammar lessons, rules, and news for everyday use] by Jennifer Frost
* [http://www.bartleby.com/64/ The American Heritage Book of English Usage.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996. [Date of Printout].
* [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/home.htm The Internet Grammar of English].
* [http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/laurie-bauer/Bauer-adj-compound.pdf Adjectives, Compounds and Words] (Laurie Bauer)

{{DEFAULTSORT:English Grammar}}
[[Category:English grammar|*]]
[[Category:Grammars of specific languages]]

English grammar

2011-01-20T06:59:08Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

{{English Grammar}}
'''English grammar''' is the body of rules describing the properties of the [[English language]]. A language is such that its elements must be combined according to certain patterns. This article is concerned with (and restricted to) [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]], the building blocks of language; and [[syntax]], the construction of meaningful [[phrases]], [[clauses]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentences]] with the use of [[morphemes]] and [[word]]s.

The [[grammar]] of any language is commonly approached in two different ways: ''descriptive'', usually based on a systematic analysis of a large [[text corpus]] and describing grammatical structures thereupon; and ''prescriptive'', which attempts to use the identified rules of a given language as a tool to govern the linguistic behaviour of speakers (see [[Descriptive linguistics]] and [[Linguistic prescription]]). Prescriptive grammar further concerns itself with several open [[disputes in English grammar]], often representing changes in usage over time. This article predominantly concerns itself with descriptive grammar.

There are historical, social and regional variations of English. For example, [[British English]] and [[American English]] have several [[lexical]] differences; however, the grammatical differences are not equally conspicuous, and will be mentioned only when appropriate. Further, the many [[List of dialects of the English language|dialects of English]] have divergences from the grammar described here; they are only cursorily mentioned. This article describes a generalized present-day [[Standard English]], the form of speech found in types of public discourse including broadcasting, education, entertainment, government, and news reporting. Standard English includes both formal and informal speech.

==Word classes and phrase classes==
Seven major word classes are described here. These are: [[noun]], [[verb]], [[adjective]], [[adverb]], [[preposition]], [[Grammatical conjunction|conjunction]], and [[Determiner (linguistics)|determiner]]. The first six are traditionally referred to as "parts of speech." There are minor word classes, such as [[interjection]]s, but these do not fit into the [[clause]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentence]] structure of English.[]

;Open and closed classes
[[Open class (linguistics)|Open word class]]es allow new members; [[closed class|closed word class]]es seldom do.[] Nouns such as "[[celebutante]]", (a celebrity who frequents the fashion circles)" and "mentee," (a person advised by a mentor) and adverbs such as "[[24/7]]" ("I am working on it 24/7") are relatively new words; nouns and adverbs are therefore open classes.[] However, invented pronouns, such as the "[[Spivak pronouns]]", as a [[Gender-neutral pronoun|gender-neutral singular]] replacement for the "his or her" (as in: "The student should bring eir books.") have gained only niche acceptance during their existence; pronouns, in consequence, form a closed class.[]

;Word classes and grammatical forms
A word can sometimes belong to several word classes. The class version of a word is called a "[[lexeme]]".[] For example, the word "run" is usually a verb, but it can also be a noun ("It is a ten mile run to [[Tipperary]]."); these are two different lexemes.<v> Further, the same lexeme may be [[inflected]] to express different grammatical categories: for example, as a verb lexeme, "run" has several forms such as "runs," "ran," and "running."[] Words in one class can sometimes be [[Derivation (linguistics)|derived]] from those in another and new words be created. The noun "aerobics," for example, has recently given rise to the adjective "aerobicized" ("the aerobicized bodies of Beverly Hills celebutantes."[])

;Phrase classes
Words combine to form [[phrase]]s which themselves can take on the attributes of a word class. These classes are called
phrase classes.[] The phrase: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth" functions as a noun in the sentence: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth was shrunken hard and dry." ([[Thomas Hardy]], ''[[The Darkling Thrush]]'') It is therefore a ''noun phrase''. Other phrase classes are: [[verb phrase]]s, [[adjectival phrase|adjective phrase]]s, [[adverbial phrase|adverb phrase]]s, [[adpositional phrase|prepositional phrase]]s, and [[determiner phrase]]s.[]

===Nouns and determiners===
Nouns form the largest word class. According to Carter and McCarthy, they denote "classes and categories of things in the world, including people, animals, inanimate things, places, events, qualities and states."[] Consequently, the words "Mandela," "jaguar," "mansion," "volcano," "Timbuktoo," "blockade," "mercy," and "liquid" are all nouns. Nouns are not commonly identified by their form; however, some common [[suffix]]es such as "-age" ("shrinkage"), "-hood" ("sisterhood"), "-ism" ("journalism"), "-ist" ("lyricist"), "-ment" ("adornment"), "-ship" ("companionship"), "-tude" ("latitude"), and so forth, are usually identifiers of nouns.[] There are exceptions, of course: "assuage" and "disparage" are verbs; "augment" is a verb, "lament" and "worship" can be verbs. Nouns can also be created by [[Conversion (linguistics)|conversion]] of verbs or adjectives. Examples include the nouns in: "a boring talk," "a five-week run," "the long caress," "the utter disdain," and so forth.

;Number, gender, type, and syntactic features.
Nouns have [[Grammatical number|singular]] and [[plural]] forms.[] Many plural forms have -s or -es endings (dog/dogs, referee/referees, bush/bushes), but by no means all (woman/women, axis/axes, medium/media). Unlike some other languages, in English, nouns do not have [[grammatical gender]].[] However, many nouns can refer to masculine or feminine animate objects (mother/father, tiger/tigress, alumnus/alumna, male/female).[] Nouns can be classified semantically, i.e. by their meanings: [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|common noun]]s ("sugar," "maple," "syrup," "wood"), [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|proper noun]]s ("Cyrus," "China"), [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|concrete noun]]s ("book," "laptop"), and [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|abstract noun]]s ("heat," "prejudice").[]
Alternatively, they can be distinguished grammatically: [[count noun]]s ("clock," "city," "colour") and [[mass noun|non-count noun]]s ("milk," "decor," "foliage").[] Nouns have several [[syntax|syntactic]] features that can aid in their identification.[] Nouns (example: common noun "cat") may be
#[[Grammatical modifier|modified]] by adjectives ("the ''beautiful'' [[Turkish Angora|Angora cat]]"),
#preceded by determiners ("''the'' beautiful Angora cat"), or
#pre-modified by other nouns ("the beautiful ''[[Ankara|Angora]]'' cat").[]

===Noun phrases===
Noun phrases are phrases that function grammatically as nouns within sentences. In addition, nouns serve as "heads," or main words of noun phrases.[]
Examples (the heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' of smoky days."[]
#"The real raw-knuckle '''boys''' who know what fighting means, ..."[]
#"The idle '''spear and shield''' ..."[]

The head can have ''modifiers'', a ''complement'', or both. Modifiers can occur before the head ("The real raw-knuckle boys ...," or "The burnt-out ends ..." and they are then called ''pre-modifiers''; or, they can occur after the head ("who know what fighting means ...") and are called ''post-modifiers''.[] Example: "The rough, seamy-faced, raw-boned College '''Servitor''' ..."[] The pre-modifying phrase, for example, is composed of determiners ("The"), adjectives ("rough," "seamy-faced," ...) and other nouns ("College").

''Complements'' occur after the head as well; however, they are essential for completing the meaning of the noun phrase in a way that post-modifiers are not.[] Examples (complements are italicized; heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' ''of smoky days''."[]
#"The '''suggestion''' ''that Mr. Touchett should invite me'' appeared to have come from Miss Stackpole."[]
#"The ancient '''pulse''' ''of germ and birth'' was shrunken hard and dry."[]

Within a sentence, a noun phrase can be a part of the grammatical subject, the object, or the complement. Examples (the noun phrase is italicized, and the head boldfaced):[]
#grammatical subject: "''Some mute inglorious '''Milton''''' here may rest."[]
#object: "Dr. Pavlov ... delivered ''many long propaganda '''harangues''''' ..."[])
#complement: "'All they see is ''some frumpy, wrinkled-up '''person''' passing by in a carriage waving at a crowd''."[]

===Verbs===
Verbs form the second largest word class after nouns. According to Carter and McCarthy, verbs denote "actions, events, processes, and states."[] Consequently, "smile," "stab," "climb," "confront," "liquefy," "wake," "reflect" are all verbs. Some examples of verb endings, which while not dead giveaways, are often associated, include: "-ate" ("formulate"), "-iate" ("inebriate"), "-ify" ("electrify"), and "-ise" ("realise").[] There are exceptions, of course: "chocolate" is a noun, "immediate" is an adjective, "prize" can be a noun, and "maize" is a noun. Prefixes can also be used to create new verbs. Examples are: "un-" ("unmask"), "out-" ("outlast"), "over-" ("overtake"), and "under-" ("undervalue").[] Just as nouns can be formed from verbs by conversion, the reverse is also possible:[]
*"so are the sons of men '''snared''' in an evil time"[]
*"[a national convention] '''nosed''' parliament in the very seat of its authority"[]

Verbs can also be formed from adjectives:[]

*"To '''dry''' the old oak's sap, and cherish springs."[]
*"Time's glory is to '''calm''' contending kings"[]

;Regular and irregular verbs

A verb is said to be ''regular'' if its base form does not change when inflections are added to create new
forms.[] An example is: base form: climb; present form: climb; -s form: climb'''s'''; -ing form: climb'''ing'''; past form: climb'''ed'''; -ed participle: climb'''ed'''.[]
Irregular verbs are ones in which the base form changes; the endings corresponding to each form are not always unique.[] Examples:

*base form: catch; present form: catch; -s form: catches; -ing form: catching; past form: caught; -ed participle: caught.
*base form: choose; present form: choose; -s form: chooses; -ing form: choosing; past form: chose; -ed participle: chosen.

The verb "be" is the only verb in English which has distinct inflectional forms for each of the categories of grammatical forms: base form: be; present form: am, are; -s form: is; -ing form: being; past form: was, were; -ed participle: been.[]

;Type and characteristics

Verbs come in three grammatical types: lexical, auxiliary, and modal.[] Lexical verbs form an open class which includes most verbs (state, action, processes, and events). For example, "dive," "soar," "swoon," "revive," "breathe," "choke," "lament," "celebrate," "consider," "ignore" are all lexical verbs.[]
Auxiliary verbs form a closed class consisting of only three members: be, do, and have.[] Although auxiliary verbs are lexical verbs as well, their main function is to add information to other lexical verbs. This information indicates (a) aspect (progressive, perfect), (b) passive voice, and (c) clause type (interrogative, negative).[] In the following examples, the auxiliary is in boldface and the lexical verb is italicized.
#aspect (progressive): "'She '''is''' ''breathing'' Granny; we've got to make her keep it up, that's all—just keep her breathing."[]
#aspect (perfect): "'Yes, I want a coach,' said Maurice, and bade the coachman draw up to the stone where the poor man who '''had''' ''swooned'' was sitting."[]
# passive voice: "When she was admitted into the house Beautiful, care '''was''' ''taken'' to inquire into the religious knowledge of her children."[]
#clause type (interrogative): (Old joke) Boy: "Excuse me sir, How '''do''' I ''get'' to [[Carnegie Hall]]?" Man on street: "Practice, Practice, Practice."
#clause type (negative): '''Wasn't''' she monstrously ''surprised''?"[]

[[English modal verb|Modal verbs]] also form a closed class which consists of the core modals ("can," "could," "shall," "should," "will," "would," "may," "might," "must"), semi-modals ("dare," "need," "ought to," "used to"), and modal expressions ("be able to," "have to").[] Modals add information to lexical verbs about degrees of certainty and necessity.[] Examples:
* less certain: "Before the snow '''could''' ''melt'' for good, an ice storm covered the lowcountry and we learned the deeper treachery of ice."[]
*more certain: "Eat your eggs in Lent and the snow '''will''' ''melt''. That's what I say to our people when they get noisy over their cups at San Gallo ..."[]
*expressing necessity: "But I should think there must be some stream somewhere about. The snow '''must''' ''melt''; besides, these great herds of deer must drink somewhere."[]

Modal verbs do not inflect for person, number or tense.[] Examples:
* person: "I/you/she '''might''' consider it."
* number: "I/We/She/They '''might''' consider it"
* tense: "They '''might''' have considered/be considering/have been considering it."

Verbs too have features that aid in their recognition:
# they follow the (grammatical) subject noun phrase (in italics): "''The real raw-knuckle boys who know what fighting means'' '''enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in number: "The real raw-knuckle ''boy/boys'' who knows/know what fighting means '''enters/enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in person: "I/He, the real raw-knuckle boy who knows what fighting means, enter/enters the arena without fanfare", and
#with the exception of modal verbs, they can express tense:"The boys ... '''had been entering''' the arena without fanfare."

===Verb phrases===
====Forms====

Verb phrases are formed entirely of verbs. The verbs can be lexical, auxiliary, and modal. The head is the first verb in the verb phrase.[] Example:
* "I didn't notice Rowen around tonight," remarked Don, as they began to prepare for bed. "'''Might have been sulking''' in his tent," grinned Terry."[] Here, the verb phrase "might have been sulking" has the form "modal-auxiliary-auxiliary-lexical."

In a verb phrase, the modal comes first, then the auxiliary or several auxiliaries, and finally the lexical (main) verb.[] When a verb phrase has a combination of modal and auxiliaries, it is constituted usually in the following order: modal verb >> perfect ''have'' >> progressive ''be'' >> passive ''be'' >> Lexical verb.[] Examples:
*"He '''might have been being used''' by the CIA as part of their debriefing procedure, but he might just as easily have been part of the Russians' plans to use Oswald in America."[] Here, the verb phrase is: might (modal) have (perfect) been (progressive) being (passive) used (lexical).
* The modal expression "be able to" is an exception: "It is best to know that she '''has''' (perfect) '''been''' (progressive) '''able to''' (modal expression) '''balance''' (lexical verb) these qualities and quantities with a grace which has not fallen short of greatness ...."[]

====Tense====

Verb phrases can vary with tense, in which case they are called "tensed verb phrases."[] Example:
* "They '''have accomplished''' a lot this year, but they '''had accomplished''' even more last year."
There are many [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed forms]] as well:
#base form of a lexical verb used as an [[Imperative mood|imperative]].[] Example: "'''Halt'''!"
#base form of the lexical verb occurring as a [[Subjunctive mood|subjunctive]].<v> Example: "'If he is a spy,' said Gorgik, 'I would rather he not '''know''' who I am."[]
#the [[infinitive]] with "to."[] Examples:
##"Did you see her, chief—did you get a glimpse of her pleasant countenance, or come close enough to her ear, to sing in it the song she ''loves'' '''to hear'''?'"[]
##"She got so she could tell big stories herself from listening to the rest. Because she loved to hear it, and the men ''loved'' '''to hear''' themselves, they would 'woof' and 'boogerboo' around the games to the limit."[]
#the "-ing" form, shared between the [[gerund]] and [[Participle|present participle]].[] Examples:
##"Biological diversity ''is'' '''plummeting''', mainly due to habitat degradation and loss, pollution, overexploitation, competition from alien species, disease, and changing climates."[]
##"Then it was swooping downward, and in the next second, a huge metal magpie, with wings outstretched in full flight, ''was'' '''plummeting''' toward them."[]
# the "-ed" [[participle]].[] Examples:
##"I also know that the painter ''has'' '''dined''' twice with the Prince Regent."<v>
##"Which in all probability means that you ''had'' '''dined''' together," replied Monte Cristo, laughing, "I am glad to see you are more sober than he was."[]

The time frame of a non-tensed verb phrase is determined by examining that of the main clause verb.[] Examples:
*"From the very beginning, Coltrane was an indefatigable worker at his saxophone spending hours upon hours '''practicing''' every day."[]
* "By assuming a good position and by '''practicing''' every day he will in time acquire a feeling and an appearance of ease before people."[]

In the first case, the time frame (past) of "practicing" is determined by "was" in the main clause; in the second, the time frame (present and future) of "practicing" is determined by "will in time," also in the main clause.

====Aspect====
Verb phrases can also express two [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]]: ''[[Progressive aspect|progressive]]'' and ''[[perfect (grammar)|perfect]]''. Aspect provides additional information on
the speaker's perception of time.

;[[Progressive aspect]]

The progressive aspect consists of the [[Auxiliary verb|auxiliary]] ''be'' form and the ''-ing'' form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* "Landlord, chambermaid, waiter rush to the door; but just as some distinguished guests '''are arriving''', the curtains close, and the invisible theatrical manager cries out, 'Second syllable!' "[]
*"She made her curtsy, and '''was departing''' when the wretched young captain sprang up, looked at her, and sank back on the sofa with another wild laugh."[]
Properties:
*Progressive aspect may be found in verb phrases containing [[Modal verb|modals]].[]
**"Restless, exciting and witty, he cannot resist a fantastic theory ..., so that one '''might be meeting''' Synge, Fielding, and Aldous Huxley, and on the same page."[]
*[[Non-finite verb|Non-tensed]] ''-ing'' forms, however, do not have the progressive aspect.<v>
**"By '''working''' every day, he had learned the peculiarities, the weaknesses and strengths, of opposing batters ..."[] It cannot be changed to "By ''being'' working every day, ...."
*Progressive aspect can be combined with "to"-[[infinitive]] forms in a verb phrase.[]
**"He loved to sit by the open window when the wind was east, and seemed '''to be dreaming''' of faraway scenes."[]

;[[Perfect (grammar)|Perfect]]

The ''perfect'' aspect is created by the auxiliary "have" and the "-ed" participle form of the lexical verb.[] It refers to a time period that includes the present moment.[] Contrast "The flowers didn't bloom this summer" with "The flowers haven't bloomed this summer." The latter sentence suggests that the summer is not over yet.

Properties:

*The perfect can pair with [[modal verbs]].[]
**"You '''might''' (modal) '''have invited''' (perfect) the [[The Hatter|Hatter]] to the tea-party."
*The perfect can be combined with the -ing and the to-infinitive forms.[]
**"'''Having turned''' the TV '''on''', he now mindlessly flicked through the channels."
**"'''To have run''' the marathon, she would have needed to be in good shape."

Finally, the two aspects, progressive and perfect, can be combined in a verb phrase: "They''''ve been laughing''' so hard that their sides hurt."

====Voice====
The ''[[passive voice]]'', which provides information about the roles of different participants in an event, is formed with the auxiliary "be" and the "-ed" [[participle]] form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* (Sentence) "The older critics '''slammed''' the play with vituperation inexplicable unless one attributes it to homophobia."<v>
*(passive voice) "Ever notice how she '''was''' (past of "be") '''slammed''' (-ed participle) by the critics until the actors started doing it themselves?"[]

Properties:
*[[Modal verbs]] can occur in passive voice.[]
**"And if they couldn't get a handle on it soon, cities and towns all up and down the Eastern Seaboard '''could''' (modal) '''be slammed''' (passive) by the biggest storm of the year ...."[]
*Passive voice can be combined with [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed verbs]] such as "-ing" form and the "to-" [[infinitive]].[]
**"There he was—'''getting slammed''' by the critics—and still taking the high road."[]
**"We were about '''to be slammed''' by an 80-foot breaking wave."[]
*Passive voice can combine with both the progressive and the perfect [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]].[]
**(passive, progressive): "The wind had picked up. The boat '''was being slammed''' by the swells, and floundering."[]
**(passive, perfect): "Although, alas, it's not such an exclusive club. I've sent them to everyone who '''has been slammed''' by that dreadful woman."[]

====Mood====
A verb phrase can also express mood, which refers to the "factual or non-factual status of events."[] There are three moods in English: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive.[]
;Indicative mood
The indicative is the most common mood in English.[] It is a factual mood, and most constructions involving the various choices of person, tense, number, aspect, modality are in the indicative mood.[] Examples:
*"She will have a hangover tomorrow morning."
*"The Prime Minister and his cabinet were discussing the matter on that fateful day in 1939."

;Imperative mood
The imperative mood is a non-factual mood and is employed for issuing directives:[]
*"'''[[Keep Your Eyes on the Prize|Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on]]'''"[]
* "'Your father's urn is on the backseat. '''Just leave the keys in the cup holder'''."[]

;Subjunctive mood
The subjunctive mood is also a non-factual mood which refers to demands, desires, etc.[] It uses the base form of the verb ''without inflections''.<ref name=carter-mccarthy-p307/> It is rare in English and is used after only a handful of words such as "demand," "request," "suggest," "ask," "plead," "pray," "insist," and so forth.[] Examples:
*"I demanded that Sheriff Jeanfreau '''stay'''. I even wanted worthless and annoying Ugly Henderson to stay."[]
*"'I suggest that you '''not exercise''' your temper overmuch,' Mayne said, and the French tinge in his voice sounded truly dangerous now." []

Properties:
*Subjunctives can be used after conditional subordinators.[]
**"I accepted on the condition that I '''not be given''' a starring role."[]
*Subjunctives can also be used after expressions of necessity.[]
**"Two nuns are asked to paint a room in the convent, and the last instruction of Mother Superior is that they '''not get''' even a drop of paint on their habits."[]
*The subjunctive form of the verb "be" can occur as the base form "be".[]
**"Whenever a prisoner alleges physical abuse, it is imperative that the prisoner '''be seen''' by an officer at the earliest possible opportunity."[]
*In its "were" form the subjunctive is used to express a hypothetical situation.[]
**"'Lin said, turning toward Pei, "I'm afraid she's excited at seeing me home again." Pei smiled. "I would be too, if I '''were''' she."[]

===Adjectives===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Adjectives describe properties, qualities, and states attributed to a noun or a pronoun."<rsup>[] As was the case with nouns and verbs, the class of adjectives cannot be identified by the forms of its constituents.[] However, adjectives are commonly formed by adding the some suffixes to nouns.[] Examples: "-al" ("habitual," "multidimensional," "visceral"), "-ful" ("blissful," "pitiful," "woeful"), "-ic" ("atomic," "gigantic," "pedantic"), "-ish" ("impish," "peckish," "youngish"), "-ous" ("fabulous," "hazardous"). As with nouns and verbs, there are exceptions: "homosexual" can be a noun, "earful" is a noun, "anesthetic" can be a noun, "brandish" is a verb. Adjectives can also be formed from other adjectives through the addition of a suffix or more commonly a prefix:[] weakish, implacable, disloyal, irredeemable, unforeseen. A number of adjectives are formed by adding "a" as a prefix to a verb: "adrift," "astride," "awry."

;Gradability

Adjectives come in two varieties: gradable and non-gradable.[] In a gradable adjective, the properties or qualities associated with it, exist along a scale.[] In the case of the adjective "hot," for example, we can speak of: not at all hot, ever so slightly hot, only just hot, quite hot, very hot, extremely hot, dangerously hot, and so forth. Consequently, "hot" is a gradable adjective. Gradable adjectives usually have antonyms: hot/cold, hard/soft, smart/dumb, light/heavy.[]
Some adjectives do not have room for qualification or modification. These are the non-gradable adjectives, such as: pregnant, married, incarcerated, condemned, adolescent (as adjective), dead, and so forth.

In figurative or literary language, a non-gradable adjective can sometimes be treated as gradable, especially in order to emphasize some aspect:
* "When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with a forward child, understanding, it strikes a man '''more dead''' than a great reckoning in a little room."[]

A non-gradable adjective might have another connotation in which it is gradable. For example, "dead" when applied to sounds can mean dull, or not vibrant. In this meaning, it has been used as a gradable adjective:
* "... the bell seemed to sound '''more dead''' than it did when just before it sounded in open air."[]

Gradable adjectives can occur in comparative and superlative forms.[] For many common adjectives, these are formed by adding "-er" and "-est" to the base form:<v> cold, colder, coldest; hot, hotter, hottest; dry, drier, driest, and so forth; however, for other adjectives, "more" and "most" are needed to provide the necessary qualification: more apparent, most apparent; more iconic, most iconic; more hazardous, most hazardous. Some gradable adjectives change forms atypically:[] good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; little, less, least; some/many, more, most.

===Adjective phrases===
;Forms

An ''adjective phrase'' may consist of just one adjective, or a single adjective which has been modified or complemented.[]

Adjectives are usually modified by adverb phrases (adverb in boldface; adjective in italics):[]
* "... placing himself in a dignified and '''truly''' ''imposing'' attitude, began to draw from his mouth yard after yard of red tape ..."[]
*"Families did certainly come, beguiled by representations of '''impossibly''' ''cheap'' provisions, though the place was '''in reality very''' ''expensive'', for every tradesman was a monopolist at heart."[]
*"... of anger frequent but '''generally''' ''silent'', ..."[]

An adjective phrase can also consist of an adjective followed by a complement, usually a prepositional phrase, or by a "that" clause.[] Different adjectives require different patterns of complementation (adjective in italics; complement in bold facesup>[]
*"... during that brief time I was ''proud'' '''of myself''', and I grew to love the heave and roll of the Ghost ..."[]
*"... her bosom ''angry'' '''at his intrusion''', ..."[]
*"Dr. Drew is especially ''keen'' '''on good congregational singing'''."[]

Examples of "that" clause in the adjective phrase (adjective in italics; clause in boldface):
*"Was ''sure'' '''that the shrill voice was that of a man'''—a Frenchman."[]
*"The ''longest'' day '''that ever was'''; so she raves, restless and impatient."[]

An adjective phrase can combine pre-modification by an adverb phrase and post-modification by a complement,[] as in (adjective in italics; adverb phrase and complement in boldface):
*"Few people were '''ever more''' ''proud'' '''of civic honours than the Thane of Fife'''."[]

;Attributive and predicative

An adjective phrase is attributive when it modifies a noun or a pronoun (adjective phrase in boldface; noun in italics):[]
*"'''Truly selfish''' ''genes'' do arise, in the sense that they reproduce themselves at a cost to the other genes in the genome."[]
*"Luisa Rosado: a ''woman'' '''proud of being a midwife'''"[]

An adjective phrase is predicative when it occurs in the predicate of a sentence (adjective phrase in boldface):[]
*"No, no, I didn't really think so," returned Dora; "but I am '''a little tired''', and it made me '''silly for a moment''' ..."[]
*"She was ill at ease, and looked '''more than usually stern and forbidding''' as she entered the Hales' little drawing room."[]

===Adverbs===
Adverbs typically modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. They perform a wide range of functions and are especially important for indicating "time, manner, place, degree, and frequency of an event, action, or process."[] Adjectives and adverbs are often derived from the same word, the majority being formed by adding the "-ly" ending to the corresponding adjective form.[] Recall the adjectives, "habitual", "pitiful", "impish", We can use them to form the adverbs:
*"habitually": "... shining out of the New England reserve with which Holgrave '''habitually''' masked whatever lay near his heart."[]
*"pitifully": "The lamb tottered along far behind, near exhaustion, bleating '''pitifully'''."[]
*"impishly": "Well," and he grinned '''impishly''', "it was one doggone good party while it lasted!"[]

Some suffixes that are commonly found in adverbs are "-ward(s)" and "-wise":[]
*"homeward": "The plougman '''homeward''' plods his weary way."[]
* "downward": "In tumbling turning, clustering loops, straight '''downward''' falling, ..."[]
* "lengthwise": "2 to 3 medium carrots, peeled, halved '''lengthwise''', and cut into 1-inch pieces."[]

Some adverbs have the same form as the adjectives:[]
*"outside":
**Adverb: "'You'd best begin, or you'll be sorry—it's raining '''outside'''."[]
**Adjective: "It would be possible to winter the colonies in the barn if each colony is provided with a separate '''outside''' entrance; ..."[]
*"straight"
**Adverb: "Five cigars, very dry, smoked '''straight''' except where wrapper loosened, as it did in two cases."[]
**Adjective: "Numbering among the ranks of the "young and evil" in this text are ... '''straight''' women who fall in love with gay men, ..."[]

Some adverbs are not related to adjectives:[]
*"quite": "Mr. Bingley was obliged to be in town the following day, and ... Mrs. Bennet was '''quite''' disconcerted."[]
*"too": "... like a child that, having devoured its plumcake '''too''' hastily, sits sucking its fingers, ...."[]
* "so": "... oh! ... would she heave one little sigh to see a bright young life '''so''' rudely blighted, ...?"[]

Some adverbs inflect for comparative and superlative forms:[]
* "soon"
**"O error, '''soon''' conceived, Thou never comest unto a happy birth, ..."[]
**"Nerissa: 'superfluity comes '''sooner''' by white hairs, but competency lives longer."[]
**"'Least said, '''soonest''' mended!' "[]
* "well"
**"Valrosa '''well''' deserved its name, for in that climate of perpetual summer roses blossomed everywhere."[]
**"'I'm afraid your appearance in the Phycological Quarterly was '''better''' deserved,' said Mrs. Arkwright, without removing her eyes from the microscope ..."[]
**"Who among the typical Victorians '''best''' deserved his hate?"[]

====Adverb placement====
Adverbs are most usually placed at the end of a phrase. Time adverbs (''yesterday, soon, habitually'') are the most flexible exception. "Connecting Adverbs", such as ''next, then, however'', may also be placed at the beginning of a clause. Other exceptions include "focusing adverbs", which can occupy a middle position for emphasis. "[]

===Adverb phrases===
;Forms
An adverb phrase is a phrase that collectively acts as an adverb within a sentence; in other words, it modifies a verb (or verb phrase), an adjective (or adjective phrase), or another adverb.[] The head of an adverb phrase (roman boldface), which is an adverb, may be modified by another adverb (italics boldface) or followed by a complement (italics boldface):[]
*"Yet '''''all too'' suddenly''' Rosy popped back into the conversation, ...."[]
*"'''Oddly ''enough''''', that very shudder did the business."[]
* "The Stoics said, '''''perhaps'' shockingly ''for us''''', that a father ceases to be a father when his child dies."[]

An adverb phrase can be part of the complement of the verb "be." It then usually indicates location (adverbe phrase in boldface; form of "be" in italics):[]
* "'... it ''is'' '''underneath''' the pink slip that I wore on Wednesday with my Mechlin.'"[]
* "... '''north-by-northeast''' ''was'' Rich Mountain, ..."[]

Adverb phrases are frequently modifiers of verbs:[]
* "They plow through a heavy fog, and Enrique ''sleeps'' '''soundly'''—'''too soundly'''."[]
* "'''Sleepily, very sleepily''', you ''stagger'' to your feet and collapse into the nearest chair."[]

Adverb phrases are also frequently modifiers of adjectives and other adverbs (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* (adjectives) "Then to the swish of waters as the sailors sluice the decks all around and under you, you fall into a '''really''' ''deep'' sleep."[]
* (adverbs) "'My grandma's kinda deaf and she sleeps like '''really''' ''heavily''."[]

Adverb phrases can also be modifiers of noun phrases (or pronoun phrases) and prepositional phrases (adverb phrases in boldface; modified phrases in italics):[]
* (noun phrase): "She stayed out in the middle of the wild sea, and told them that was '''quite''' ''the loveliest place'', you could see for many miles all round you, ...."[]
* (pronoun phrase): "... the typical structure of glioma is that of spherical and cylindrical lobules, '''almost''' ''each and everyone of which'' has a centrally located blood vessel."[]
*(prepositional phrase): "'''About halfway''' ''through the movie'', I decided to ..."[]

Adverb phrases also modify determiners (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* "The devil knows best what he said, but at least she became his tool and was in the habit of seeing him '''nearly''' ''every'' evening."[]
* "'''Nearly if not quite''' ''all'' civilized peoples and ourselves '''above almost''' ''all'' others, are heavily burdened with the interest upon their public debt."[]
;Functions
According to Carter and McCarthy, "As well as giving information on the time, place, manner and degree of an action, event, or process, adverb phrases can also have a commenting function, indicating the attitude and point of view of the speaker or writer towards a whole sentence or utterance."[] Examples:
* "'''Frankly''', my dear, I don't give a damn."[]
* "'''Astonishingly''', she'd shelled every nut, leaving me only the inner skin to remove."[]

Adverb phrases also indicate the relation between two clauses in a sentence.[] Such adverbs are usually called "linking adverbs." Example:
* "... they concluded from the similarities of their bodies, that mine must contain at least 1724 of theirs, and '''consequently''' would require as much food as was necessary to support that number of Lilliputians."[]

===Prepositions===
Prepositions relate two events in time or two people or things in space.[] They also represent abstract relations between two entities:[] Examples:
# ("after":) "We came home from Mr. Boythorn's '''after''' six pleasant weeks."[]
#("after":) "The body of a little wizened Gond lay with its feet in the ashes, and Bagheera looked inquiringly at Mowgli. "That was done with a bamboo," said the boy, '''after''' one glance.[]
#("to":) "I must go down '''to''' the seas again, '''to''' the vagrant gypsy life, ..."[]
#("between" and "through":) "'''Between''' two golden tufts of summer grass, I see the world '''through''' hot air '''as through''' glass, ..."[]
#("during":) "'''During''' these years at Florence, Leonardo's history is the history of his art; he himself is lost in the bright cloud of it."[]
#("of":) "When to the sessions '''of''' sweet silent thought I summon up remembrances of things past."[]

Prepositions are accompanied by prepositional complements;[] these are usually noun phrases.[] In the above examples, the prepositional
complements are:
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "six pleasant weeks"
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "one glance"
#preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the seas"; preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the vagrant gypsy life";
#preposition: "Between"; prepositional complement: "two golden tufts of summer grass,"; preposition: "through"; prepositional complement: "hot air"; preposition: "as through"; prepositional complement: "glass."
#preposition: "during"; prepositional complement: "these years at Florence."
#preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "sweet silent thought"; preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "things past."

===Prepositional phrases===
A prepositional phrase is formed when a preposition combines with its complement.[] In the above examples, the prepositional phrases are:

#prepositional phrase: "after six pleasant weeks"
#prepositional phrase: "after one glance"
#prepositional phrases: "to the seas" and "to the vagrant gypsy life"
#prepositional phrases: "Between two golden tufts of summer grass," "through hot air" and "as through glass."
#prepositional phrase: "During these years at Florence."
#prepositional phrases "of sweet silent thought" and "of things past."
#prepositional phrases:The one Tani Love Vikey and daniel love marryjane"

===Conjunctions===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Conjunctions express a variety of logical relations between phrases, clauses and sentences."[] There are two kinds of conjunctions: coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions.[]

;Coordinating

Coordinating conjunctions link "elements of equal grammatical status."[] The elements in questions may vary from a prefix to an entire sentence.[] Examples:
*(prefixes): "The doctor must provide facilities for ''pre-'' '''and''' ''post'' test counselling and have his own strict procedures for the storing of that confidential information."[]
* (words): "'No, I'll never love ''anybody'' '''but''' ''you'', Tom, and I'll never marry anybody but you--and you ain't to ever marry ''anybody'' '''but''' ''me'', either."[]
* (phrases): "Can ''storied urn'' '''or''' ''animated'' bust back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?"[]
* (subordinate clauses): "''Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life'', '''or''' ''whether that station will be held by anybody else'', these pages must show.[]
*(independent clauses): "Well, ''I think you're here, plain enough'', '''but''' ''I think you're a tangle-headed old fool'', Jim."[]
*(sentences): "He said we were neither of us much to look at and we were as sour as we looked. '''But''' I don't feel as sour as I used to before I knew robin and Dickon."[]

A ''correlative conjunction'' is a pair of constituent elements, each of which is associated with the grammatical unit to be coordinated.[] The common correlatives in English are:
* "either ... or":
**"The clergyman stayed to exchange a few sentences, '''either''' ''of admonition'' '''or''' ''reproof'', with his haughty parishioner ...."[]
**"...; for I could not divest myself of a misgiving that something might happen to London in the meanwhile, and that, when I got there, it would be '''either''' ''greatly deteriorated'' '''or''' ''clean gone''."[]
* "neither ... nor":
**"Buck made no effort. He lay quietly where he had fallen. The lash bit into him again and again, but he '''neither''' ''whined'' '''nor''' ''struggled''."[]
** "For I have '''neither''' ''wit'', '''nor''' ''words'', '''nor''' ''worth, action'', '''nor''' ''utterance'', '''nor''' ''the power of speech, to stir men's blood'': I only speak right on; ..."[]
* "both ... and"
**"There was no mistaking her sincerity—it breathed in every tone of her voice. '''Both''' ''Marilla'' '''and''' ''Mrs. Lynde'' recognized its unmistakable ring."[]
**"There messages have '''both''' ''ethical'' '''and''' ''pragmatic'' overtones, urging women to recognize that even if they do suffer from physical and social disadvantages, their lives are far from being determined by their biology."[]
* "Not only ... but also"
**"The director of ''A Doll's House'', the brilliant Zhang Min, ..., was impressed with Lin '''not only''' ''professionally'' '''but also''' ''personally''."[]
**"... she attempted to persuade her husband to give up his affair. '''Not only''' ''did he refuse'', '''but''' ''he'' '''also''' ''told her he loved them both'' ...."[]

;Subordinating conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction relate only clauses to one another. They make the clause associated with them into a subordinate clause.[] Some common subordinating conjunctions in English are: (of time) after, before, since, until, when, while; (cause and effect): because, since, now that, as, in order that, so; (opposition): although, though, even though, whereas, while; (condition): if, unless, only if, whether or not, whether or no, even if, in case (that), and so forth.[] Examples:
* (time: "before"): "Perhaps Homo erectus had already died out '''before''' ''Homo sapiens arrived''.[]
*(cause and effect: "in order that"): "'''In order that''' ''feelings, representations, ideas and the like should attain a certain degree of memorability'', it is important that they should not remain isolated ..."[]
* (opposition: "although"): "Ultimately there were seven more sessions, in which, '''although''' ''she remained talkative'', she increasingly clearly conveyed a sense that she did not wish to come any more."[]
*(condition: "even if"): "'''Even if''' ''Sethe could deal with the return of the spirit'', Stamp didn't believe her daughter could."[]

==Sentence and clause patterns==
Identified in English by a capitalized initial letter in its first word and by a period (or full stop) at the end of its last word, the sentence is the largest constituent of grammar.[] A text that contains more than one sentence is no longer in the realm of grammar, but rather of discourse, as are all conversations, howsoever brief.[] Sentences themselves consist of clauses which are the principal constituents of grammar. A clause consists of a subject, which is usually a noun phrase, and a predicate which is usually a verb phrase with an accompanying grammatical unit in the form of an object or complement.[]

===Verb complementation===
{{Empty section|date=January 2011}}

===Clause types===
{{Empty section|date=January 2011}}

===Clause combination===
{{Empty section|date=January 2011}}

===Adjuncts===
{{Empty section|date=January 2011}}

==History of English grammar writing==
{{main|History of English grammars}}
The first '''English grammar''', Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, written with the ostensible goal of demonstrating that English was just as rule-bound as Latin, was published in 1586. Bullokar’s grammar was faithfully modeled on William Lily’s Latin grammar, Rudimenta Grammatices (1534), which was being used in schools in England at that time, having been “prescribed” for them in 1542 by Henry VIII. Although Bullokar wrote his grammar in English and used a “reformed spelling system” of his own invention, many English grammars, for much of the century after Bullokar’s effort, were written in Latin, especially by authors who were aiming to be scholarly. John Wallis’s Grammatica Linguæ Anglicanæ (1685) was the last English grammar written in Latin.

Even as late as the early 19th century, Lindley Murray, the author of one of the most widely used grammars of the day, was having to cite “grammatical authorities” to bolster the claim that grammatical cases in English are different from those in Ancient Greek or Latin.

== See also ==
* [[Apokoinu construction]]
* [[Capitalization]]
* [[Conditional sentence]]
* [[Disputes in English grammar]]
* [[Do-support|''Do''-support]]
* [[English noun phrase]]
* [[English prefixes]]
* [[English verbs]]
* [[Grammar checker]]
* ''[[Grammar Ray: A Graphic Guide to Grammar]]'' (series of six books)
* [[nominal group (language)|Nominal group]]
* [[Thematic equative]]
* [[French grammar]]
* [[Spanish grammar]]
* [[German grammar]]

== Notes and references ==

== Bibliography ==
=== Grammar books ===
* Curme, George O., College English Grammar, Richmond, VA, 1925, Johnson Publishing company, 414 pages . A revised edition ''Principles and Practice of English Grammar'' was published by Barnes & Noble, in 1947.
* {{cite book|author=Curme, George O.|authorlink=George Oliver Curme|title=A Grammar of the English Language: Volumes I (Parts of Speech) & II (Syntax)|year=1978; original 1931, 1935|publisher=Verbatim Books|page=1045|isbn=0930454030}}
* {{cite book|author=Declerck, Renaat|title=A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English |year=1990 |publisher=Kaitakusha,Tokyo|page=595|isbn=475890538X}} Declerck in his introduction (p.vi) states that almost half his grammar is taken up by the topics of tense, aspect and modality. This he contrasts with the 71 pages devoted to these subjects in ''The Comprehensive Grammar of English''. Huddleston and Pullman say they profited from consulting this grammar in their ''Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' (p. 1765)
* {{cite book|author=Halliday, M. A. K.; Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (revised by)|authorlink1=Michael Halliday|title=An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd. edition|year=2004|location=London|publisher=Hodder Arnold|page=700|isbn=0340761679}}
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1984) ''Introduction to the grammar of English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1988) ''English grammar: An outline''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
grammar|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=320|isbn=0521612888}}
* Jespersen, Otto. (1937). ''Analytic Syntax''. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1937. 170 p.
* Jespersen, Otto. (1909–1949). ''A modern English grammar on historical principles'' (Vols. 1-7). Heidelberg: C. Winter.
* [[Korsakov Andrey|Korsakov]], A. K. (Andreĭ Konstantinovich). 1969. The use of tenses in English. Korsakov, A. K. Structure of Modern English pt. 1. oai:gial.edu:26766 at http://www.language-archives.org/item/oai:gial.edu:26766
* Poutsma, Hendrik. A grammar of late modern English, Groningen, P. Noordhoff, 1914–29, 2 pt. in 5 v. Contents: pt. I. The sentence: 1st half. The elements of the sentence, 1928. 2d half. The composite sentence, 1929.--pt. II. The parts of speech: section I, A. Nouns, adjectives and articles, 1914. section I, B. Pronouns and numerals, 1916. section II. The verb and the particles, 1926.
* Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; & Svartvik, Jan. (1972). ''A grammar of contemporary English''. Harlow: Longman.
* {{cite book|author=Quirk, Randolph|year=1985|title=A comprehensive grammar of the English language|location=Harlow|publisher=Longman|page=1779|isbn=0582517346}}
* {{cite book|author=Schibsbye, Knud|year=1970|title=A Modern English Grammar: Second Edition |location=London|publisher=Oxford University Press|page=390|isbn=0194313271}} This book is a translation of Schibsbye's three volume ''Engelsk Grammatik'' published between 1957 and 1961. Schibsbye was a student of Jespersen's and co-author of the sixth volume-Morphology—of Jespersen's seven volume ''Modern English Grammar''.
* Sinclair, John, ed. (1991) ''Collins COBUILD - English Grammar'' London: Collins ISBN 000370257X second edition, 2005 ISBN 0007183879. Huddleston and Pullman say they found this grammar 'useful' in their ''Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' (p. 1765) A CD-Rom version of the 1st edition is available on the Collins COBUILD Resource Pack ISBN 0007169213
* Sledd, James. (1959) ''A short introduction to English grammar'' Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
* Strang, Barbara M. H. (1968) ''Modern English structure'' (2nd ed.) London: Arnold.
* Whitney, William Dwight, (1877) ''Essentials of English Grammar'', Boston: Ginn & Heath.
* Zandvoort, R. W. (1972) ''A handbook of English grammar'' (2nd ed.) London: Longmans.

=== Monographs ===
* Adams, Valerie. (1973). ''An introduction to modern English word-formation''. London: Longman.
* Bauer, Laurie. (1983). ''English word-formation''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Fries, Charles Carpenter. (1952). ''The structure of English; an introduction to the construction of English sentences''. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
* Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/94). ''Spoken and written language''. [[Deakin University]] Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1976). ''An introduction to English transformational syntax''. Longman.
* Kruisinga, E. (1925). ''A handbook of present-day English''. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.
* Leech, Geoffrey N. (1971). ''Meaning and the English verb''. London: Longman.
* Marchand, Hans. (1969). ''The categories and types of present-day English word-formation'' (2nd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.
* McCawley, James D. (1998). ''The syntactic phenomena of English'' (2nd ed.). ''Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
* Onions, C. T. (Charles Talbut), (1904—1st edition) ''An advanced English syntax based on the principles and requirements of the Grammatical society''. London: Keegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & co. A new edition of ''An advanced English syntax'', prepared from the author’s materials by B. D. H. Miller, was published as ''Modern English syntax'' in 1971.
* Palmer, F. R. (1974). ''The English verb''. London: Longman.
* Palmer, F. R. (1979). ''Modality and the English modals''. London: Longman.
* Plag, Ingo. (2003). ''Word-formation in English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Scheurweghs, Gustave. (1959). ''Present-day English syntax: A survey of sentence patterns''. London: Longmans.

== External links ==
* [[b:English|English Grammar]], [[wikibooks|wikibook]] in [[English (language)|English]]
* [http://www.beaugrande.com/UPLOADGRAMMARHEADER.htm A Friendly Grammar of English] by Robert de Beaugrande
* [http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/ Modern English Grammar] by Daniel Kies
* [http://www.englishgrammar.org/ Grammar lessons, rules, and news for everyday use] by Jennifer Frost
* [http://www.bartleby.com/64/ The American Heritage Book of English Usage.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996. [Date of Printout].
* [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/home.htm The Internet Grammar of English].
* [http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/laurie-bauer/Bauer-adj-compound.pdf Adjectives, Compounds and Words] (Laurie Bauer)

{{DEFAULTSORT:English Grammar}}
[[Category:English grammar|*]]
[[Category:Grammars of specific languages]]

Template:English Grammar

2011-01-20T06:58:32Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

{| class="infobox" style="clear:right; float:right; width:auto;"
|-
!style="padding-bottom:0.5em; border-bottom:1px solid #ccf;"| [[English language|English]] [[Grammar|grammar series]]
|-
|style="padding:0.25em 0 0.5em; border-bottom:1px solid #ccf; text-align:left;"|
<center>[[English grammar]]</center>
*[[Contraction (grammar)|Contraction]]
*[[Disputes in English grammar]]
*[[English compound]]
*[[English honorifics]]
*[[English personal pronouns]]
*[[English plural]]
*[[English relative clauses]]
*[[English verbs]]
**[[English conjugation tables]]
**[[English irregular verbs]]
**[[English modal verb]]
*[[Gender in English]]
|-
| |-
|<noinclude>
</noinclude>

Template:English Grammar

2011-01-20T06:57:54Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: {| class="infobox" style="clear:right; float:right; width:auto;" |- !style="padding-bottom:0.5em; border-bottom:1px solid #ccf;"| English grammar series |-...

{| class="infobox" style="clear:right; float:right; width:auto;"
|-
!style="padding-bottom:0.5em; border-bottom:1px solid #ccf;"| [[English language|English]] [[Grammar|grammar series]]
|-
|style="padding:0.25em 0 0.5em; border-bottom:1px solid #ccf; text-align:left;"|
<center>[[English grammar]]</center>
*[[Contraction (grammar)|Contraction]]
*[[Disputes in English grammar]]
*[[English compound]]
*[[English honorifics]]
*[[English personal pronouns]]
*[[English plural]]
*[[English relative clauses]]
*[[English verbs]]
**[[English conjugation tables]]
**[[English irregular verbs]]
**[[English modal verb]]
*[[Gender in English]]
|-
| <center>{{navbar|English grammar}}</center>
|-
|}<noinclude>
[[Category:Exclude in print]]
[[Category:Europe language templates|English]]
</noinclude>

English grammar

2011-01-20T06:42:27Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: {{Grammar series}} '''English grammar''' is the body of rules describing the properties of the English language. A language is such that its elements must be combined according to cer...

{{Grammar series}}
'''English grammar''' is the body of rules describing the properties of the [[English language]]. A language is such that its elements must be combined according to certain patterns. This article is concerned with (and restricted to) [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]], the building blocks of language; and [[syntax]], the construction of meaningful [[phrases]], [[clauses]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentences]] with the use of [[morphemes]] and [[word]]s.

The [[grammar]] of any language is commonly approached in two different ways: ''descriptive'', usually based on a systematic analysis of a large [[text corpus]] and describing grammatical structures thereupon; and ''prescriptive'', which attempts to use the identified rules of a given language as a tool to govern the linguistic behaviour of speakers (see [[Descriptive linguistics]] and [[Linguistic prescription]]). Prescriptive grammar further concerns itself with several open [[disputes in English grammar]], often representing changes in usage over time. This article predominantly concerns itself with descriptive grammar.

There are historical, social and regional variations of English. For example, [[British English]] and [[American English]] have several [[lexical]] differences; however, the grammatical differences are not equally conspicuous, and will be mentioned only when appropriate. Further, the many [[List of dialects of the English language|dialects of English]] have divergences from the grammar described here; they are only cursorily mentioned. This article describes a generalized present-day [[Standard English]], the form of speech found in types of public discourse including broadcasting, education, entertainment, government, and news reporting. Standard English includes both formal and informal speech.

==Word classes and phrase classes==
Seven major word classes are described here. These are: [[noun]], [[verb]], [[adjective]], [[adverb]], [[preposition]], [[Grammatical conjunction|conjunction]], and [[Determiner (linguistics)|determiner]]. The first six are traditionally referred to as "parts of speech." There are minor word classes, such as [[interjection]]s, but these do not fit into the [[clause]] and [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentence]] structure of English.[]

;Open and closed classes
[[Open class (linguistics)|Open word class]]es allow new members; [[closed class|closed word class]]es seldom do.[] Nouns such as "[[celebutante]]", (a celebrity who frequents the fashion circles)" and "mentee," (a person advised by a mentor) and adverbs such as "[[24/7]]" ("I am working on it 24/7") are relatively new words; nouns and adverbs are therefore open classes.[] However, invented pronouns, such as the "[[Spivak pronouns]]", as a [[Gender-neutral pronoun|gender-neutral singular]] replacement for the "his or her" (as in: "The student should bring eir books.") have gained only niche acceptance during their existence; pronouns, in consequence, form a closed class.[]

;Word classes and grammatical forms
A word can sometimes belong to several word classes. The class version of a word is called a "[[lexeme]]".[] For example, the word "run" is usually a verb, but it can also be a noun ("It is a ten mile run to [[Tipperary]]."); these are two different lexemes.<v> Further, the same lexeme may be [[inflected]] to express different grammatical categories: for example, as a verb lexeme, "run" has several forms such as "runs," "ran," and "running."[] Words in one class can sometimes be [[Derivation (linguistics)|derived]] from those in another and new words be created. The noun "aerobics," for example, has recently given rise to the adjective "aerobicized" ("the aerobicized bodies of Beverly Hills celebutantes."[])

;Phrase classes
Words combine to form [[phrase]]s which themselves can take on the attributes of a word class. These classes are called
phrase classes.[] The phrase: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth" functions as a noun in the sentence: "The ancient pulse of germ and birth was shrunken hard and dry." ([[Thomas Hardy]], ''[[The Darkling Thrush]]'') It is therefore a ''noun phrase''. Other phrase classes are: [[verb phrase]]s, [[adjectival phrase|adjective phrase]]s, [[adverbial phrase|adverb phrase]]s, [[adpositional phrase|prepositional phrase]]s, and [[determiner phrase]]s.[]

===Nouns and determiners===
Nouns form the largest word class. According to Carter and McCarthy, they denote "classes and categories of things in the world, including people, animals, inanimate things, places, events, qualities and states."[] Consequently, the words "Mandela," "jaguar," "mansion," "volcano," "Timbuktoo," "blockade," "mercy," and "liquid" are all nouns. Nouns are not commonly identified by their form; however, some common [[suffix]]es such as "-age" ("shrinkage"), "-hood" ("sisterhood"), "-ism" ("journalism"), "-ist" ("lyricist"), "-ment" ("adornment"), "-ship" ("companionship"), "-tude" ("latitude"), and so forth, are usually identifiers of nouns.[] There are exceptions, of course: "assuage" and "disparage" are verbs; "augment" is a verb, "lament" and "worship" can be verbs. Nouns can also be created by [[Conversion (linguistics)|conversion]] of verbs or adjectives. Examples include the nouns in: "a boring talk," "a five-week run," "the long caress," "the utter disdain," and so forth.

;Number, gender, type, and syntactic features.
Nouns have [[Grammatical number|singular]] and [[plural]] forms.[] Many plural forms have -s or -es endings (dog/dogs, referee/referees, bush/bushes), but by no means all (woman/women, axis/axes, medium/media). Unlike some other languages, in English, nouns do not have [[grammatical gender]].[] However, many nouns can refer to masculine or feminine animate objects (mother/father, tiger/tigress, alumnus/alumna, male/female).[] Nouns can be classified semantically, i.e. by their meanings: [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|common noun]]s ("sugar," "maple," "syrup," "wood"), [[Noun#Proper_nouns_and_common_nouns|proper noun]]s ("Cyrus," "China"), [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|concrete noun]]s ("book," "laptop"), and [[Noun#Concrete_nouns_and_abstract_nouns|abstract noun]]s ("heat," "prejudice").[]
Alternatively, they can be distinguished grammatically: [[count noun]]s ("clock," "city," "colour") and [[mass noun|non-count noun]]s ("milk," "decor," "foliage").[] Nouns have several [[syntax|syntactic]] features that can aid in their identification.[] Nouns (example: common noun "cat") may be
#[[Grammatical modifier|modified]] by adjectives ("the ''beautiful'' [[Turkish Angora|Angora cat]]"),
#preceded by determiners ("''the'' beautiful Angora cat"), or
#pre-modified by other nouns ("the beautiful ''[[Ankara|Angora]]'' cat").[]

===Noun phrases===
Noun phrases are phrases that function grammatically as nouns within sentences. In addition, nouns serve as "heads," or main words of noun phrases.[]
Examples (the heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' of smoky days."[]
#"The real raw-knuckle '''boys''' who know what fighting means, ..."[]
#"The idle '''spear and shield''' ..."[]

The head can have ''modifiers'', a ''complement'', or both. Modifiers can occur before the head ("The real raw-knuckle boys ...," or "The burnt-out ends ..." and they are then called ''pre-modifiers''; or, they can occur after the head ("who know what fighting means ...") and are called ''post-modifiers''.[] Example: "The rough, seamy-faced, raw-boned College '''Servitor''' ..."[] The pre-modifying phrase, for example, is composed of determiners ("The"), adjectives ("rough," "seamy-faced," ...) and other nouns ("College").

''Complements'' occur after the head as well; however, they are essential for completing the meaning of the noun phrase in a way that post-modifiers are not.[] Examples (complements are italicized; heads are in boldface):
#"The burnt-out '''ends''' ''of smoky days''."[]
#"The '''suggestion''' ''that Mr. Touchett should invite me'' appeared to have come from Miss Stackpole."[]
#"The ancient '''pulse''' ''of germ and birth'' was shrunken hard and dry."[]

Within a sentence, a noun phrase can be a part of the grammatical subject, the object, or the complement. Examples (the noun phrase is italicized, and the head boldfaced):[]
#grammatical subject: "''Some mute inglorious '''Milton''''' here may rest."[]
#object: "Dr. Pavlov ... delivered ''many long propaganda '''harangues''''' ..."[])
#complement: "'All they see is ''some frumpy, wrinkled-up '''person''' passing by in a carriage waving at a crowd''."[]

===Verbs===
Verbs form the second largest word class after nouns. According to Carter and McCarthy, verbs denote "actions, events, processes, and states."[] Consequently, "smile," "stab," "climb," "confront," "liquefy," "wake," "reflect" are all verbs. Some examples of verb endings, which while not dead giveaways, are often associated, include: "-ate" ("formulate"), "-iate" ("inebriate"), "-ify" ("electrify"), and "-ise" ("realise").[] There are exceptions, of course: "chocolate" is a noun, "immediate" is an adjective, "prize" can be a noun, and "maize" is a noun. Prefixes can also be used to create new verbs. Examples are: "un-" ("unmask"), "out-" ("outlast"), "over-" ("overtake"), and "under-" ("undervalue").[] Just as nouns can be formed from verbs by conversion, the reverse is also possible:[]
*"so are the sons of men '''snared''' in an evil time"[]
*"[a national convention] '''nosed''' parliament in the very seat of its authority"[]

Verbs can also be formed from adjectives:[]

*"To '''dry''' the old oak's sap, and cherish springs."[]
*"Time's glory is to '''calm''' contending kings"[]

;Regular and irregular verbs

A verb is said to be ''regular'' if its base form does not change when inflections are added to create new
forms.[] An example is: base form: climb; present form: climb; -s form: climb'''s'''; -ing form: climb'''ing'''; past form: climb'''ed'''; -ed participle: climb'''ed'''.[]
Irregular verbs are ones in which the base form changes; the endings corresponding to each form are not always unique.[] Examples:

*base form: catch; present form: catch; -s form: catches; -ing form: catching; past form: caught; -ed participle: caught.
*base form: choose; present form: choose; -s form: chooses; -ing form: choosing; past form: chose; -ed participle: chosen.

The verb "be" is the only verb in English which has distinct inflectional forms for each of the categories of grammatical forms: base form: be; present form: am, are; -s form: is; -ing form: being; past form: was, were; -ed participle: been.[]

;Type and characteristics

Verbs come in three grammatical types: lexical, auxiliary, and modal.[] Lexical verbs form an open class which includes most verbs (state, action, processes, and events). For example, "dive," "soar," "swoon," "revive," "breathe," "choke," "lament," "celebrate," "consider," "ignore" are all lexical verbs.[]
Auxiliary verbs form a closed class consisting of only three members: be, do, and have.[] Although auxiliary verbs are lexical verbs as well, their main function is to add information to other lexical verbs. This information indicates (a) aspect (progressive, perfect), (b) passive voice, and (c) clause type (interrogative, negative).[] In the following examples, the auxiliary is in boldface and the lexical verb is italicized.
#aspect (progressive): "'She '''is''' ''breathing'' Granny; we've got to make her keep it up, that's all—just keep her breathing."[]
#aspect (perfect): "'Yes, I want a coach,' said Maurice, and bade the coachman draw up to the stone where the poor man who '''had''' ''swooned'' was sitting."[]
# passive voice: "When she was admitted into the house Beautiful, care '''was''' ''taken'' to inquire into the religious knowledge of her children."[]
#clause type (interrogative): (Old joke) Boy: "Excuse me sir, How '''do''' I ''get'' to [[Carnegie Hall]]?" Man on street: "Practice, Practice, Practice."
#clause type (negative): '''Wasn't''' she monstrously ''surprised''?"[]

[[English modal verb|Modal verbs]] also form a closed class which consists of the core modals ("can," "could," "shall," "should," "will," "would," "may," "might," "must"), semi-modals ("dare," "need," "ought to," "used to"), and modal expressions ("be able to," "have to").[] Modals add information to lexical verbs about degrees of certainty and necessity.[] Examples:
* less certain: "Before the snow '''could''' ''melt'' for good, an ice storm covered the lowcountry and we learned the deeper treachery of ice."[]
*more certain: "Eat your eggs in Lent and the snow '''will''' ''melt''. That's what I say to our people when they get noisy over their cups at San Gallo ..."[]
*expressing necessity: "But I should think there must be some stream somewhere about. The snow '''must''' ''melt''; besides, these great herds of deer must drink somewhere."[]

Modal verbs do not inflect for person, number or tense.[] Examples:
* person: "I/you/she '''might''' consider it."
* number: "I/We/She/They '''might''' consider it"
* tense: "They '''might''' have considered/be considering/have been considering it."

Verbs too have features that aid in their recognition:
# they follow the (grammatical) subject noun phrase (in italics): "''The real raw-knuckle boys who know what fighting means'' '''enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in number: "The real raw-knuckle ''boy/boys'' who knows/know what fighting means '''enters/enter''' the arena without fanfare."
#they agree with the subject noun phrase in person: "I/He, the real raw-knuckle boy who knows what fighting means, enter/enters the arena without fanfare", and
#with the exception of modal verbs, they can express tense:"The boys ... '''had been entering''' the arena without fanfare."

===Verb phrases===
====Forms====

Verb phrases are formed entirely of verbs. The verbs can be lexical, auxiliary, and modal. The head is the first verb in the verb phrase.[] Example:
* "I didn't notice Rowen around tonight," remarked Don, as they began to prepare for bed. "'''Might have been sulking''' in his tent," grinned Terry."[] Here, the verb phrase "might have been sulking" has the form "modal-auxiliary-auxiliary-lexical."

In a verb phrase, the modal comes first, then the auxiliary or several auxiliaries, and finally the lexical (main) verb.[] When a verb phrase has a combination of modal and auxiliaries, it is constituted usually in the following order: modal verb >> perfect ''have'' >> progressive ''be'' >> passive ''be'' >> Lexical verb.[] Examples:
*"He '''might have been being used''' by the CIA as part of their debriefing procedure, but he might just as easily have been part of the Russians' plans to use Oswald in America."[] Here, the verb phrase is: might (modal) have (perfect) been (progressive) being (passive) used (lexical).
* The modal expression "be able to" is an exception: "It is best to know that she '''has''' (perfect) '''been''' (progressive) '''able to''' (modal expression) '''balance''' (lexical verb) these qualities and quantities with a grace which has not fallen short of greatness ...."[]

====Tense====

Verb phrases can vary with tense, in which case they are called "tensed verb phrases."[] Example:
* "They '''have accomplished''' a lot this year, but they '''had accomplished''' even more last year."
There are many [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed forms]] as well:
#base form of a lexical verb used as an [[Imperative mood|imperative]].[] Example: "'''Halt'''!"
#base form of the lexical verb occurring as a [[Subjunctive mood|subjunctive]].<v> Example: "'If he is a spy,' said Gorgik, 'I would rather he not '''know''' who I am."[]
#the [[infinitive]] with "to."[] Examples:
##"Did you see her, chief—did you get a glimpse of her pleasant countenance, or come close enough to her ear, to sing in it the song she ''loves'' '''to hear'''?'"[]
##"She got so she could tell big stories herself from listening to the rest. Because she loved to hear it, and the men ''loved'' '''to hear''' themselves, they would 'woof' and 'boogerboo' around the games to the limit."[]
#the "-ing" form, shared between the [[gerund]] and [[Participle|present participle]].[] Examples:
##"Biological diversity ''is'' '''plummeting''', mainly due to habitat degradation and loss, pollution, overexploitation, competition from alien species, disease, and changing climates."[]
##"Then it was swooping downward, and in the next second, a huge metal magpie, with wings outstretched in full flight, ''was'' '''plummeting''' toward them."[]
# the "-ed" [[participle]].[] Examples:
##"I also know that the painter ''has'' '''dined''' twice with the Prince Regent."<v>
##"Which in all probability means that you ''had'' '''dined''' together," replied Monte Cristo, laughing, "I am glad to see you are more sober than he was."[]

The time frame of a non-tensed verb phrase is determined by examining that of the main clause verb.[] Examples:
*"From the very beginning, Coltrane was an indefatigable worker at his saxophone spending hours upon hours '''practicing''' every day."[]
* "By assuming a good position and by '''practicing''' every day he will in time acquire a feeling and an appearance of ease before people."[]

In the first case, the time frame (past) of "practicing" is determined by "was" in the main clause; in the second, the time frame (present and future) of "practicing" is determined by "will in time," also in the main clause.

====Aspect====
Verb phrases can also express two [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]]: ''[[Progressive aspect|progressive]]'' and ''[[perfect (grammar)|perfect]]''. Aspect provides additional information on
the speaker's perception of time.

;[[Progressive aspect]]

The progressive aspect consists of the [[Auxiliary verb|auxiliary]] ''be'' form and the ''-ing'' form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* "Landlord, chambermaid, waiter rush to the door; but just as some distinguished guests '''are arriving''', the curtains close, and the invisible theatrical manager cries out, 'Second syllable!' "[]
*"She made her curtsy, and '''was departing''' when the wretched young captain sprang up, looked at her, and sank back on the sofa with another wild laugh."[]
Properties:
*Progressive aspect may be found in verb phrases containing [[Modal verb|modals]].[]
**"Restless, exciting and witty, he cannot resist a fantastic theory ..., so that one '''might be meeting''' Synge, Fielding, and Aldous Huxley, and on the same page."[]
*[[Non-finite verb|Non-tensed]] ''-ing'' forms, however, do not have the progressive aspect.<v>
**"By '''working''' every day, he had learned the peculiarities, the weaknesses and strengths, of opposing batters ..."[] It cannot be changed to "By ''being'' working every day, ...."
*Progressive aspect can be combined with "to"-[[infinitive]] forms in a verb phrase.[]
**"He loved to sit by the open window when the wind was east, and seemed '''to be dreaming''' of faraway scenes."[]

;[[Perfect (grammar)|Perfect]]

The ''perfect'' aspect is created by the auxiliary "have" and the "-ed" participle form of the lexical verb.[] It refers to a time period that includes the present moment.[] Contrast "The flowers didn't bloom this summer" with "The flowers haven't bloomed this summer." The latter sentence suggests that the summer is not over yet.

Properties:

*The perfect can pair with [[modal verbs]].[]
**"You '''might''' (modal) '''have invited''' (perfect) the [[The Hatter|Hatter]] to the tea-party."
*The perfect can be combined with the -ing and the to-infinitive forms.[]
**"'''Having turned''' the TV '''on''', he now mindlessly flicked through the channels."
**"'''To have run''' the marathon, she would have needed to be in good shape."

Finally, the two aspects, progressive and perfect, can be combined in a verb phrase: "They''''ve been laughing''' so hard that their sides hurt."

====Voice====
The ''[[passive voice]]'', which provides information about the roles of different participants in an event, is formed with the auxiliary "be" and the "-ed" [[participle]] form of the lexical verb.[] Examples:
* (Sentence) "The older critics '''slammed''' the play with vituperation inexplicable unless one attributes it to homophobia."<v>
*(passive voice) "Ever notice how she '''was''' (past of "be") '''slammed''' (-ed participle) by the critics until the actors started doing it themselves?"[]

Properties:
*[[Modal verbs]] can occur in passive voice.[]
**"And if they couldn't get a handle on it soon, cities and towns all up and down the Eastern Seaboard '''could''' (modal) '''be slammed''' (passive) by the biggest storm of the year ...."[]
*Passive voice can be combined with [[Non-finite verb|non-tensed verbs]] such as "-ing" form and the "to-" [[infinitive]].[]
**"There he was—'''getting slammed''' by the critics—and still taking the high road."[]
**"We were about '''to be slammed''' by an 80-foot breaking wave."[]
*Passive voice can combine with both the progressive and the perfect [[Grammatical aspect|aspects]].[]
**(passive, progressive): "The wind had picked up. The boat '''was being slammed''' by the swells, and floundering."[]
**(passive, perfect): "Although, alas, it's not such an exclusive club. I've sent them to everyone who '''has been slammed''' by that dreadful woman."[]

====Mood====
A verb phrase can also express mood, which refers to the "factual or non-factual status of events."[] There are three moods in English: indicative, imperative, and subjunctive.[]
;Indicative mood
The indicative is the most common mood in English.[] It is a factual mood, and most constructions involving the various choices of person, tense, number, aspect, modality are in the indicative mood.[] Examples:
*"She will have a hangover tomorrow morning."
*"The Prime Minister and his cabinet were discussing the matter on that fateful day in 1939."

;Imperative mood
The imperative mood is a non-factual mood and is employed for issuing directives:[]
*"'''[[Keep Your Eyes on the Prize|Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on]]'''"[]
* "'Your father's urn is on the backseat. '''Just leave the keys in the cup holder'''."[]

;Subjunctive mood
The subjunctive mood is also a non-factual mood which refers to demands, desires, etc.[] It uses the base form of the verb ''without inflections''.<ref name=carter-mccarthy-p307/> It is rare in English and is used after only a handful of words such as "demand," "request," "suggest," "ask," "plead," "pray," "insist," and so forth.[] Examples:
*"I demanded that Sheriff Jeanfreau '''stay'''. I even wanted worthless and annoying Ugly Henderson to stay."[]
*"'I suggest that you '''not exercise''' your temper overmuch,' Mayne said, and the French tinge in his voice sounded truly dangerous now." []

Properties:
*Subjunctives can be used after conditional subordinators.[]
**"I accepted on the condition that I '''not be given''' a starring role."[]
*Subjunctives can also be used after expressions of necessity.[]
**"Two nuns are asked to paint a room in the convent, and the last instruction of Mother Superior is that they '''not get''' even a drop of paint on their habits."[]
*The subjunctive form of the verb "be" can occur as the base form "be".[]
**"Whenever a prisoner alleges physical abuse, it is imperative that the prisoner '''be seen''' by an officer at the earliest possible opportunity."[]
*In its "were" form the subjunctive is used to express a hypothetical situation.[]
**"'Lin said, turning toward Pei, "I'm afraid she's excited at seeing me home again." Pei smiled. "I would be too, if I '''were''' she."[]

===Adjectives===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Adjectives describe properties, qualities, and states attributed to a noun or a pronoun."<rsup>[] As was the case with nouns and verbs, the class of adjectives cannot be identified by the forms of its constituents.[] However, adjectives are commonly formed by adding the some suffixes to nouns.[] Examples: "-al" ("habitual," "multidimensional," "visceral"), "-ful" ("blissful," "pitiful," "woeful"), "-ic" ("atomic," "gigantic," "pedantic"), "-ish" ("impish," "peckish," "youngish"), "-ous" ("fabulous," "hazardous"). As with nouns and verbs, there are exceptions: "homosexual" can be a noun, "earful" is a noun, "anesthetic" can be a noun, "brandish" is a verb. Adjectives can also be formed from other adjectives through the addition of a suffix or more commonly a prefix:[] weakish, implacable, disloyal, irredeemable, unforeseen. A number of adjectives are formed by adding "a" as a prefix to a verb: "adrift," "astride," "awry."

;Gradability

Adjectives come in two varieties: gradable and non-gradable.[] In a gradable adjective, the properties or qualities associated with it, exist along a scale.[] In the case of the adjective "hot," for example, we can speak of: not at all hot, ever so slightly hot, only just hot, quite hot, very hot, extremely hot, dangerously hot, and so forth. Consequently, "hot" is a gradable adjective. Gradable adjectives usually have antonyms: hot/cold, hard/soft, smart/dumb, light/heavy.[]
Some adjectives do not have room for qualification or modification. These are the non-gradable adjectives, such as: pregnant, married, incarcerated, condemned, adolescent (as adjective), dead, and so forth.

In figurative or literary language, a non-gradable adjective can sometimes be treated as gradable, especially in order to emphasize some aspect:
* "When a man's verses cannot be understood, nor a man's good wit seconded with a forward child, understanding, it strikes a man '''more dead''' than a great reckoning in a little room."[]

A non-gradable adjective might have another connotation in which it is gradable. For example, "dead" when applied to sounds can mean dull, or not vibrant. In this meaning, it has been used as a gradable adjective:
* "... the bell seemed to sound '''more dead''' than it did when just before it sounded in open air."[]

Gradable adjectives can occur in comparative and superlative forms.[] For many common adjectives, these are formed by adding "-er" and "-est" to the base form:<v> cold, colder, coldest; hot, hotter, hottest; dry, drier, driest, and so forth; however, for other adjectives, "more" and "most" are needed to provide the necessary qualification: more apparent, most apparent; more iconic, most iconic; more hazardous, most hazardous. Some gradable adjectives change forms atypically:[] good, better, best; bad, worse, worst; little, less, least; some/many, more, most.

===Adjective phrases===
;Forms

An ''adjective phrase'' may consist of just one adjective, or a single adjective which has been modified or complemented.[]

Adjectives are usually modified by adverb phrases (adverb in boldface; adjective in italics):[]
* "... placing himself in a dignified and '''truly''' ''imposing'' attitude, began to draw from his mouth yard after yard of red tape ..."[]
*"Families did certainly come, beguiled by representations of '''impossibly''' ''cheap'' provisions, though the place was '''in reality very''' ''expensive'', for every tradesman was a monopolist at heart."[]
*"... of anger frequent but '''generally''' ''silent'', ..."[]

An adjective phrase can also consist of an adjective followed by a complement, usually a prepositional phrase, or by a "that" clause.[] Different adjectives require different patterns of complementation (adjective in italics; complement in bold facesup>[]
*"... during that brief time I was ''proud'' '''of myself''', and I grew to love the heave and roll of the Ghost ..."[]
*"... her bosom ''angry'' '''at his intrusion''', ..."[]
*"Dr. Drew is especially ''keen'' '''on good congregational singing'''."[]

Examples of "that" clause in the adjective phrase (adjective in italics; clause in boldface):
*"Was ''sure'' '''that the shrill voice was that of a man'''—a Frenchman."[]
*"The ''longest'' day '''that ever was'''; so she raves, restless and impatient."[]

An adjective phrase can combine pre-modification by an adverb phrase and post-modification by a complement,[] as in (adjective in italics; adverb phrase and complement in boldface):
*"Few people were '''ever more''' ''proud'' '''of civic honours than the Thane of Fife'''."[]

;Attributive and predicative

An adjective phrase is attributive when it modifies a noun or a pronoun (adjective phrase in boldface; noun in italics):[]
*"'''Truly selfish''' ''genes'' do arise, in the sense that they reproduce themselves at a cost to the other genes in the genome."[]
*"Luisa Rosado: a ''woman'' '''proud of being a midwife'''"[]

An adjective phrase is predicative when it occurs in the predicate of a sentence (adjective phrase in boldface):[]
*"No, no, I didn't really think so," returned Dora; "but I am '''a little tired''', and it made me '''silly for a moment''' ..."[]
*"She was ill at ease, and looked '''more than usually stern and forbidding''' as she entered the Hales' little drawing room."[]

===Adverbs===
Adverbs typically modify verbs, adjectives, or other adverbs. They perform a wide range of functions and are especially important for indicating "time, manner, place, degree, and frequency of an event, action, or process."[] Adjectives and adverbs are often derived from the same word, the majority being formed by adding the "-ly" ending to the corresponding adjective form.[] Recall the adjectives, "habitual", "pitiful", "impish", We can use them to form the adverbs:
*"habitually": "... shining out of the New England reserve with which Holgrave '''habitually''' masked whatever lay near his heart."[]
*"pitifully": "The lamb tottered along far behind, near exhaustion, bleating '''pitifully'''."[]
*"impishly": "Well," and he grinned '''impishly''', "it was one doggone good party while it lasted!"[]

Some suffixes that are commonly found in adverbs are "-ward(s)" and "-wise":[]
*"homeward": "The plougman '''homeward''' plods his weary way."[]
* "downward": "In tumbling turning, clustering loops, straight '''downward''' falling, ..."[]
* "lengthwise": "2 to 3 medium carrots, peeled, halved '''lengthwise''', and cut into 1-inch pieces."[]

Some adverbs have the same form as the adjectives:[]
*"outside":
**Adverb: "'You'd best begin, or you'll be sorry—it's raining '''outside'''."[]
**Adjective: "It would be possible to winter the colonies in the barn if each colony is provided with a separate '''outside''' entrance; ..."[]
*"straight"
**Adverb: "Five cigars, very dry, smoked '''straight''' except where wrapper loosened, as it did in two cases."[]
**Adjective: "Numbering among the ranks of the "young and evil" in this text are ... '''straight''' women who fall in love with gay men, ..."[]

Some adverbs are not related to adjectives:[]
*"quite": "Mr. Bingley was obliged to be in town the following day, and ... Mrs. Bennet was '''quite''' disconcerted."[]
*"too": "... like a child that, having devoured its plumcake '''too''' hastily, sits sucking its fingers, ...."[]
* "so": "... oh! ... would she heave one little sigh to see a bright young life '''so''' rudely blighted, ...?"[]

Some adverbs inflect for comparative and superlative forms:[]
* "soon"
**"O error, '''soon''' conceived, Thou never comest unto a happy birth, ..."[]
**"Nerissa: 'superfluity comes '''sooner''' by white hairs, but competency lives longer."[]
**"'Least said, '''soonest''' mended!' "[]
* "well"
**"Valrosa '''well''' deserved its name, for in that climate of perpetual summer roses blossomed everywhere."[]
**"'I'm afraid your appearance in the Phycological Quarterly was '''better''' deserved,' said Mrs. Arkwright, without removing her eyes from the microscope ..."[]
**"Who among the typical Victorians '''best''' deserved his hate?"[]

====Adverb placement====
Adverbs are most usually placed at the end of a phrase. Time adverbs (''yesterday, soon, habitually'') are the most flexible exception. "Connecting Adverbs", such as ''next, then, however'', may also be placed at the beginning of a clause. Other exceptions include "focusing adverbs", which can occupy a middle position for emphasis. "[]

===Adverb phrases===
;Forms
An adverb phrase is a phrase that collectively acts as an adverb within a sentence; in other words, it modifies a verb (or verb phrase), an adjective (or adjective phrase), or another adverb.[] The head of an adverb phrase (roman boldface), which is an adverb, may be modified by another adverb (italics boldface) or followed by a complement (italics boldface):[]
*"Yet '''''all too'' suddenly''' Rosy popped back into the conversation, ...."[]
*"'''Oddly ''enough''''', that very shudder did the business."[]
* "The Stoics said, '''''perhaps'' shockingly ''for us''''', that a father ceases to be a father when his child dies."[]

An adverb phrase can be part of the complement of the verb "be." It then usually indicates location (adverbe phrase in boldface; form of "be" in italics):[]
* "'... it ''is'' '''underneath''' the pink slip that I wore on Wednesday with my Mechlin.'"[]
* "... '''north-by-northeast''' ''was'' Rich Mountain, ..."[]

Adverb phrases are frequently modifiers of verbs:[]
* "They plow through a heavy fog, and Enrique ''sleeps'' '''soundly'''—'''too soundly'''."[]
* "'''Sleepily, very sleepily''', you ''stagger'' to your feet and collapse into the nearest chair."[]

Adverb phrases are also frequently modifiers of adjectives and other adverbs (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* (adjectives) "Then to the swish of waters as the sailors sluice the decks all around and under you, you fall into a '''really''' ''deep'' sleep."[]
* (adverbs) "'My grandma's kinda deaf and she sleeps like '''really''' ''heavily''."[]

Adverb phrases can also be modifiers of noun phrases (or pronoun phrases) and prepositional phrases (adverb phrases in boldface; modified phrases in italics):[]
* (noun phrase): "She stayed out in the middle of the wild sea, and told them that was '''quite''' ''the loveliest place'', you could see for many miles all round you, ...."[]
* (pronoun phrase): "... the typical structure of glioma is that of spherical and cylindrical lobules, '''almost''' ''each and everyone of which'' has a centrally located blood vessel."[]
*(prepositional phrase): "'''About halfway''' ''through the movie'', I decided to ..."[]

Adverb phrases also modify determiners (modifier in boldface; modified in italics):[]
* "The devil knows best what he said, but at least she became his tool and was in the habit of seeing him '''nearly''' ''every'' evening."[]
* "'''Nearly if not quite''' ''all'' civilized peoples and ourselves '''above almost''' ''all'' others, are heavily burdened with the interest upon their public debt."[]
;Functions
According to Carter and McCarthy, "As well as giving information on the time, place, manner and degree of an action, event, or process, adverb phrases can also have a commenting function, indicating the attitude and point of view of the speaker or writer towards a whole sentence or utterance."[] Examples:
* "'''Frankly''', my dear, I don't give a damn."[]
* "'''Astonishingly''', she'd shelled every nut, leaving me only the inner skin to remove."[]

Adverb phrases also indicate the relation between two clauses in a sentence.[] Such adverbs are usually called "linking adverbs." Example:
* "... they concluded from the similarities of their bodies, that mine must contain at least 1724 of theirs, and '''consequently''' would require as much food as was necessary to support that number of Lilliputians."[]

===Prepositions===
Prepositions relate two events in time or two people or things in space.[] They also represent abstract relations between two entities:[] Examples:
# ("after":) "We came home from Mr. Boythorn's '''after''' six pleasant weeks."[]
#("after":) "The body of a little wizened Gond lay with its feet in the ashes, and Bagheera looked inquiringly at Mowgli. "That was done with a bamboo," said the boy, '''after''' one glance.[]
#("to":) "I must go down '''to''' the seas again, '''to''' the vagrant gypsy life, ..."[]
#("between" and "through":) "'''Between''' two golden tufts of summer grass, I see the world '''through''' hot air '''as through''' glass, ..."[]
#("during":) "'''During''' these years at Florence, Leonardo's history is the history of his art; he himself is lost in the bright cloud of it."[]
#("of":) "When to the sessions '''of''' sweet silent thought I summon up remembrances of things past."[]

Prepositions are accompanied by prepositional complements;[] these are usually noun phrases.[] In the above examples, the prepositional
complements are:
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "six pleasant weeks"
#preposition: "after"; prepositional complement: "one glance"
#preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the seas"; preposition: "to"; prepositional complement: "the vagrant gypsy life";
#preposition: "Between"; prepositional complement: "two golden tufts of summer grass,"; preposition: "through"; prepositional complement: "hot air"; preposition: "as through"; prepositional complement: "glass."
#preposition: "during"; prepositional complement: "these years at Florence."
#preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "sweet silent thought"; preposition: "of"; prepositional complement: "things past."

===Prepositional phrases===
A prepositional phrase is formed when a preposition combines with its complement.[] In the above examples, the prepositional phrases are:

#prepositional phrase: "after six pleasant weeks"
#prepositional phrase: "after one glance"
#prepositional phrases: "to the seas" and "to the vagrant gypsy life"
#prepositional phrases: "Between two golden tufts of summer grass," "through hot air" and "as through glass."
#prepositional phrase: "During these years at Florence."
#prepositional phrases "of sweet silent thought" and "of things past."
#prepositional phrases:The one Tani Love Vikey and daniel love marryjane"

===Conjunctions===
According to Carter and McCarthy, "Conjunctions express a variety of logical relations between phrases, clauses and sentences."[] There are two kinds of conjunctions: coordinating conjunctions and subordinating conjunctions.[]

;Coordinating

Coordinating conjunctions link "elements of equal grammatical status."[] The elements in questions may vary from a prefix to an entire sentence.[] Examples:
*(prefixes): "The doctor must provide facilities for ''pre-'' '''and''' ''post'' test counselling and have his own strict procedures for the storing of that confidential information."[]
* (words): "'No, I'll never love ''anybody'' '''but''' ''you'', Tom, and I'll never marry anybody but you--and you ain't to ever marry ''anybody'' '''but''' ''me'', either."[]
* (phrases): "Can ''storied urn'' '''or''' ''animated'' bust back to its mansion call the fleeting breath?"[]
* (subordinate clauses): "''Whether I shall turn out to be the hero of my own life'', '''or''' ''whether that station will be held by anybody else'', these pages must show.[]
*(independent clauses): "Well, ''I think you're here, plain enough'', '''but''' ''I think you're a tangle-headed old fool'', Jim."[]
*(sentences): "He said we were neither of us much to look at and we were as sour as we looked. '''But''' I don't feel as sour as I used to before I knew robin and Dickon."[]

A ''correlative conjunction'' is a pair of constituent elements, each of which is associated with the grammatical unit to be coordinated.[] The common correlatives in English are:
* "either ... or":
**"The clergyman stayed to exchange a few sentences, '''either''' ''of admonition'' '''or''' ''reproof'', with his haughty parishioner ...."[]
**"...; for I could not divest myself of a misgiving that something might happen to London in the meanwhile, and that, when I got there, it would be '''either''' ''greatly deteriorated'' '''or''' ''clean gone''."[]
* "neither ... nor":
**"Buck made no effort. He lay quietly where he had fallen. The lash bit into him again and again, but he '''neither''' ''whined'' '''nor''' ''struggled''."[]
** "For I have '''neither''' ''wit'', '''nor''' ''words'', '''nor''' ''worth, action'', '''nor''' ''utterance'', '''nor''' ''the power of speech, to stir men's blood'': I only speak right on; ..."[]
* "both ... and"
**"There was no mistaking her sincerity—it breathed in every tone of her voice. '''Both''' ''Marilla'' '''and''' ''Mrs. Lynde'' recognized its unmistakable ring."[]
**"There messages have '''both''' ''ethical'' '''and''' ''pragmatic'' overtones, urging women to recognize that even if they do suffer from physical and social disadvantages, their lives are far from being determined by their biology."[]
* "Not only ... but also"
**"The director of ''A Doll's House'', the brilliant Zhang Min, ..., was impressed with Lin '''not only''' ''professionally'' '''but also''' ''personally''."[]
**"... she attempted to persuade her husband to give up his affair. '''Not only''' ''did he refuse'', '''but''' ''he'' '''also''' ''told her he loved them both'' ...."[]

;Subordinating conjunctions

Subordinating conjunction relate only clauses to one another. They make the clause associated with them into a subordinate clause.[] Some common subordinating conjunctions in English are: (of time) after, before, since, until, when, while; (cause and effect): because, since, now that, as, in order that, so; (opposition): although, though, even though, whereas, while; (condition): if, unless, only if, whether or not, whether or no, even if, in case (that), and so forth.[] Examples:
* (time: "before"): "Perhaps Homo erectus had already died out '''before''' ''Homo sapiens arrived''.[]
*(cause and effect: "in order that"): "'''In order that''' ''feelings, representations, ideas and the like should attain a certain degree of memorability'', it is important that they should not remain isolated ..."[]
* (opposition: "although"): "Ultimately there were seven more sessions, in which, '''although''' ''she remained talkative'', she increasingly clearly conveyed a sense that she did not wish to come any more."[]
*(condition: "even if"): "'''Even if''' ''Sethe could deal with the return of the spirit'', Stamp didn't believe her daughter could."[]

==Sentence and clause patterns==
Identified in English by a capitalized initial letter in its first word and by a period (or full stop) at the end of its last word, the sentence is the largest constituent of grammar.[] A text that contains more than one sentence is no longer in the realm of grammar, but rather of discourse, as are all conversations, howsoever brief.[] Sentences themselves consist of clauses which are the principal constituents of grammar. A clause consists of a subject, which is usually a noun phrase, and a predicate which is usually a verb phrase with an accompanying grammatical unit in the form of an object or complement.[]

===Verb complementation===
{{Empty section|date=January 2011}}

===Clause types===
{{Empty section|date=January 2011}}

===Clause combination===
{{Empty section|date=January 2011}}

===Adjuncts===
{{Empty section|date=January 2011}}

==History of English grammar writing==
{{main|History of English grammars}}
The first '''English grammar''', Pamphlet for Grammar by William Bullokar, written with the ostensible goal of demonstrating that English was just as rule-bound as Latin, was published in 1586. Bullokar’s grammar was faithfully modeled on William Lily’s Latin grammar, Rudimenta Grammatices (1534), which was being used in schools in England at that time, having been “prescribed” for them in 1542 by Henry VIII. Although Bullokar wrote his grammar in English and used a “reformed spelling system” of his own invention, many English grammars, for much of the century after Bullokar’s effort, were written in Latin, especially by authors who were aiming to be scholarly. John Wallis’s Grammatica Linguæ Anglicanæ (1685) was the last English grammar written in Latin.

Even as late as the early 19th century, Lindley Murray, the author of one of the most widely used grammars of the day, was having to cite “grammatical authorities” to bolster the claim that grammatical cases in English are different from those in Ancient Greek or Latin.

== See also ==
* [[Apokoinu construction]]
* [[Capitalization]]
* [[Conditional sentence]]
* [[Disputes in English grammar]]
* [[Do-support|''Do''-support]]
* [[English noun phrase]]
* [[English prefixes]]
* [[English verbs]]
* [[Grammar checker]]
* ''[[Grammar Ray: A Graphic Guide to Grammar]]'' (series of six books)
* [[nominal group (language)|Nominal group]]
* [[Thematic equative]]
* [[French grammar]]
* [[Spanish grammar]]
* [[German grammar]]

== Notes and references ==

== Bibliography ==
=== Grammar books ===
* Curme, George O., College English Grammar, Richmond, VA, 1925, Johnson Publishing company, 414 pages . A revised edition ''Principles and Practice of English Grammar'' was published by Barnes & Noble, in 1947.
* {{cite book|author=Curme, George O.|authorlink=George Oliver Curme|title=A Grammar of the English Language: Volumes I (Parts of Speech) & II (Syntax)|year=1978; original 1931, 1935|publisher=Verbatim Books|page=1045|isbn=0930454030}}
* {{cite book|author=Declerck, Renaat|title=A Comprehensive Descriptive Grammar of English |year=1990 |publisher=Kaitakusha,Tokyo|page=595|isbn=475890538X}} Declerck in his introduction (p.vi) states that almost half his grammar is taken up by the topics of tense, aspect and modality. This he contrasts with the 71 pages devoted to these subjects in ''The Comprehensive Grammar of English''. Huddleston and Pullman say they profited from consulting this grammar in their ''Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' (p. 1765)
* {{cite book|author=Halliday, M. A. K.; Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. (revised by)|authorlink1=Michael Halliday|title=An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd. edition|year=2004|location=London|publisher=Hodder Arnold|page=700|isbn=0340761679}}
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1984) ''Introduction to the grammar of English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1988) ''English grammar: An outline''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
grammar|publisher=Cambridge University Press|page=320|isbn=0521612888}}
* Jespersen, Otto. (1937). ''Analytic Syntax''. Copenhagen: Levin & Munksgaard, 1937. 170 p.
* Jespersen, Otto. (1909–1949). ''A modern English grammar on historical principles'' (Vols. 1-7). Heidelberg: C. Winter.
* [[Korsakov Andrey|Korsakov]], A. K. (Andreĭ Konstantinovich). 1969. The use of tenses in English. Korsakov, A. K. Structure of Modern English pt. 1. oai:gial.edu:26766 at http://www.language-archives.org/item/oai:gial.edu:26766
* Poutsma, Hendrik. A grammar of late modern English, Groningen, P. Noordhoff, 1914–29, 2 pt. in 5 v. Contents: pt. I. The sentence: 1st half. The elements of the sentence, 1928. 2d half. The composite sentence, 1929.--pt. II. The parts of speech: section I, A. Nouns, adjectives and articles, 1914. section I, B. Pronouns and numerals, 1916. section II. The verb and the particles, 1926.
* Quirk, Randolph; Greenbaum, Sidney; Leech, Geoffrey; & Svartvik, Jan. (1972). ''A grammar of contemporary English''. Harlow: Longman.
* {{cite book|author=Quirk, Randolph|year=1985|title=A comprehensive grammar of the English language|location=Harlow|publisher=Longman|page=1779|isbn=0582517346}}
* {{cite book|author=Schibsbye, Knud|year=1970|title=A Modern English Grammar: Second Edition |location=London|publisher=Oxford University Press|page=390|isbn=0194313271}} This book is a translation of Schibsbye's three volume ''Engelsk Grammatik'' published between 1957 and 1961. Schibsbye was a student of Jespersen's and co-author of the sixth volume-Morphology—of Jespersen's seven volume ''Modern English Grammar''.
* Sinclair, John, ed. (1991) ''Collins COBUILD - English Grammar'' London: Collins ISBN 000370257X second edition, 2005 ISBN 0007183879. Huddleston and Pullman say they found this grammar 'useful' in their ''Cambridge Grammar of the English Language.'' (p. 1765) A CD-Rom version of the 1st edition is available on the Collins COBUILD Resource Pack ISBN 0007169213
* Sledd, James. (1959) ''A short introduction to English grammar'' Chicago: Scott, Foresman.
* Strang, Barbara M. H. (1968) ''Modern English structure'' (2nd ed.) London: Arnold.
* Whitney, William Dwight, (1877) ''Essentials of English Grammar'', Boston: Ginn & Heath.
* Zandvoort, R. W. (1972) ''A handbook of English grammar'' (2nd ed.) London: Longmans.

=== Monographs ===
* Adams, Valerie. (1973). ''An introduction to modern English word-formation''. London: Longman.
* Bauer, Laurie. (1983). ''English word-formation''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Fries, Charles Carpenter. (1952). ''The structure of English; an introduction to the construction of English sentences''. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
* Halliday, M. A. K. (1985/94). ''Spoken and written language''. [[Deakin University]] Press.
* Huddleston, Rodney D. (1976). ''An introduction to English transformational syntax''. Longman.
* Kruisinga, E. (1925). ''A handbook of present-day English''. Utrecht: Kemink en Zoon.
* Leech, Geoffrey N. (1971). ''Meaning and the English verb''. London: Longman.
* Marchand, Hans. (1969). ''The categories and types of present-day English word-formation'' (2nd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.
* McCawley, James D. (1998). ''The syntactic phenomena of English'' (2nd ed.). ''Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
* Onions, C. T. (Charles Talbut), (1904—1st edition) ''An advanced English syntax based on the principles and requirements of the Grammatical society''. London: Keegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & co. A new edition of ''An advanced English syntax'', prepared from the author’s materials by B. D. H. Miller, was published as ''Modern English syntax'' in 1971.
* Palmer, F. R. (1974). ''The English verb''. London: Longman.
* Palmer, F. R. (1979). ''Modality and the English modals''. London: Longman.
* Plag, Ingo. (2003). ''Word-formation in English''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
* Scheurweghs, Gustave. (1959). ''Present-day English syntax: A survey of sentence patterns''. London: Longmans.

== External links ==
* [[b:English|English Grammar]], [[wikibooks|wikibook]] in [[English (language)|English]]
* [http://www.beaugrande.com/UPLOADGRAMMARHEADER.htm A Friendly Grammar of English] by Robert de Beaugrande
* [http://papyr.com/hypertextbooks/grammar/ Modern English Grammar] by Daniel Kies
* [http://www.englishgrammar.org/ Grammar lessons, rules, and news for everyday use] by Jennifer Frost
* [http://www.bartleby.com/64/ The American Heritage Book of English Usage.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1996. [Date of Printout].
* [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/internet-grammar/home.htm The Internet Grammar of English].
* [http://www.victoria.ac.nz/lals/staff/laurie-bauer/Bauer-adj-compound.pdf Adjectives, Compounds and Words] (Laurie Bauer)

{{DEFAULTSORT:English Grammar}}
[[Category:English grammar|*]]
[[Category:Grammars of specific languages]]

Structural

2011-01-20T06:25:49Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: ==External Links== * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural Wikipedia article on structural]

==External Links==

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural Wikipedia article on structural]

Grammar

2011-01-20T06:24:10Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

''For the rules of the English language, see [[English grammar]].''

In [[linguistics]], '''grammar''' is the set of [[structural]] rules that govern the composition of [[sentence (linguistics)|sentences]], [[phrase]]s, and [[words]] in any given [[natural language]]. The term refers also to the study of such rules, and this field includes [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]], [[syntax]], and [[phonology]], often complemented by [[phonetics]], [[semantics]], and [[pragmatics]]. Linguists do not normally use the term to refer to [[orthography|orthographical]] rules, although usage books and [[style guide]]s that call themselves grammars may also refer to spelling and punctuation.

==Use of the term==
Every speaker of a language has in his or her head a set of rules[] for using that language. This is a grammar, and—at least in the case of one's native language—the vast majority of the information in it is not [[language acquisition|acquired]] by conscious study or instruction, but by observing other speakers; much of this work is done during infancy. Language learning later in life, of course, may involve a greater degree of explicit instruction.[]

The term "grammar" can also be used to describe the rules that govern the linguistic behaviour of a group of speakers. The term "English grammar," therefore, may have several meanings. It may refer to the whole of English grammar—that is, to the grammars of all the speakers of the language, which means including a great deal of variation.[] Alternatively, it may refer only to what is common to the grammars of all, or of the vast majority of, English speakers (such as [[Subject Verb Object|subject-verb-object]] word order in [[Simple sentence|simple declarative sentences]]). Or it may refer to the rules of a particular, relatively well defined variety of English (such as [[Standard English]]).

"''An'' English grammar" is a specific description, study or analysis of such rules. A [[reference book]] describing the grammar of a language is called a "reference grammar" or simply "a grammar". A fully explicit grammar exhaustively describing the [[grammaticality|grammatical]] constructions of a language is called a descriptive grammar. Linguistic description contrasts with [[linguistic prescription]], which tries to enforce rules of how a language is to be used.

[[Grammatical framework]]s are approaches to constructing grammars. The standard framework of [[generative grammar]] is the [[transformational grammar]] model developed in various ways by [[Noam Chomsky]] and his associates from the 1950s onwards.

==Etymology==

See Also [[grapheme]]

The word ''grammar'' derives from [[Ancient Greek language|Greek]] γραμματικὴ τέχνη (''grammatikē technē''), which means "art of letters", from γράμμα (''gramma''), "letter", itself from γράφειν (''graphein''), "to draw, to write".[]

==History==

See Also [[History of linguistics]]

The first systematic grammars originated in [[Iron Age India]], with [[Yaska]] (6th c. BC), [[Pāṇini]] (4th c. BC) and his commentators [[Pingala]] (ca. 200 BC), [[Katyayana]], and [[Patanjali]] (2nd c. BC). In the West, grammar emerged as a discipline in [[Hellenism (neoclassicism)|Hellenism]] from the 3rd c. BC forward with authors like [[Rhyanus]] and [[Aristarchus of Samothrace]], the oldest extant work being the ''[[Art of Grammar]]'' (Τέχνη Γραμματική), attributed to [[Dionysius Thrax]] (ca. 100 BC). [[Latin grammar]] developed by following Greek models from the 1st century BC, due to the work of authors such as [[Orbilius Pupillus]], [[Remmius Palaemon]], [[Marcus Valerius Probus]], [[Verrius Flaccus]], and [[Aemilius Asper]].

[[Tamil language|Tamil]] grammatical tradition also began around the 1st century BC with the [[Tolkāppiyam]].

A grammar of [[Old Irish|Irish]] originated in the 7th century with the [[Auraicept na n-Éces]].

[[Arabic grammar]] emerged from the 8th century with the work of [[Ibn Abi Ishaq]] and his students.

The first treatises on [[Hebrew grammar]] appeared in the [[High Middle Ages]], in the context of [[Mishnah]] (exegesis of the [[Hebrew Bible]]). The [[Karaite]] tradition originated in [[Abbasid]] [[Baghdad]]. The ''[[Diqduq]]'' (10th century) is one of the earliest grammatical commentaries on the Hebrew Bible.[] [[Ibn Barun]] in the 12th century compares the Hebrew language with [[Arabic language|Arabic]] in the [[Islamic grammatical tradition]].[]

Belonging to the ''trivium'' of the seven [[liberal arts]], grammar was taught as a core discipline throughout the [[Middle Ages]], following the influence of authors from [[Late Antiquity]], such as [[Priscian]]. Treatment of vernaculars began gradually during the [[High Middle Ages]], with isolated works such as the [[First Grammatical Treatise]], but became influential only in the [[Renaissance]] and [[Baroque]] periods. In [[1486]], [[Antonio de Nebrija]] published ''Las introduciones Latinas contrapuesto el romance al Latin'', and the first [[Spanish grammar]], ''[[Gramática de la lengua castellana]]'', in 1492. During the 16th century [[Italian Renaissance]], the ''Questione della lingua'' was the discussion on the status and ideal form of the [[Italian language]], initiated by [[Dante]]'s ''[[de vulgari eloquentia]]'' ([[Pietro Bembo]], ''Prose della volgar lingua'' Venice 1525).

Grammars of non-European languages began to be compiled for the purposes of [[evangelization]] and [[Bible translation]] from the 16th century onward, such as ''Grammatica o Arte de la Lengua General de los Indios de los Reynos del Perú'' (1560), and a [[Quechua]] grammar by [[Fray Domingo de Santo Tomás]].

In [[1643 AD|1643]] there appeared [[Ivan Uzhevych]]'s ''Grammatica sclavonica'' and, in 1762, the ''Short Introduction to English Grammar'' of [[Robert Lowth]] was also published. The ''Grammatisch-Kritisches Wörterbuch der hochdeutschen Mundart'', a [[High German]] grammar in five volumes by [[Johann Christoph Adelung]], appeared as early as 1774.
From the latter part of the 18th century, grammar came to be understood as a subfield of the emerging discipline of modern [[linguistics]]. The Serbian grammar by [[Vuk Stefanović Karadžić]] arrived in 1814, while the ''Deutsche Grammatik'' of the [[Brothers Grimm]] was first published in 1818. The ''Comparative Grammar'' of [[Franz Bopp]], the starting point of modern [[comparative linguistics]], came out in 1833.

==Development of grammars==

See Also [[Historical linguistics]]

Grammars evolve through usage and also due to separations of the human population. With the advent of written [[Knowledge representation|representation]]s, formal rules about language usage tend to appear also. Formal grammars are [[codification (linguistics)|codifications]] of usage that are developed by repeated documentation over time, and by [[observation]] as well. As the rules become established and developed, the prescriptive concept of grammatical correctness can arise. This often creates a discrepancy between contemporary usage and that which has been accepted, over time, as being correct. Linguists tend to view prescriptive grammars as having little justification beyond their authors' aesthetic tastes, although style guides may give useful advice about Standard English based on descriptions of usage in contemporary writing. Linguistic prescriptions also form part of the explanation for variation in speech, particularly variation in the speech of an individual speaker (an explanation, for example, for why some people say "I didn't do nothing", some say "I didn't do anything", and some say one or the other depending on social context).

The formal study of grammar is an important part of [[education]] for children from a young age through advanced [[learning]], though the rules taught in schools are not a "grammar" in the sense most [[linguistics|linguists]] use the term, particularly as they are often [[prescriptive]] rather than [[descriptive]].

[[Constructed language]]s (also called planned languages or conlangs) are more common in the modern day. Many have been designed to aid human [[communication]] (for example, naturalistic [[Interlingua]], schematic [[Esperanto]], and the highly logic-compatible [[artificial language]] [[Lojban]]). Each of these languages has its own grammar.

Syntax refers to linguistic structure above the word level (e.g. how sentences are formed)—though without taking into account [[intonation]], which is the domain of phonology. Morphology, by contrast, refers to structure at and below the word level (e.g. how compound words are formed), but above the level of individual sounds, which, like intonation, are in the domain of phonology.[] No clear line can be drawn, however, between syntax and morphology. [[Analytic languages]] use [[syntax]] to convey information that is encoded via [[inflection]] in [[synthetic language]]s. In other words, word order is not significant and [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] is highly significant in a purely synthetic language, whereas morphology is not significant and syntax is highly significant in an analytic language. [[Chinese language|Chinese]] and [[Afrikaans language|Afrikaans]], for example, are highly analytic, and meaning is therefore very context-dependent. (Both do have some inflections, and have had more in the past; thus, they are becoming even less synthetic and more "purely" analytic over time.) [[Latin]], which is highly [[synthetic language|synthetic]], uses [[affix]]es and [[inflection]]s to convey the same information that Chinese does with [[syntax]]. Because Latin words are quite (though not completely) self-contained, an intelligible Latin [[Sentence (linguistics)|sentence]] can be made from elements that are placed in a largely arbitrary order. Latin has a complex affixation and simple syntax, while Chinese has the opposite.

==Grammar frameworks==
See Also [[Grammar framework]]
Various "grammar frameworks" have been developed in [[theoretical linguistics]] since the mid 20th century, in particular under the influence of the idea of a "[[universal grammar]]" in the United States. Of these, the main divisions are:

*[[Transformational grammar]] (TG)
*[[Systemic functional grammar]] (SFG)
*[[Principles and Parameters|Principles and Parameters Theory]] (P&P)
*[[Lexical functional grammar|Lexical-functional Grammar]] (LFG)
*[[Generalised Phrase Structure Grammar|Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar]] (GPSG)
*[[Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar]] (HPSG)
*[[Dependency grammar]]s (DG)
*[[Role and reference grammar]] (RRG)

==Education==

See Also [[orthography]]

[[Image:World literacy map UNHD 2007 2008.png|right|300px|thumb|Worldwide [[List of countries by literacy rate|literacy rates by country]].]]
[[Prescriptive]] grammar is taught in [[primary school]] ([[elementary school]]). The term "[[grammar school]]" historically refers to a school teaching [[Latin grammar]] to future Roman citizens, orators, and, later, Catholic priests. In its earliest form, "grammar school" referred to a school that taught students to read, scan, interpret, and declaim Greek and Latin poets (including Homer, Virgil, Euripides, Ennius, and others). But see the British kind of [[grammar school]].

A [[standard language]] is a particular dialect of a language that is promoted above other dialects in writing, education, and broadly speaking in the public sphere; it contrasts with [[vernacular]] dialects, which may be the objects of study in [[descriptive grammar]] but which are rarely taught prescriptively. The standardized "[[first language]]" taught in primary education may be subject to [[language politics|political]] controversy, since it establishes a standard defining [[nationality]] or [[ethnicity]].

The pre-eminence of [[Parisian French]] has reigned largely unchallenged throughout the history of modern French literature. Standard [[Italian language|Italian]] is not based on the speech of the capital, Rome, but on the speech of [[Florence]] because of the influence Florentines had on early [[Italian literature]]. Similarly, standard Spanish is not based on the speech of [[Madrid]], but on the one of educated speakers from more northerly areas like [[Castile and León]]. In [[Argentina]] and [[Uruguay]] the Spanish standard is based on the local dialects of [[Buenos Aires]] and [[Montevideo]] ([[Rioplatense Spanish]]). [[Portuguese language|Portuguese]] has three official written standards, respectively [[Brazilian Portuguese]] , [[European Portuguese]] and [[Galician Portuguese]].

[[Norwegian language|Norwegian]] has two standards, ''[[Bokmål]]'' and ''[[Nynorsk]]'', the choice between which is subject to [[Norwegian language struggle|controversy]]: Each Norwegian municipality can declare one of the two its official language, or it can remain "language neutral". Nynorsk is endorsed by a minority of 27 percent of the municipalities. The main language used in primary schools normally follows the official language of its municipality, and is decided by referendum within the local school district. [[Standard German]] emerged out of the standardized chancellery use of [[Early New High German language|High German]] in the 16th and 17th centuries. Until about 1800, it was almost entirely a written language, but now it is so widely spoken that most of the former [[German dialect]]s are nearly extinct.

[[Standard Mandarin]] has official status as the standard spoken form of the [[Chinese language]] in the [[People's Republic of China]] (PRC), the [[Republic of China]] (ROC) and the [[Singapore|Republic of Singapore]]. Pronunciation of Standard Mandarin is based on the [[Beijing dialect]] of [[Mandarin Chinese]], while grammar and syntax are based on modern [[vernacular Chinese]].
[[literary Arabic|Modern Standard Arabic]] is directly based on [[Classical Arabic]], the language of the [[Qur'an]]. The [[Hindustani language]] has two standards, [[Hindi]] and [[Urdu]].

In the United States, the Society for the Promotion of Good Grammar designated March 4 as National Grammar Day in 2008.[]

==See also==
* [[:Category:Grammars of specific languages]]
* [[Ambiguous grammar]]
* [[Government and binding]]
* [[Harmonic Grammar]]
* [[Higher-order grammar]]
* [[Linguistic typology]]
* [[List of linguists]]
* [[Syntax]]
* [[Universal grammar]]

==Notes and references==

* American Academic Press, The (ed.). [[William Strunk, Jr.]], et al. ''The Classics of Style: The Fundamentals of Language Style From Our American Craftsmen''. Cleveland: The American Academic Press, 2006. ISBN 0978728203.
* Rundle, Bede. ''Grammar in Philosophy''. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1979. ISBN 0198246129.

==External links==

[[Category:Grammar| ]]
[[Category:Fiction]]
[[Category:Linguistics]]
[[Category:Style (fiction)]]
[[Category:Greek loanwords]]
[[Category:Teachable units for language instruction]]

Acts 8:37

2011-01-20T05:55:57Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''Acts 8:37''' And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

The [[New International Version|NIV]] totally omits this verse.

So half of modern scholarship want it and hald don't? Isn't that utter confusion over what is the word of God? who can we trust on these issues?

(NIV) Omitted

(ESV) Omitted

(RSV) Omitted

(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) - Omitted

(NAB-Roman Catholic) - Omitted - “Look, there is some water right there. What is to keep me from being baptized?” (This verse is half of verse 36)

(NASB) [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (NASB adds footnote stating “Early mss do not contain this verse”

(NKJV) Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (NKJV adds the following center footnote (“8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition”)

==Patristic Quotations==

"Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God." Irenaeus (115-202 AD), Against Heresies 3.12

"In the Acts of the Apostles: Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Cyprian (200-258 AD), Treatise 12. 3

"The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, See water, who doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Dost thou believe on Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water." Augustine (354-430 AD), Sermon 49

==External Links==
* [[Article: Acts 8:37 - "If thou believest with all thine heart" - completely omitted in many modern versions by Will Kinney|Acts 8:37 - "If thou believest with all thine heart" - completely omitted in many modern versions by Will Kinney]] Article by [[Will Kinney]]

Acts 8:37

2011-01-20T05:55:38Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''Acts 8:37''' And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

The [[New International Version|NIV]] totally omits this verse.

So half of modern scholarship want it and hald don't? Isn't that utter confusion over what is the word of God? who can we trust on these issues?

(NIV) Omitted
(ESV) Omitted
(RSV) Omitted
(NWT-Jehovah’s Witnesses) - Omitted
(NAB-Roman Catholic) - Omitted - “Look, there is some water right there. What is to keep me from being baptized?” (This verse is half of verse 36)
(NASB) [And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."] (NASB adds footnote stating “Early mss do not contain this verse”
(NKJV) Then Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." (NKJV adds the following center footnote (“8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition”)

==Patristic Quotations==

"Philip declared that this was Jesus, and that the Scripture was fulfilled in Him; as did also the believing eunuch himself: and, immediately requesting to be baptized, he said, I believe Jesus Christ to be the Son of God." Irenaeus (115-202 AD), Against Heresies 3.12

"In the Acts of the Apostles: Lo, here is water; what is there which hinders me from being baptized? Then said Philip, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest." Cyprian (200-258 AD), Treatise 12. 3

"The eunuch believed on Christ, and said when they came unto a certain water, See water, who doth hinder me to be baptized? Philip said to him, Dost thou believe on Jesus Christ? He answered, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Immediately he went down with him into the water." Augustine (354-430 AD), Sermon 49

==External Links==
* [[Article: Acts 8:37 - "If thou believest with all thine heart" - completely omitted in many modern versions by Will Kinney|Acts 8:37 - "If thou believest with all thine heart" - completely omitted in many modern versions by Will Kinney]] Article by [[Will Kinney]]

Koine Greek

2011-01-19T23:22:36Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Sample 3 - Greek Old Testament */

'''Koine Greek''' (Ελληνιστική Κοινή[1] "Hellenistic common [language]"; or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect", also simply called ''koine'' "common [language]", besides "Alexandrian dialect", "common Attic" or "Hellenistic Greek") is the popular form of the [[Greek language]] spoken throughout post-[[Classical antiquity]] (c.[[300 BC]] – [[300 AD|AD 300]]), developing from the [[Attic dialect]], with admixture of elements especially from [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].

Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a ''[[lingua franca]]'' for the [[eastern Mediterranean]] and [[Near East]] throughout the [[Roman Empire|Roman period]].

It is also the language of the [[Septuagint]] (the Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]]) and of the [[Christian Bible|Christian]] [[New Testament]].[] Koine is the main ancestor of [[modern Greek]].
As the language of the New Testament and of the [[Church Fathers]], Koine Greek is also known as Biblical, Patristic or New Testament Greek.[][]

==Name==
'''Koinḗ''' (Κοινή), Greek for "common", is a term which had been previously applied by ancient scholars to several forms of Greek speech. A school of scholars such as [[Apollonius Dyscolus]] and [[Aelius Herodianus]] maintained the term ''Koine'' to refer to the [[Proto-Greek language]], while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed from the literary language.<ref name=andriotes/> When ''Koine'' gradually became a language of literature, some people distinguished it in two forms: ''Hellenic'' (Greek) as the literary post-classical form, and ''Koine'' (common) as the spoken popular form.[] Others chose to refer to ''Koine'' as the ''Alexandrian dialect'' (Περὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου) or ''the dialect of [[Alexandria]]'', a term often used by modern classicists.

==Origins and history==
Koine Greek arose as a common dialect within the armies of [[Alexander the Great]].[] Under the leadership of [[Macedon]], which colonized the known world, their newly formed common dialect was spoken from [[Ptolemaic Egypt|Egypt]] to [[Seleucid Empire|Mesopotamia]].[] Though elements of Koine Greek took shape during the [[Classical Greece|Classical Era]], the post-Classical period of Greek is defined as beginning with the death of [[Alexander the Great]] in [[323 BC]], when cultures under [[Hellenistic era|Hellenistic]] sway in turn began to influence the language.
The passage into the next period, known as [[Medieval Greek]], dates from the foundation of [[Constantinople]] by [[Constantine I]] in [[330 AD|330]]. The post-Classical period of Greek thus refers to the creation and evolution of Koine Greek throughout the entire Hellenistic and Roman eras of history until the start of the Middle Ages.[]

The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the [[Hellenistic]] age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main [[Ancient Greek]] dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by [[Paul Kretschmer]] in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while [[Ulrich Wilamowitz]] and [[Antoine Meillet]], based on the intense Ionic elements of the Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].[] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[] In that respect, the varieties of Koine spoken in the [[Ionia]]n colonies of [[Asia Minor]] (e.g. [[Pontus]]) would have more intense [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] characteristics than others and those of Laconia and Cyprus would preserve some [[Doric dialect|Doric]] and [[Arcado-Cypriot]] characteristics, respectively etc. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as ''Common Attic''.[]

==Sources==
The first scholars who studied Koine, both in Alexandrian and contemporary times, were classicists whose prototype had been the literary [[Attic Greek|Attic]] language of the Classical period, and would frown upon any other kind of [[Ancient Greek|Hellenic]] speech. Koine Greek was therefore considered a decayed form of Greek which was not worthy of attention.[] The reconsideration on the historical and linguistic importance of Koine Greek began only in the early 19th century, where renowned scholars conducted a series of studies on the evolution of Koine throughout the entire [[Hellenistic]] and Roman period which it covered. The sources used on the studies of Koine have been numerous and of unequal reliability. The most significant ones are the inscriptions of the post-Classical periods and the [[papyrus|papyri]], for being two kinds of texts which have authentic content and can be studied directly.[] Other significant sources are the [[Septuagint]], the somewhat literal Greek translation of the [[Old Testament]], and the [[New Testament]], parts of which may have been translated from the [[Hebrew Gospel]] by Jerome (or others) using similar rules to the Septuagint translators. The teaching of the Testaments was aimed at the most common people, and for that reason they use the most popular language of the era. Information can also be derived from some [[Atticism|Atticist]] scholars of the [[Hellenistic]] and Roman periods, who, in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" [[Attic Greek|Attic]] against the "wrong" Koine by citing examples. For example, [[Phrynichus Arabius]] during the 2nd century AD wrote:

{{quote|Βασίλισσα οὐδείς τῶν Ἀρχαίων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ βασίλεια ἢ βασιλίς. ''Basilissa'' (Queen) none of the Ancients said, but ''Basileia'' or ''Basilis''. Διωρία ἑσχάτως ἀδόκιμον, ἀντ' αυτοῦ δὲ προθεσμίαν ἐρεῖς. ''Dioria'' (deadline) is badly illiteral, instead use ''Prothesmia''. Πάντοτε μὴ λέγε, ἀλλὰ ἑκάστοτε καὶ διὰ παντός. Do not say ''Pantote'' (always), but ''Hekastote'' and ''Dia pantos''.}}

Other sources can be based on random findings such as inscriptions on vases written by popular painters, mistakes made by [[Atticism|Atticists]] due to their imperfect knowledge of pure [[Attic Greek|Attic]], or even some surviving Greco-Latin glossaries of the Roman period,[] e.g.:

{{quote|Καλήμερον, ἦλθες; Bono die, venisti? Good day, you came? Ἐὰν θέλεις, ἐλθὲ μεθ' ἡμῶν. Si vis, veni mecum. If you want, come with us (The Latin actually says with me, not us). Ποῦ; Ubi? Where?. Πρὸς φίλον ἡμέτερον Λεύκιον. Ad amicum nostrum Lucium. To our friend Lucius. Τί γὰρ ἔχει; Quid enim habet? Indeed, what does he have? What is it with him?. Ἀρρωστεῖ. Aegrotat. He's sick.}}

Finally, a very important source of information on the ancient Koine is the [[modern Greek]] language with all its dialects and its own ''Koine'' form, which have preserved some of the ancient language's oral linguistic details which the written tradition has lost. For example the [[Pontic language|Pontic]] and [[Cappadocian Greek language|Cappadocian]] dialects preserved the ancient pronunciation of η as ε (νύφε, συνέλικος, τίμεσον, πεγάδι etc.), while the [[Tsakonic]] preserved the long α instead of η (ἁμέρα, ἀστραπά, λίμνα, χοά etc.) and the other local characteristics of [[Doric Greek|Laconic]].[] Dialects from the Southern part of the Greek-speaking regions ([[Dodecanese]], [[Cyprus]] etc.), preserve the pronunciation of the double similar consonants (ἄλ-λος, Ἑλ-λάδα, θάλασ-σα), while others pronounce in many words υ as ου or preserve ancient double forms (κρόμμυον — κρεμ-μυον, ράξ — ρώξ etc.). Linguistic phenomena like the above imply that those characteristics survived within Koine, which in turn had countless variations in the Greek-speaking world.[]

==Types==
===Biblical Koine===
"Biblical Koine" refers to the varieties of Koine Greek used in the Christian Bible and related texts. Its main sources are:
* the [[Septuagint]], supposed to be a 3rd century BC Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]] which included the [[Deuterocanon]]. Most of the texts are translations, but there are some portions and texts composed in [[Greek language|Greek]]. [[Ben Sira|Sirach]], for instance, has not been found in Hebrew;
* the [[New Testament]], compiled originally in Greek according to the dominant theory of [[Greek primacy]] (although some books may have had a Hebrew-Aramaic [[Substratum#Substratum|substrate]] and contain some Semitic influence on the language, see also [[Aramaic of Jesus]]).

====Septuagint Greek====
There has been some debate to what degree Biblical Greek represents the mainstream of contemporary spoken Koine and to what extent it contains specifically [[Semitic languages|Semitic]] [[substratum]] features (''cf.'' [[Aramaic primacy]]). These could have been induced either through the practice of translating closely from [[Biblical Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] originals, or through the influence of the regional non-standard [[Hellenistic Judaism|Greek spoken by the originally Aramaic-speaking Jews]]. Some of the features discussed in this context are the Septuagint's normative absence of the particles μέν and δέ, and the use of ἐγένετο to denote "it came to pass." Some features of Biblical Greek which are thought to have originally been non-standard elements eventually found their way into the main of the Greek language.

====New Testament Greek====
The Greek of the New Testament is less distinctively Semitic than that of the Septuagint, partly because it appeared 300 years later and partly because it is largely a de novo composition in Greek, not primarily a translation from [[Biblical Hebrew]] and [[Biblical Aramaic]].[]

===Patristic Greek===
The term ''Patristic Greek'' is sometimes used for the Greek written by the [[Church Fathers]], the [[Early Christian]] theologians in late antiquity. Christian writers in the earliest time tended to use a simple register of Koiné, relatively close to the spoken language of their time, following the model of the Bible. After the 4th century, when [[State church of the Roman Empire|Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire]], more learned registers of Koiné influenced by Atticism came also to be used.[]

==Differences between Attic and Koine Greek==
The study of all sources from the six centuries which are symbolically covered by Koine reveals linguistic changes from [[ancient Greek]] on elements of the spoken language including:
* [[grammar]] - accidence and syntax,
* [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] - word formation
* [[vocabulary]]
* [[phonology]] - pronunciation
Most new forms start off as rare and gradually become more frequent until they are established. From the linguistic changes which took place in Koine, Greek gained such a resemblance to its [[Medieval Greek|medieval]] and [[Modern Greek|modern]] successors that almost all characteristics of modern Greek can be traced in the surviving texts of Koine.[] As most of the changes between modern and ancient Greek were introduced via Koine, Koine is largely intelligible to speakers of the modern language.

===Differences in grammar===
''See Also [[Koine Greek grammar]]''

===Phonology===
''See Also [[Koine Greek phonology|Ancient Greek phonology|Modern Greek phonology]]''

During the period generally designated as "Koine" Greek, a great deal of phonological change occurred: at the start of the period, the pronunciation was virtually identical to [[Ancient Greek phonology]], whereas in the end it had much more in common with [[Modern Greek phonology]].

The three most significant changes were the loss of vowel length distinction, the substitution of the pitch accent system with a stress accent system, and the monophthongization of several diphthongs:
*The ancient distinction between long and short vowels was gradually lost, and from the 2nd century BC all vowels were isochronic.[]

*Since the 2nd century BC, the means of accenting words changed from [[Pitch accent|pitch]] to [[Stress (phonology)|stress]], meaning that the accented syllable is not pronounced in a musical tone but louder and/or stronger.[]

*The [[Spiritus asper|aspirate breathing]] ([[aspiration (phonetics)|aspiration]]), which was already lost in the [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] varieties of [[Asia Minor]] and the [[Aeolic Greek|Aeolic]] of [[Lesbos Island|Lesbos]], stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The ι in long diphthongs (those with the long vowels: ᾱͅ, ῃ, ῳ) stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The diphthongs αι, ει, and οι became single vowels. In this manner 'αι', which had already been converted by the Boeotians into a long ε since the 4th century BC and written η (e.g. {{Polytonic|πῆς, χῆρε, μέμφομη}}), became in Koine, too, first a long ε and then short. The diphthong 'ει' had already merged with ι in the 5th century BC in regions such as [[Argos]] or in the 4th c. BC in [[Corinth]] (e.g. {{Polytonic|ΛΕΓΙΣ}}), and it acquired this pronunciation also in Koine. The diphthong 'οι' acquired the pronunciation of the modern [[French language|French]] 'U' ({{IPAblink|y}}), which lasted until the 10th century AD. The diphthong 'υι' came to be pronounced {{IPA|[yj]}}, and remained pronounced as a diphthong. The diphthong 'ου' had already acquired the pronunciation of [[Latin]] 'U' since the 6th century BC and preserved it in modern times.[]

*The diphthongs αυ and ευ came to be pronounced [av] and [ev] (via [aβ], [eβ]), but are partly [[Assimilation (linguistics)|assimilated]] to [af], [ef] before the [[voiceless consonant]]s θ, κ, ξ, π, σ, τ, φ, χ, and ψ.<ref name=andriotes/>

*Simple vowels have preserved their ancient pronunciations, except η which is pronounced as ι, and υ, which retained the pronunciation {{IPA|[y]}} of modern [[French language|French]] 'U' only until the 10th c. AD, and was later also pronounced as ι. With those changes in phonology there were common spelling mistakes between υ and οι, while the sound of ι was multiplied ([[iotacism]]).<ref name=andriotes/>

*The consonants also preserved their ancient pronunciations to a great extent, except β, γ, δ, φ, θ, χ and ζ. Β, Γ, Δ (Beta, Gamma, Delta), which were originally pronounced {{IPA|[b, ɡ, d]}}, acquired the sounds of ''v, gh,'' and ''dh'' ({{IPA|[v]}} (via {{IPAblink|β}}), {{IPAblink|ɣ}}, {{IPAblink|ð}}), which they still have today, except when preceded by a nasal consonant (μ, ν); in that case, they retain their ancient sounds (e.g. {{Polytonic|γαμβρός — γαmbρός, άνδρας — άndρας, άγγελος — άŋgελος}}). The latter three (Φ, Θ, Χ), which were initially pronounced as [[Aspirated consonant|aspirate]]s ({{IPA|/pʰ/}}, {{IPA|/tʰ/}} and {{IPA|/kʰ/}} respectively), developed into the fricatives {{IPA|[f]}} (via {{IPA|[ɸ]}}), {{IPA|[θ]}}, and {{IPA|[x]}}. Finally the letter Ζ, which is still categorised as a double consonant with ξ and ψ, because it was initially pronounced as σδ (sd), later acquired the sound of Z as it appears in [[Modern English]] and [[Modern Greek|Greek]].<ref name=andriotes/>

'''New Testament Greek Phonology'''
The Koine Greek in the table represents a reconstruction of New Testament Koine Greek, deriving to some degree from the dialect spoken in Judaea and Galilaea during the 1st century and similar to the dialect spoken in Alexandria, Egypt. Note the realizations of certain phonemes differ from the more standard Attic dialect of Koine. Note the soft fricative "β" in intervocalic position, the preservation of the aspirated plosive value of "ph", "th" and "kh", the preservation of a distinction between the four front vowels "i", "ē", "e", and "y" (which is still rounded), and other features.

{|class="wikitable" style="background:white"
|-
|'''letter'''|| '''Greek''' || Transliteration || '''[[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]'''
|-
|Alpha||α||a||{{IPA|ɑ}}
|-
|Beta||β (-β-)||b||{{IPA|b (-β-)}}
|-
|Gamma||γ||g||{{IPA|ɣ}}
|-
|Delta||δ||d||{{IPA|d}}
|-
|Epsilon||ε||e||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
|Zeta||ζ||z||{{IPA|zː}}
|-
|Eta||η||ē||{{IPA|e}}
|-
|Theta||θ||th||{{IPA|tʰ}}
|-
|Iota||ι||i||{{IPA|i}}
|-
|Kappa||κ||k||{{IPA|k}}
|-
|Lambda||λ||l||{{IPA|l}}
|-
|Mu||μ||m||{{IPA|m}}
|-
|Nu||ν||n||{{IPA|n}}
|-
|Xi||ξ||x||{{IPA|ks}}
|-
|Omicron||ο||o||{{IPA|o}}
|-
|Pi|| π||p||{{IPA|p}}
|-
|Rho||ρ||r||{{IPA|ɾ}}
|-
|Sigma||σ (-σ-/-σσ-)||s (-s-/-ss-)||{{IPA|s (-z-/-sː-)}}
|-
|Tau||τ||t||{{IPA|t}}
|-
|Upsilon||υ||y||{{IPA|y}}
|-
|Phi||φ||ph||{{IPA|pʰ}}
|-
|Chi||χ||ch||{{IPA|kʰ}}
|-
|Psi||ψ||ps||{{IPA|ps}}
|-
|Omega||ω||ō||{{IPA|o}}
|-
| . ||αι||ai||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
| . ||ει||ei||{{IPA|i}}
|-
| . ||οι||oi||{{IPA|y}}
|-
| . ||αυ||au||{{IPA|ɑw}}
|-
| . ||ευ||eu||{{IPA|ɛw}}
|-
| . ||ηυ||ēu||{{IPA|ew}}
|-
| . ||ου||ou||{{IPA|u}}
|}

==Sample Koine texts ==
The following texts show differences from Attic Greek in all aspects - grammar, morphology, vocabulary and can be inferred to show differences in phonology.

The following comments illustrate the phonological development within the period of Koine. The phonetic transcriptions are tentative, and are intended to illustrate two different stages in the reconstructed development, an early conservative variety still relatively close to Classical Attic, and a somewhat later, more progressive variety approaching Modern Greek in some respects.

===Sample 1 - A Roman Decree===
The following excerpt, from a decree of the Roman Senate to the town of Thisbae in [[Boeotia]] in 170 BC, is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a hypothetical conservative variety of mainland Greek Koiné in the early Hellenistic era.[] The transcription shows partial, but not yet completed raising of η and ει to /i/, retention of pitch accent, fricativization of γ to /j/ {{Clarify|June 2009|reason=/j/ is not a fricative, /ɣ/ would be, but anyway neither appear in the following IPA transcription, only /ɡ/ does|date=June 2009}} but no fricativisation of the other stops as yet, and retention of word-initial /h/.

:περὶ ὧν Θισ[β]εῖς λόγους ἐποιήσαντο· περὶ τῶν καθ᾿αὑ[τ]οὺς πραγμάτων, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐνέμειναν, ὅπως αὐτοῖς δοθῶσιν [ο]ἷς τὰ καθ᾿ αὑτοὺς πράγματα ἐξηγήσωνται, περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος οὕτως ἔδοξεν· ὅπως Κόιντος Μαίνιος στρατηγὸς τῶν ἐκ τῆς συνκλήτου [π]έντε ἀποτάξῃ οἳ ἂν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων πρα[γμ]άτων καὶ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεων φαίνωνται. ˈperì hôːn tʰizbîːs lóɡuːs epojéːsanto; perì tôːn katʰ hautùːs praɡmátoːn, hoítines en tîː pʰilíaːi tîː heːmetéraːi enémiːnan, hópoːs autoîs dotʰôːsin hoîs tà katʰ hautùːs práɡmata ekseːɡéːsoːntai, perì túːtuː tûː práɡmatos húːtoːs édoksen; hópoːs ˈkʷintos ˈmainios strateːɡòs tôːn ek têːs syŋkléːtuː pénte apotáksiː, hoì àn autôːi ek tôːn deːmosíoːn praɡmátoːn kaì têːs idíaːs písteoːs pʰaínoːntai Concerning those matters about which the citizens of Thisbae made representations. Concerning their own affairs: the following decision was taken concerning the proposal that those who remained true to our friendship should be given the facilities to conduct their own affairs; that our governor Quintus Maenius should delegate five members of the senate who seemed to him suitable in the light of their public actions and individual good faith.

===Sample 2 - Greek New Testament===
The following excerpt, the beginning of the [[Gospel of St John]], is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a progressive popular variety of Koiné in the early Christian era, with vowels approaching those of Modern Greek.[]

: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. ˈen arˈkʰi in o ˈloɣos, ke o ˈloɣos in bros to(n) tʰeˈo(n), ke tʰeˈos in o ˈloɣos. ˈutos in en arˈkʰi pros to(n) tʰeˈo(n). ˈpanda di aɸˈtu eˈjeneto, ke kʰoˈris aɸˈtu eˈjeneto ude ˈen o ˈjeɣonen. en aɸˈto zoˈi in, ke i zoˈi in to pʰos ton anˈtʰropon; ke to pʰos en di skoˈtia ˈpʰeni, ke i skoˈti(a) a(ɸ)ˈto u kaˈtelaβen In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

===Sample 3 - Greek Old Testament ===
This is from the [[Septuagint|LXX]] version of [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]], dating to c. 150 BC. This Greek is the "Biblical Greek" discussed above. Note that because of literalness this text in many ways does not fit the Hellenistic Greek of the time, full of semiticisms.

:Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων. Μωυσῆς ὁ θεράπων μου τετελεύτηκεν· νῦν οὖν ἀναστὰς διάβηθι τὸν Ιορδάνην, σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς. πᾶς ὁ τόπος, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἐπιβῆτε τῷ ἴχνει τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δώσω αὐτόν, ὃν τρόπον εἴρηκα τῷ Μωυσῇ, τὴν ἔρημον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αντιλίβανον ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου, καὶ ἕως τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου δυσμῶν ἔσται τὰ ὅρια ὑμῶν. οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου, καὶ ὥσπερ ἤμην μετὰ Μωυσῆ, οὕτως ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε. ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου· σὺ γὰρ ἀποδιαστελεῖς τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ τὴν γῆν, ἣν ὤμοσα τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς. ἴσχυε οὖν καὶ ἀνδρίζου φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν καθότι ἐνετείλατό σοι Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς μου, καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά, ἵνα συνῇς ἐν πᾶσιν, οἷς ἐὰν πράσσῃς. καὶ οὐκ ἀποστήσεται ἡ βίβλος τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου, καὶ μελετήσεις ἐν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἵνα συνῇς ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα· τότε εὐοδωθήσῃ καὶ εὐοδώσεις τὰς ὁδούς σου καὶ τότε συνήσεις. ἰδοὺ ἐντέταλμαί σοι· ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου, μὴ δειλιάσῃς μηδὲ φοβηθῇς, ὅτι μετὰ σοῦ κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς πάντα, οὗ ἐὰν πορεύῃ. Καὶ ἐνετείλατο ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων. Εἰσέλθατε κατὰ μέσον τῆς παρεμβολῆς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐντείλασθε τῷ λαῷ λέγοντες ῾Ετοιμάζεσθε ἐπισιτισμόν, ὅτι ἔτι τρεῖς ἡμέραι καὶ ὑμεῖς διαβαίνετε τὸν Ιορδάνην τοῦτον εἰσελθόντες κατασχεῖν τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν. καὶ τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση εἶπεν ᾿Ιησοῦς. Μνήσθητε τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου, ὃ ἐνετείλατο ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου λέγων Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν κατέπαυσεν ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν γῆν ταύτην. αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ παιδία ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ κτήνη ὑμῶν κατοικείτωσαν ἐν τῇ γῇ, ᾗ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν· ὑμεῖς δὲ διαβήσεσθε εὔζωνοι πρότεροι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, πᾶς ὁ ἰσχύων, καὶ συμμαχήσετε αὐτοῖς, ἕως ἂν καταπαύσῃ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμᾶς καὶ κληρονομήσωσιν καὶ οὗτοι τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἀπελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ, ἣν δέδωκεν ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου. καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ εἶπαν Πάντα, ὅσα ἂν ἐντείλῃ ἡμῖν, ποιήσομεν καὶ εἰς πάντα τόπον, οὗ ἐὰν ἀποστείλῃς ἡμᾶς, πορευσόμεθα· κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν Μωυσῆ, ἀκουσόμεθα σοῦ, πλὴν ἔστω κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν μετὰ σοῦ, ὃν τρόπον ἦν μετὰ Μωυσῆ. ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν ἀπειθήσῃ σοι καὶ ὅστις μὴ ἀκούσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων σου καθότι ἂν αὐτῷ ἐντείλῃ, ἀποθανέτω. ἀλλὰ ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου.

==Further reading==
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Primer''. ISBN 0718892062
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Intermediate. From Morphology to Translation''. ISBN 0718892003

==Notes==

* 1. pronounced Koine Greek: [kɔɪˈnɛ], Modern Greek: [ciˈni eliniˈci]; see e.g. Κοπιδάκης, Μ. Ζ. "Εισαγωγή στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή", in Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Κοπιδάκης, Μ.Ζ. (ed.), Athens, 1999, pp. 82-92
* 2. Andriotis, Nikolaos P. History of the Greek Language.
* 3. Remarks on the synonyms of the New Testament by Johann August Heinrich Tittmann, Edward Craig, Edward Robinson, Moses Stuart pg 148-155
* 4. A history of ancient Greek by Maria Chritē, Maria Arapopoulou, Centre for the Greek Language (Thessalonikē, Greece) pg 436 ISBN 0521833078
* 5. Augsburg.
* 6. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare(1856-1924) Grammar of Septuagint Greek
* 7. Horrocks (1997: ch.5.11.)
* 8. G. Horrocks (1997), Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, p. 87), cf. also pp. 105-109.
* 9. Horrocks (1997: 94).

==References==
* Abel, F.-M. ''Grammaire du grec biblique''.
* Allen, W. Sidney, ''Vox Graeca: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Greek – 3rd ed.'', Cambridge University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-521-33555-8
* Andriotis, Nikolaos P. ''History of the Greek Language''
* Buth, Randall, ''[http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf Ἡ κοινὴ προφορά: Koine Greek of Early Roman Period]''
* Conybeare, F.C. and Stock, St. George. ''Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes''.
* Smyth, Herbert Weir, ''Greek Grammar'', Harvard University Press, 1956. ISBN 0-674-36250-0

==External links==
*[http://greek-language.com Greek-Language.com] Dictionaries, manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and tools for applying linguistics to the study of Hellenistic Greek
*[http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html New Testament Greek Online]
*[http://www.poliskoine.com Polis Koine] A method to learn Koine Greek including a video of a class
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek Wikipedia article on Koine Greek]

[[Category:Koine Greek| ]]
[[Category:Ancient languages|Greek, Koine]]
[[Category:Hellenistic civilization]]
[[Category:Languages of ancient Macedonia]]
[[Category:Offshoots of the Macedonian Empire]]
[[Category:Standard languages|Greek, Koine]]

Koine Greek

2011-01-19T23:21:39Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Sample 2 - Greek New Testament */

'''Koine Greek''' (Ελληνιστική Κοινή[1] "Hellenistic common [language]"; or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect", also simply called ''koine'' "common [language]", besides "Alexandrian dialect", "common Attic" or "Hellenistic Greek") is the popular form of the [[Greek language]] spoken throughout post-[[Classical antiquity]] (c.[[300 BC]] – [[300 AD|AD 300]]), developing from the [[Attic dialect]], with admixture of elements especially from [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].

Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a ''[[lingua franca]]'' for the [[eastern Mediterranean]] and [[Near East]] throughout the [[Roman Empire|Roman period]].

It is also the language of the [[Septuagint]] (the Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]]) and of the [[Christian Bible|Christian]] [[New Testament]].[] Koine is the main ancestor of [[modern Greek]].
As the language of the New Testament and of the [[Church Fathers]], Koine Greek is also known as Biblical, Patristic or New Testament Greek.[][]

==Name==
'''Koinḗ''' (Κοινή), Greek for "common", is a term which had been previously applied by ancient scholars to several forms of Greek speech. A school of scholars such as [[Apollonius Dyscolus]] and [[Aelius Herodianus]] maintained the term ''Koine'' to refer to the [[Proto-Greek language]], while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed from the literary language.<ref name=andriotes/> When ''Koine'' gradually became a language of literature, some people distinguished it in two forms: ''Hellenic'' (Greek) as the literary post-classical form, and ''Koine'' (common) as the spoken popular form.[] Others chose to refer to ''Koine'' as the ''Alexandrian dialect'' (Περὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου) or ''the dialect of [[Alexandria]]'', a term often used by modern classicists.

==Origins and history==
Koine Greek arose as a common dialect within the armies of [[Alexander the Great]].[] Under the leadership of [[Macedon]], which colonized the known world, their newly formed common dialect was spoken from [[Ptolemaic Egypt|Egypt]] to [[Seleucid Empire|Mesopotamia]].[] Though elements of Koine Greek took shape during the [[Classical Greece|Classical Era]], the post-Classical period of Greek is defined as beginning with the death of [[Alexander the Great]] in [[323 BC]], when cultures under [[Hellenistic era|Hellenistic]] sway in turn began to influence the language.
The passage into the next period, known as [[Medieval Greek]], dates from the foundation of [[Constantinople]] by [[Constantine I]] in [[330 AD|330]]. The post-Classical period of Greek thus refers to the creation and evolution of Koine Greek throughout the entire Hellenistic and Roman eras of history until the start of the Middle Ages.[]

The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the [[Hellenistic]] age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main [[Ancient Greek]] dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by [[Paul Kretschmer]] in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while [[Ulrich Wilamowitz]] and [[Antoine Meillet]], based on the intense Ionic elements of the Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].[] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[] In that respect, the varieties of Koine spoken in the [[Ionia]]n colonies of [[Asia Minor]] (e.g. [[Pontus]]) would have more intense [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] characteristics than others and those of Laconia and Cyprus would preserve some [[Doric dialect|Doric]] and [[Arcado-Cypriot]] characteristics, respectively etc. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as ''Common Attic''.[]

==Sources==
The first scholars who studied Koine, both in Alexandrian and contemporary times, were classicists whose prototype had been the literary [[Attic Greek|Attic]] language of the Classical period, and would frown upon any other kind of [[Ancient Greek|Hellenic]] speech. Koine Greek was therefore considered a decayed form of Greek which was not worthy of attention.[] The reconsideration on the historical and linguistic importance of Koine Greek began only in the early 19th century, where renowned scholars conducted a series of studies on the evolution of Koine throughout the entire [[Hellenistic]] and Roman period which it covered. The sources used on the studies of Koine have been numerous and of unequal reliability. The most significant ones are the inscriptions of the post-Classical periods and the [[papyrus|papyri]], for being two kinds of texts which have authentic content and can be studied directly.[] Other significant sources are the [[Septuagint]], the somewhat literal Greek translation of the [[Old Testament]], and the [[New Testament]], parts of which may have been translated from the [[Hebrew Gospel]] by Jerome (or others) using similar rules to the Septuagint translators. The teaching of the Testaments was aimed at the most common people, and for that reason they use the most popular language of the era. Information can also be derived from some [[Atticism|Atticist]] scholars of the [[Hellenistic]] and Roman periods, who, in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" [[Attic Greek|Attic]] against the "wrong" Koine by citing examples. For example, [[Phrynichus Arabius]] during the 2nd century AD wrote:

{{quote|Βασίλισσα οὐδείς τῶν Ἀρχαίων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ βασίλεια ἢ βασιλίς. ''Basilissa'' (Queen) none of the Ancients said, but ''Basileia'' or ''Basilis''. Διωρία ἑσχάτως ἀδόκιμον, ἀντ' αυτοῦ δὲ προθεσμίαν ἐρεῖς. ''Dioria'' (deadline) is badly illiteral, instead use ''Prothesmia''. Πάντοτε μὴ λέγε, ἀλλὰ ἑκάστοτε καὶ διὰ παντός. Do not say ''Pantote'' (always), but ''Hekastote'' and ''Dia pantos''.}}

Other sources can be based on random findings such as inscriptions on vases written by popular painters, mistakes made by [[Atticism|Atticists]] due to their imperfect knowledge of pure [[Attic Greek|Attic]], or even some surviving Greco-Latin glossaries of the Roman period,[] e.g.:

{{quote|Καλήμερον, ἦλθες; Bono die, venisti? Good day, you came? Ἐὰν θέλεις, ἐλθὲ μεθ' ἡμῶν. Si vis, veni mecum. If you want, come with us (The Latin actually says with me, not us). Ποῦ; Ubi? Where?. Πρὸς φίλον ἡμέτερον Λεύκιον. Ad amicum nostrum Lucium. To our friend Lucius. Τί γὰρ ἔχει; Quid enim habet? Indeed, what does he have? What is it with him?. Ἀρρωστεῖ. Aegrotat. He's sick.}}

Finally, a very important source of information on the ancient Koine is the [[modern Greek]] language with all its dialects and its own ''Koine'' form, which have preserved some of the ancient language's oral linguistic details which the written tradition has lost. For example the [[Pontic language|Pontic]] and [[Cappadocian Greek language|Cappadocian]] dialects preserved the ancient pronunciation of η as ε (νύφε, συνέλικος, τίμεσον, πεγάδι etc.), while the [[Tsakonic]] preserved the long α instead of η (ἁμέρα, ἀστραπά, λίμνα, χοά etc.) and the other local characteristics of [[Doric Greek|Laconic]].[] Dialects from the Southern part of the Greek-speaking regions ([[Dodecanese]], [[Cyprus]] etc.), preserve the pronunciation of the double similar consonants (ἄλ-λος, Ἑλ-λάδα, θάλασ-σα), while others pronounce in many words υ as ου or preserve ancient double forms (κρόμμυον — κρεμ-μυον, ράξ — ρώξ etc.). Linguistic phenomena like the above imply that those characteristics survived within Koine, which in turn had countless variations in the Greek-speaking world.[]

==Types==
===Biblical Koine===
"Biblical Koine" refers to the varieties of Koine Greek used in the Christian Bible and related texts. Its main sources are:
* the [[Septuagint]], supposed to be a 3rd century BC Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]] which included the [[Deuterocanon]]. Most of the texts are translations, but there are some portions and texts composed in [[Greek language|Greek]]. [[Ben Sira|Sirach]], for instance, has not been found in Hebrew;
* the [[New Testament]], compiled originally in Greek according to the dominant theory of [[Greek primacy]] (although some books may have had a Hebrew-Aramaic [[Substratum#Substratum|substrate]] and contain some Semitic influence on the language, see also [[Aramaic of Jesus]]).

====Septuagint Greek====
There has been some debate to what degree Biblical Greek represents the mainstream of contemporary spoken Koine and to what extent it contains specifically [[Semitic languages|Semitic]] [[substratum]] features (''cf.'' [[Aramaic primacy]]). These could have been induced either through the practice of translating closely from [[Biblical Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] originals, or through the influence of the regional non-standard [[Hellenistic Judaism|Greek spoken by the originally Aramaic-speaking Jews]]. Some of the features discussed in this context are the Septuagint's normative absence of the particles μέν and δέ, and the use of ἐγένετο to denote "it came to pass." Some features of Biblical Greek which are thought to have originally been non-standard elements eventually found their way into the main of the Greek language.

====New Testament Greek====
The Greek of the New Testament is less distinctively Semitic than that of the Septuagint, partly because it appeared 300 years later and partly because it is largely a de novo composition in Greek, not primarily a translation from [[Biblical Hebrew]] and [[Biblical Aramaic]].[]

===Patristic Greek===
The term ''Patristic Greek'' is sometimes used for the Greek written by the [[Church Fathers]], the [[Early Christian]] theologians in late antiquity. Christian writers in the earliest time tended to use a simple register of Koiné, relatively close to the spoken language of their time, following the model of the Bible. After the 4th century, when [[State church of the Roman Empire|Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire]], more learned registers of Koiné influenced by Atticism came also to be used.[]

==Differences between Attic and Koine Greek==
The study of all sources from the six centuries which are symbolically covered by Koine reveals linguistic changes from [[ancient Greek]] on elements of the spoken language including:
* [[grammar]] - accidence and syntax,
* [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] - word formation
* [[vocabulary]]
* [[phonology]] - pronunciation
Most new forms start off as rare and gradually become more frequent until they are established. From the linguistic changes which took place in Koine, Greek gained such a resemblance to its [[Medieval Greek|medieval]] and [[Modern Greek|modern]] successors that almost all characteristics of modern Greek can be traced in the surviving texts of Koine.[] As most of the changes between modern and ancient Greek were introduced via Koine, Koine is largely intelligible to speakers of the modern language.

===Differences in grammar===
''See Also [[Koine Greek grammar]]''

===Phonology===
''See Also [[Koine Greek phonology|Ancient Greek phonology|Modern Greek phonology]]''

During the period generally designated as "Koine" Greek, a great deal of phonological change occurred: at the start of the period, the pronunciation was virtually identical to [[Ancient Greek phonology]], whereas in the end it had much more in common with [[Modern Greek phonology]].

The three most significant changes were the loss of vowel length distinction, the substitution of the pitch accent system with a stress accent system, and the monophthongization of several diphthongs:
*The ancient distinction between long and short vowels was gradually lost, and from the 2nd century BC all vowels were isochronic.[]

*Since the 2nd century BC, the means of accenting words changed from [[Pitch accent|pitch]] to [[Stress (phonology)|stress]], meaning that the accented syllable is not pronounced in a musical tone but louder and/or stronger.[]

*The [[Spiritus asper|aspirate breathing]] ([[aspiration (phonetics)|aspiration]]), which was already lost in the [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] varieties of [[Asia Minor]] and the [[Aeolic Greek|Aeolic]] of [[Lesbos Island|Lesbos]], stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The ι in long diphthongs (those with the long vowels: ᾱͅ, ῃ, ῳ) stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The diphthongs αι, ει, and οι became single vowels. In this manner 'αι', which had already been converted by the Boeotians into a long ε since the 4th century BC and written η (e.g. {{Polytonic|πῆς, χῆρε, μέμφομη}}), became in Koine, too, first a long ε and then short. The diphthong 'ει' had already merged with ι in the 5th century BC in regions such as [[Argos]] or in the 4th c. BC in [[Corinth]] (e.g. {{Polytonic|ΛΕΓΙΣ}}), and it acquired this pronunciation also in Koine. The diphthong 'οι' acquired the pronunciation of the modern [[French language|French]] 'U' ({{IPAblink|y}}), which lasted until the 10th century AD. The diphthong 'υι' came to be pronounced {{IPA|[yj]}}, and remained pronounced as a diphthong. The diphthong 'ου' had already acquired the pronunciation of [[Latin]] 'U' since the 6th century BC and preserved it in modern times.[]

*The diphthongs αυ and ευ came to be pronounced [av] and [ev] (via [aβ], [eβ]), but are partly [[Assimilation (linguistics)|assimilated]] to [af], [ef] before the [[voiceless consonant]]s θ, κ, ξ, π, σ, τ, φ, χ, and ψ.<ref name=andriotes/>

*Simple vowels have preserved their ancient pronunciations, except η which is pronounced as ι, and υ, which retained the pronunciation {{IPA|[y]}} of modern [[French language|French]] 'U' only until the 10th c. AD, and was later also pronounced as ι. With those changes in phonology there were common spelling mistakes between υ and οι, while the sound of ι was multiplied ([[iotacism]]).<ref name=andriotes/>

*The consonants also preserved their ancient pronunciations to a great extent, except β, γ, δ, φ, θ, χ and ζ. Β, Γ, Δ (Beta, Gamma, Delta), which were originally pronounced {{IPA|[b, ɡ, d]}}, acquired the sounds of ''v, gh,'' and ''dh'' ({{IPA|[v]}} (via {{IPAblink|β}}), {{IPAblink|ɣ}}, {{IPAblink|ð}}), which they still have today, except when preceded by a nasal consonant (μ, ν); in that case, they retain their ancient sounds (e.g. {{Polytonic|γαμβρός — γαmbρός, άνδρας — άndρας, άγγελος — άŋgελος}}). The latter three (Φ, Θ, Χ), which were initially pronounced as [[Aspirated consonant|aspirate]]s ({{IPA|/pʰ/}}, {{IPA|/tʰ/}} and {{IPA|/kʰ/}} respectively), developed into the fricatives {{IPA|[f]}} (via {{IPA|[ɸ]}}), {{IPA|[θ]}}, and {{IPA|[x]}}. Finally the letter Ζ, which is still categorised as a double consonant with ξ and ψ, because it was initially pronounced as σδ (sd), later acquired the sound of Z as it appears in [[Modern English]] and [[Modern Greek|Greek]].<ref name=andriotes/>

'''New Testament Greek Phonology'''
The Koine Greek in the table represents a reconstruction of New Testament Koine Greek, deriving to some degree from the dialect spoken in Judaea and Galilaea during the 1st century and similar to the dialect spoken in Alexandria, Egypt. Note the realizations of certain phonemes differ from the more standard Attic dialect of Koine. Note the soft fricative "β" in intervocalic position, the preservation of the aspirated plosive value of "ph", "th" and "kh", the preservation of a distinction between the four front vowels "i", "ē", "e", and "y" (which is still rounded), and other features.

{|class="wikitable" style="background:white"
|-
|'''letter'''|| '''Greek''' || Transliteration || '''[[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]'''
|-
|Alpha||α||a||{{IPA|ɑ}}
|-
|Beta||β (-β-)||b||{{IPA|b (-β-)}}
|-
|Gamma||γ||g||{{IPA|ɣ}}
|-
|Delta||δ||d||{{IPA|d}}
|-
|Epsilon||ε||e||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
|Zeta||ζ||z||{{IPA|zː}}
|-
|Eta||η||ē||{{IPA|e}}
|-
|Theta||θ||th||{{IPA|tʰ}}
|-
|Iota||ι||i||{{IPA|i}}
|-
|Kappa||κ||k||{{IPA|k}}
|-
|Lambda||λ||l||{{IPA|l}}
|-
|Mu||μ||m||{{IPA|m}}
|-
|Nu||ν||n||{{IPA|n}}
|-
|Xi||ξ||x||{{IPA|ks}}
|-
|Omicron||ο||o||{{IPA|o}}
|-
|Pi|| π||p||{{IPA|p}}
|-
|Rho||ρ||r||{{IPA|ɾ}}
|-
|Sigma||σ (-σ-/-σσ-)||s (-s-/-ss-)||{{IPA|s (-z-/-sː-)}}
|-
|Tau||τ||t||{{IPA|t}}
|-
|Upsilon||υ||y||{{IPA|y}}
|-
|Phi||φ||ph||{{IPA|pʰ}}
|-
|Chi||χ||ch||{{IPA|kʰ}}
|-
|Psi||ψ||ps||{{IPA|ps}}
|-
|Omega||ω||ō||{{IPA|o}}
|-
| . ||αι||ai||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
| . ||ει||ei||{{IPA|i}}
|-
| . ||οι||oi||{{IPA|y}}
|-
| . ||αυ||au||{{IPA|ɑw}}
|-
| . ||ευ||eu||{{IPA|ɛw}}
|-
| . ||ηυ||ēu||{{IPA|ew}}
|-
| . ||ου||ou||{{IPA|u}}
|}

==Sample Koine texts ==
The following texts show differences from Attic Greek in all aspects - grammar, morphology, vocabulary and can be inferred to show differences in phonology.

The following comments illustrate the phonological development within the period of Koine. The phonetic transcriptions are tentative, and are intended to illustrate two different stages in the reconstructed development, an early conservative variety still relatively close to Classical Attic, and a somewhat later, more progressive variety approaching Modern Greek in some respects.

===Sample 1 - A Roman Decree===
The following excerpt, from a decree of the Roman Senate to the town of Thisbae in [[Boeotia]] in 170 BC, is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a hypothetical conservative variety of mainland Greek Koiné in the early Hellenistic era.[] The transcription shows partial, but not yet completed raising of η and ει to /i/, retention of pitch accent, fricativization of γ to /j/ {{Clarify|June 2009|reason=/j/ is not a fricative, /ɣ/ would be, but anyway neither appear in the following IPA transcription, only /ɡ/ does|date=June 2009}} but no fricativisation of the other stops as yet, and retention of word-initial /h/.

:περὶ ὧν Θισ[β]εῖς λόγους ἐποιήσαντο· περὶ τῶν καθ᾿αὑ[τ]οὺς πραγμάτων, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐνέμειναν, ὅπως αὐτοῖς δοθῶσιν [ο]ἷς τὰ καθ᾿ αὑτοὺς πράγματα ἐξηγήσωνται, περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος οὕτως ἔδοξεν· ὅπως Κόιντος Μαίνιος στρατηγὸς τῶν ἐκ τῆς συνκλήτου [π]έντε ἀποτάξῃ οἳ ἂν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων πρα[γμ]άτων καὶ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεων φαίνωνται. ˈperì hôːn tʰizbîːs lóɡuːs epojéːsanto; perì tôːn katʰ hautùːs praɡmátoːn, hoítines en tîː pʰilíaːi tîː heːmetéraːi enémiːnan, hópoːs autoîs dotʰôːsin hoîs tà katʰ hautùːs práɡmata ekseːɡéːsoːntai, perì túːtuː tûː práɡmatos húːtoːs édoksen; hópoːs ˈkʷintos ˈmainios strateːɡòs tôːn ek têːs syŋkléːtuː pénte apotáksiː, hoì àn autôːi ek tôːn deːmosíoːn praɡmátoːn kaì têːs idíaːs písteoːs pʰaínoːntai Concerning those matters about which the citizens of Thisbae made representations. Concerning their own affairs: the following decision was taken concerning the proposal that those who remained true to our friendship should be given the facilities to conduct their own affairs; that our governor Quintus Maenius should delegate five members of the senate who seemed to him suitable in the light of their public actions and individual good faith.

===Sample 2 - Greek New Testament===
The following excerpt, the beginning of the [[Gospel of St John]], is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a progressive popular variety of Koiné in the early Christian era, with vowels approaching those of Modern Greek.[]

: Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. ˈen arˈkʰi in o ˈloɣos, ke o ˈloɣos in bros to(n) tʰeˈo(n), ke tʰeˈos in o ˈloɣos. ˈutos in en arˈkʰi pros to(n) tʰeˈo(n). ˈpanda di aɸˈtu eˈjeneto, ke kʰoˈris aɸˈtu eˈjeneto ude ˈen o ˈjeɣonen. en aɸˈto zoˈi in, ke i zoˈi in to pʰos ton anˈtʰropon; ke to pʰos en di skoˈtia ˈpʰeni, ke i skoˈti(a) a(ɸ)ˈto u kaˈtelaβen In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

===Sample 3 - Greek Old Testament ===
This is from the [[Septuagint|LXX]] version of [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]], dating to c. 150 BC. This Greek is the "Biblical Greek" discussed above. Note that because of literalness this text in many ways does not fit the Hellenistic Greek of the time, full of semiticisms.

{{quote|Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων. Μωυσῆς ὁ θεράπων μου τετελεύτηκεν· νῦν οὖν ἀναστὰς διάβηθι τὸν Ιορδάνην, σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς. πᾶς ὁ τόπος, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἐπιβῆτε τῷ ἴχνει τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δώσω αὐτόν, ὃν τρόπον εἴρηκα τῷ Μωυσῇ, τὴν ἔρημον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αντιλίβανον ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου, καὶ ἕως τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου δυσμῶν ἔσται τὰ ὅρια ὑμῶν. οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου, καὶ ὥσπερ ἤμην μετὰ Μωυσῆ, οὕτως ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε. ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου· σὺ γὰρ ἀποδιαστελεῖς τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ τὴν γῆν, ἣν ὤμοσα τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς. ἴσχυε οὖν καὶ ἀνδρίζου φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν καθότι ἐνετείλατό σοι Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς μου, καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά, ἵνα συνῇς ἐν πᾶσιν, οἷς ἐὰν πράσσῃς. καὶ οὐκ ἀποστήσεται ἡ βίβλος τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου, καὶ μελετήσεις ἐν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἵνα συνῇς ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα· τότε εὐοδωθήσῃ καὶ εὐοδώσεις τὰς ὁδούς σου καὶ τότε συνήσεις. ἰδοὺ ἐντέταλμαί σοι· ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου, μὴ δειλιάσῃς μηδὲ φοβηθῇς, ὅτι μετὰ σοῦ κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς πάντα, οὗ ἐὰν πορεύῃ. Καὶ ἐνετείλατο ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων. Εἰσέλθατε κατὰ μέσον τῆς παρεμβολῆς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐντείλασθε τῷ λαῷ λέγοντες ῾Ετοιμάζεσθε ἐπισιτισμόν, ὅτι ἔτι τρεῖς ἡμέραι καὶ ὑμεῖς διαβαίνετε τὸν Ιορδάνην τοῦτον εἰσελθόντες κατασχεῖν τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν. καὶ τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση εἶπεν ᾿Ιησοῦς. Μνήσθητε τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου, ὃ ἐνετείλατο ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου λέγων Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν κατέπαυσεν ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν γῆν ταύτην. αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ παιδία ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ κτήνη ὑμῶν κατοικείτωσαν ἐν τῇ γῇ, ᾗ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν· ὑμεῖς δὲ διαβήσεσθε εὔζωνοι πρότεροι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, πᾶς ὁ ἰσχύων, καὶ συμμαχήσετε αὐτοῖς, ἕως ἂν καταπαύσῃ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμᾶς καὶ κληρονομήσωσιν καὶ οὗτοι τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἀπελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ, ἣν δέδωκεν ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου. καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ εἶπαν Πάντα, ὅσα ἂν ἐντείλῃ ἡμῖν, ποιήσομεν καὶ εἰς πάντα τόπον, οὗ ἐὰν ἀποστείλῃς ἡμᾶς, πορευσόμεθα· κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν Μωυσῆ, ἀκουσόμεθα σοῦ, πλὴν ἔστω κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν μετὰ σοῦ, ὃν τρόπον ἦν μετὰ Μωυσῆ. ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν ἀπειθήσῃ σοι καὶ ὅστις μὴ ἀκούσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων σου καθότι ἂν αὐτῷ ἐντείλῃ, ἀποθανέτω. ἀλλὰ ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου.}}

==Further reading==
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Primer''. ISBN 0718892062
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Intermediate. From Morphology to Translation''. ISBN 0718892003

==Notes==

* 1. pronounced Koine Greek: [kɔɪˈnɛ], Modern Greek: [ciˈni eliniˈci]; see e.g. Κοπιδάκης, Μ. Ζ. "Εισαγωγή στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή", in Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Κοπιδάκης, Μ.Ζ. (ed.), Athens, 1999, pp. 82-92
* 2. Andriotis, Nikolaos P. History of the Greek Language.
* 3. Remarks on the synonyms of the New Testament by Johann August Heinrich Tittmann, Edward Craig, Edward Robinson, Moses Stuart pg 148-155
* 4. A history of ancient Greek by Maria Chritē, Maria Arapopoulou, Centre for the Greek Language (Thessalonikē, Greece) pg 436 ISBN 0521833078
* 5. Augsburg.
* 6. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare(1856-1924) Grammar of Septuagint Greek
* 7. Horrocks (1997: ch.5.11.)
* 8. G. Horrocks (1997), Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, p. 87), cf. also pp. 105-109.
* 9. Horrocks (1997: 94).

==References==
* Abel, F.-M. ''Grammaire du grec biblique''.
* Allen, W. Sidney, ''Vox Graeca: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Greek – 3rd ed.'', Cambridge University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-521-33555-8
* Andriotis, Nikolaos P. ''History of the Greek Language''
* Buth, Randall, ''[http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf Ἡ κοινὴ προφορά: Koine Greek of Early Roman Period]''
* Conybeare, F.C. and Stock, St. George. ''Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes''.
* Smyth, Herbert Weir, ''Greek Grammar'', Harvard University Press, 1956. ISBN 0-674-36250-0

==External links==
*[http://greek-language.com Greek-Language.com] Dictionaries, manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and tools for applying linguistics to the study of Hellenistic Greek
*[http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html New Testament Greek Online]
*[http://www.poliskoine.com Polis Koine] A method to learn Koine Greek including a video of a class
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek Wikipedia article on Koine Greek]

[[Category:Koine Greek| ]]
[[Category:Ancient languages|Greek, Koine]]
[[Category:Hellenistic civilization]]
[[Category:Languages of ancient Macedonia]]
[[Category:Offshoots of the Macedonian Empire]]
[[Category:Standard languages|Greek, Koine]]

Koine Greek

2011-01-19T23:21:10Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Sample 1 - A Roman Decree */

'''Koine Greek''' (Ελληνιστική Κοινή[1] "Hellenistic common [language]"; or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect", also simply called ''koine'' "common [language]", besides "Alexandrian dialect", "common Attic" or "Hellenistic Greek") is the popular form of the [[Greek language]] spoken throughout post-[[Classical antiquity]] (c.[[300 BC]] – [[300 AD|AD 300]]), developing from the [[Attic dialect]], with admixture of elements especially from [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].

Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a ''[[lingua franca]]'' for the [[eastern Mediterranean]] and [[Near East]] throughout the [[Roman Empire|Roman period]].

It is also the language of the [[Septuagint]] (the Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]]) and of the [[Christian Bible|Christian]] [[New Testament]].[] Koine is the main ancestor of [[modern Greek]].
As the language of the New Testament and of the [[Church Fathers]], Koine Greek is also known as Biblical, Patristic or New Testament Greek.[][]

==Name==
'''Koinḗ''' (Κοινή), Greek for "common", is a term which had been previously applied by ancient scholars to several forms of Greek speech. A school of scholars such as [[Apollonius Dyscolus]] and [[Aelius Herodianus]] maintained the term ''Koine'' to refer to the [[Proto-Greek language]], while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed from the literary language.<ref name=andriotes/> When ''Koine'' gradually became a language of literature, some people distinguished it in two forms: ''Hellenic'' (Greek) as the literary post-classical form, and ''Koine'' (common) as the spoken popular form.[] Others chose to refer to ''Koine'' as the ''Alexandrian dialect'' (Περὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου) or ''the dialect of [[Alexandria]]'', a term often used by modern classicists.

==Origins and history==
Koine Greek arose as a common dialect within the armies of [[Alexander the Great]].[] Under the leadership of [[Macedon]], which colonized the known world, their newly formed common dialect was spoken from [[Ptolemaic Egypt|Egypt]] to [[Seleucid Empire|Mesopotamia]].[] Though elements of Koine Greek took shape during the [[Classical Greece|Classical Era]], the post-Classical period of Greek is defined as beginning with the death of [[Alexander the Great]] in [[323 BC]], when cultures under [[Hellenistic era|Hellenistic]] sway in turn began to influence the language.
The passage into the next period, known as [[Medieval Greek]], dates from the foundation of [[Constantinople]] by [[Constantine I]] in [[330 AD|330]]. The post-Classical period of Greek thus refers to the creation and evolution of Koine Greek throughout the entire Hellenistic and Roman eras of history until the start of the Middle Ages.[]

The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the [[Hellenistic]] age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main [[Ancient Greek]] dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by [[Paul Kretschmer]] in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while [[Ulrich Wilamowitz]] and [[Antoine Meillet]], based on the intense Ionic elements of the Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].[] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[] In that respect, the varieties of Koine spoken in the [[Ionia]]n colonies of [[Asia Minor]] (e.g. [[Pontus]]) would have more intense [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] characteristics than others and those of Laconia and Cyprus would preserve some [[Doric dialect|Doric]] and [[Arcado-Cypriot]] characteristics, respectively etc. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as ''Common Attic''.[]

==Sources==
The first scholars who studied Koine, both in Alexandrian and contemporary times, were classicists whose prototype had been the literary [[Attic Greek|Attic]] language of the Classical period, and would frown upon any other kind of [[Ancient Greek|Hellenic]] speech. Koine Greek was therefore considered a decayed form of Greek which was not worthy of attention.[] The reconsideration on the historical and linguistic importance of Koine Greek began only in the early 19th century, where renowned scholars conducted a series of studies on the evolution of Koine throughout the entire [[Hellenistic]] and Roman period which it covered. The sources used on the studies of Koine have been numerous and of unequal reliability. The most significant ones are the inscriptions of the post-Classical periods and the [[papyrus|papyri]], for being two kinds of texts which have authentic content and can be studied directly.[] Other significant sources are the [[Septuagint]], the somewhat literal Greek translation of the [[Old Testament]], and the [[New Testament]], parts of which may have been translated from the [[Hebrew Gospel]] by Jerome (or others) using similar rules to the Septuagint translators. The teaching of the Testaments was aimed at the most common people, and for that reason they use the most popular language of the era. Information can also be derived from some [[Atticism|Atticist]] scholars of the [[Hellenistic]] and Roman periods, who, in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" [[Attic Greek|Attic]] against the "wrong" Koine by citing examples. For example, [[Phrynichus Arabius]] during the 2nd century AD wrote:

{{quote|Βασίλισσα οὐδείς τῶν Ἀρχαίων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ βασίλεια ἢ βασιλίς. ''Basilissa'' (Queen) none of the Ancients said, but ''Basileia'' or ''Basilis''. Διωρία ἑσχάτως ἀδόκιμον, ἀντ' αυτοῦ δὲ προθεσμίαν ἐρεῖς. ''Dioria'' (deadline) is badly illiteral, instead use ''Prothesmia''. Πάντοτε μὴ λέγε, ἀλλὰ ἑκάστοτε καὶ διὰ παντός. Do not say ''Pantote'' (always), but ''Hekastote'' and ''Dia pantos''.}}

Other sources can be based on random findings such as inscriptions on vases written by popular painters, mistakes made by [[Atticism|Atticists]] due to their imperfect knowledge of pure [[Attic Greek|Attic]], or even some surviving Greco-Latin glossaries of the Roman period,[] e.g.:

{{quote|Καλήμερον, ἦλθες; Bono die, venisti? Good day, you came? Ἐὰν θέλεις, ἐλθὲ μεθ' ἡμῶν. Si vis, veni mecum. If you want, come with us (The Latin actually says with me, not us). Ποῦ; Ubi? Where?. Πρὸς φίλον ἡμέτερον Λεύκιον. Ad amicum nostrum Lucium. To our friend Lucius. Τί γὰρ ἔχει; Quid enim habet? Indeed, what does he have? What is it with him?. Ἀρρωστεῖ. Aegrotat. He's sick.}}

Finally, a very important source of information on the ancient Koine is the [[modern Greek]] language with all its dialects and its own ''Koine'' form, which have preserved some of the ancient language's oral linguistic details which the written tradition has lost. For example the [[Pontic language|Pontic]] and [[Cappadocian Greek language|Cappadocian]] dialects preserved the ancient pronunciation of η as ε (νύφε, συνέλικος, τίμεσον, πεγάδι etc.), while the [[Tsakonic]] preserved the long α instead of η (ἁμέρα, ἀστραπά, λίμνα, χοά etc.) and the other local characteristics of [[Doric Greek|Laconic]].[] Dialects from the Southern part of the Greek-speaking regions ([[Dodecanese]], [[Cyprus]] etc.), preserve the pronunciation of the double similar consonants (ἄλ-λος, Ἑλ-λάδα, θάλασ-σα), while others pronounce in many words υ as ου or preserve ancient double forms (κρόμμυον — κρεμ-μυον, ράξ — ρώξ etc.). Linguistic phenomena like the above imply that those characteristics survived within Koine, which in turn had countless variations in the Greek-speaking world.[]

==Types==
===Biblical Koine===
"Biblical Koine" refers to the varieties of Koine Greek used in the Christian Bible and related texts. Its main sources are:
* the [[Septuagint]], supposed to be a 3rd century BC Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]] which included the [[Deuterocanon]]. Most of the texts are translations, but there are some portions and texts composed in [[Greek language|Greek]]. [[Ben Sira|Sirach]], for instance, has not been found in Hebrew;
* the [[New Testament]], compiled originally in Greek according to the dominant theory of [[Greek primacy]] (although some books may have had a Hebrew-Aramaic [[Substratum#Substratum|substrate]] and contain some Semitic influence on the language, see also [[Aramaic of Jesus]]).

====Septuagint Greek====
There has been some debate to what degree Biblical Greek represents the mainstream of contemporary spoken Koine and to what extent it contains specifically [[Semitic languages|Semitic]] [[substratum]] features (''cf.'' [[Aramaic primacy]]). These could have been induced either through the practice of translating closely from [[Biblical Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] originals, or through the influence of the regional non-standard [[Hellenistic Judaism|Greek spoken by the originally Aramaic-speaking Jews]]. Some of the features discussed in this context are the Septuagint's normative absence of the particles μέν and δέ, and the use of ἐγένετο to denote "it came to pass." Some features of Biblical Greek which are thought to have originally been non-standard elements eventually found their way into the main of the Greek language.

====New Testament Greek====
The Greek of the New Testament is less distinctively Semitic than that of the Septuagint, partly because it appeared 300 years later and partly because it is largely a de novo composition in Greek, not primarily a translation from [[Biblical Hebrew]] and [[Biblical Aramaic]].[]

===Patristic Greek===
The term ''Patristic Greek'' is sometimes used for the Greek written by the [[Church Fathers]], the [[Early Christian]] theologians in late antiquity. Christian writers in the earliest time tended to use a simple register of Koiné, relatively close to the spoken language of their time, following the model of the Bible. After the 4th century, when [[State church of the Roman Empire|Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire]], more learned registers of Koiné influenced by Atticism came also to be used.[]

==Differences between Attic and Koine Greek==
The study of all sources from the six centuries which are symbolically covered by Koine reveals linguistic changes from [[ancient Greek]] on elements of the spoken language including:
* [[grammar]] - accidence and syntax,
* [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] - word formation
* [[vocabulary]]
* [[phonology]] - pronunciation
Most new forms start off as rare and gradually become more frequent until they are established. From the linguistic changes which took place in Koine, Greek gained such a resemblance to its [[Medieval Greek|medieval]] and [[Modern Greek|modern]] successors that almost all characteristics of modern Greek can be traced in the surviving texts of Koine.[] As most of the changes between modern and ancient Greek were introduced via Koine, Koine is largely intelligible to speakers of the modern language.

===Differences in grammar===
''See Also [[Koine Greek grammar]]''

===Phonology===
''See Also [[Koine Greek phonology|Ancient Greek phonology|Modern Greek phonology]]''

During the period generally designated as "Koine" Greek, a great deal of phonological change occurred: at the start of the period, the pronunciation was virtually identical to [[Ancient Greek phonology]], whereas in the end it had much more in common with [[Modern Greek phonology]].

The three most significant changes were the loss of vowel length distinction, the substitution of the pitch accent system with a stress accent system, and the monophthongization of several diphthongs:
*The ancient distinction between long and short vowels was gradually lost, and from the 2nd century BC all vowels were isochronic.[]

*Since the 2nd century BC, the means of accenting words changed from [[Pitch accent|pitch]] to [[Stress (phonology)|stress]], meaning that the accented syllable is not pronounced in a musical tone but louder and/or stronger.[]

*The [[Spiritus asper|aspirate breathing]] ([[aspiration (phonetics)|aspiration]]), which was already lost in the [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] varieties of [[Asia Minor]] and the [[Aeolic Greek|Aeolic]] of [[Lesbos Island|Lesbos]], stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The ι in long diphthongs (those with the long vowels: ᾱͅ, ῃ, ῳ) stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The diphthongs αι, ει, and οι became single vowels. In this manner 'αι', which had already been converted by the Boeotians into a long ε since the 4th century BC and written η (e.g. {{Polytonic|πῆς, χῆρε, μέμφομη}}), became in Koine, too, first a long ε and then short. The diphthong 'ει' had already merged with ι in the 5th century BC in regions such as [[Argos]] or in the 4th c. BC in [[Corinth]] (e.g. {{Polytonic|ΛΕΓΙΣ}}), and it acquired this pronunciation also in Koine. The diphthong 'οι' acquired the pronunciation of the modern [[French language|French]] 'U' ({{IPAblink|y}}), which lasted until the 10th century AD. The diphthong 'υι' came to be pronounced {{IPA|[yj]}}, and remained pronounced as a diphthong. The diphthong 'ου' had already acquired the pronunciation of [[Latin]] 'U' since the 6th century BC and preserved it in modern times.[]

*The diphthongs αυ and ευ came to be pronounced [av] and [ev] (via [aβ], [eβ]), but are partly [[Assimilation (linguistics)|assimilated]] to [af], [ef] before the [[voiceless consonant]]s θ, κ, ξ, π, σ, τ, φ, χ, and ψ.<ref name=andriotes/>

*Simple vowels have preserved their ancient pronunciations, except η which is pronounced as ι, and υ, which retained the pronunciation {{IPA|[y]}} of modern [[French language|French]] 'U' only until the 10th c. AD, and was later also pronounced as ι. With those changes in phonology there were common spelling mistakes between υ and οι, while the sound of ι was multiplied ([[iotacism]]).<ref name=andriotes/>

*The consonants also preserved their ancient pronunciations to a great extent, except β, γ, δ, φ, θ, χ and ζ. Β, Γ, Δ (Beta, Gamma, Delta), which were originally pronounced {{IPA|[b, ɡ, d]}}, acquired the sounds of ''v, gh,'' and ''dh'' ({{IPA|[v]}} (via {{IPAblink|β}}), {{IPAblink|ɣ}}, {{IPAblink|ð}}), which they still have today, except when preceded by a nasal consonant (μ, ν); in that case, they retain their ancient sounds (e.g. {{Polytonic|γαμβρός — γαmbρός, άνδρας — άndρας, άγγελος — άŋgελος}}). The latter three (Φ, Θ, Χ), which were initially pronounced as [[Aspirated consonant|aspirate]]s ({{IPA|/pʰ/}}, {{IPA|/tʰ/}} and {{IPA|/kʰ/}} respectively), developed into the fricatives {{IPA|[f]}} (via {{IPA|[ɸ]}}), {{IPA|[θ]}}, and {{IPA|[x]}}. Finally the letter Ζ, which is still categorised as a double consonant with ξ and ψ, because it was initially pronounced as σδ (sd), later acquired the sound of Z as it appears in [[Modern English]] and [[Modern Greek|Greek]].<ref name=andriotes/>

'''New Testament Greek Phonology'''
The Koine Greek in the table represents a reconstruction of New Testament Koine Greek, deriving to some degree from the dialect spoken in Judaea and Galilaea during the 1st century and similar to the dialect spoken in Alexandria, Egypt. Note the realizations of certain phonemes differ from the more standard Attic dialect of Koine. Note the soft fricative "β" in intervocalic position, the preservation of the aspirated plosive value of "ph", "th" and "kh", the preservation of a distinction between the four front vowels "i", "ē", "e", and "y" (which is still rounded), and other features.

{|class="wikitable" style="background:white"
|-
|'''letter'''|| '''Greek''' || Transliteration || '''[[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]'''
|-
|Alpha||α||a||{{IPA|ɑ}}
|-
|Beta||β (-β-)||b||{{IPA|b (-β-)}}
|-
|Gamma||γ||g||{{IPA|ɣ}}
|-
|Delta||δ||d||{{IPA|d}}
|-
|Epsilon||ε||e||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
|Zeta||ζ||z||{{IPA|zː}}
|-
|Eta||η||ē||{{IPA|e}}
|-
|Theta||θ||th||{{IPA|tʰ}}
|-
|Iota||ι||i||{{IPA|i}}
|-
|Kappa||κ||k||{{IPA|k}}
|-
|Lambda||λ||l||{{IPA|l}}
|-
|Mu||μ||m||{{IPA|m}}
|-
|Nu||ν||n||{{IPA|n}}
|-
|Xi||ξ||x||{{IPA|ks}}
|-
|Omicron||ο||o||{{IPA|o}}
|-
|Pi|| π||p||{{IPA|p}}
|-
|Rho||ρ||r||{{IPA|ɾ}}
|-
|Sigma||σ (-σ-/-σσ-)||s (-s-/-ss-)||{{IPA|s (-z-/-sː-)}}
|-
|Tau||τ||t||{{IPA|t}}
|-
|Upsilon||υ||y||{{IPA|y}}
|-
|Phi||φ||ph||{{IPA|pʰ}}
|-
|Chi||χ||ch||{{IPA|kʰ}}
|-
|Psi||ψ||ps||{{IPA|ps}}
|-
|Omega||ω||ō||{{IPA|o}}
|-
| . ||αι||ai||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
| . ||ει||ei||{{IPA|i}}
|-
| . ||οι||oi||{{IPA|y}}
|-
| . ||αυ||au||{{IPA|ɑw}}
|-
| . ||ευ||eu||{{IPA|ɛw}}
|-
| . ||ηυ||ēu||{{IPA|ew}}
|-
| . ||ου||ou||{{IPA|u}}
|}

==Sample Koine texts ==
The following texts show differences from Attic Greek in all aspects - grammar, morphology, vocabulary and can be inferred to show differences in phonology.

The following comments illustrate the phonological development within the period of Koine. The phonetic transcriptions are tentative, and are intended to illustrate two different stages in the reconstructed development, an early conservative variety still relatively close to Classical Attic, and a somewhat later, more progressive variety approaching Modern Greek in some respects.

===Sample 1 - A Roman Decree===
The following excerpt, from a decree of the Roman Senate to the town of Thisbae in [[Boeotia]] in 170 BC, is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a hypothetical conservative variety of mainland Greek Koiné in the early Hellenistic era.[] The transcription shows partial, but not yet completed raising of η and ει to /i/, retention of pitch accent, fricativization of γ to /j/ {{Clarify|June 2009|reason=/j/ is not a fricative, /ɣ/ would be, but anyway neither appear in the following IPA transcription, only /ɡ/ does|date=June 2009}} but no fricativisation of the other stops as yet, and retention of word-initial /h/.

:περὶ ὧν Θισ[β]εῖς λόγους ἐποιήσαντο· περὶ τῶν καθ᾿αὑ[τ]οὺς πραγμάτων, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐνέμειναν, ὅπως αὐτοῖς δοθῶσιν [ο]ἷς τὰ καθ᾿ αὑτοὺς πράγματα ἐξηγήσωνται, περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος οὕτως ἔδοξεν· ὅπως Κόιντος Μαίνιος στρατηγὸς τῶν ἐκ τῆς συνκλήτου [π]έντε ἀποτάξῃ οἳ ἂν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων πρα[γμ]άτων καὶ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεων φαίνωνται. ˈperì hôːn tʰizbîːs lóɡuːs epojéːsanto; perì tôːn katʰ hautùːs praɡmátoːn, hoítines en tîː pʰilíaːi tîː heːmetéraːi enémiːnan, hópoːs autoîs dotʰôːsin hoîs tà katʰ hautùːs práɡmata ekseːɡéːsoːntai, perì túːtuː tûː práɡmatos húːtoːs édoksen; hópoːs ˈkʷintos ˈmainios strateːɡòs tôːn ek têːs syŋkléːtuː pénte apotáksiː, hoì àn autôːi ek tôːn deːmosíoːn praɡmátoːn kaì têːs idíaːs písteoːs pʰaínoːntai Concerning those matters about which the citizens of Thisbae made representations. Concerning their own affairs: the following decision was taken concerning the proposal that those who remained true to our friendship should be given the facilities to conduct their own affairs; that our governor Quintus Maenius should delegate five members of the senate who seemed to him suitable in the light of their public actions and individual good faith.

===Sample 2 - Greek New Testament===
The following excerpt, the beginning of the [[Gospel of St John]], is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a progressive popular variety of Koiné in the early Christian era, with vowels approaching those of Modern Greek.<ref>Horrocks (1997: 94).</ref>

{{quote| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. ˈen arˈkʰi in o ˈloɣos, ke o ˈloɣos in bros to(n) tʰeˈo(n), ke tʰeˈos in o ˈloɣos. ˈutos in en arˈkʰi pros to(n) tʰeˈo(n). ˈpanda di aɸˈtu eˈjeneto, ke kʰoˈris aɸˈtu eˈjeneto ude ˈen o ˈjeɣonen. en aɸˈto zoˈi in, ke i zoˈi in to pʰos ton anˈtʰropon; ke to pʰos en di skoˈtia ˈpʰeni, ke i skoˈti(a) a(ɸ)ˈto u kaˈtelaβen In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.}}

===Sample 3 - Greek Old Testament ===
This is from the [[Septuagint|LXX]] version of [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]], dating to c. 150 BC. This Greek is the "Biblical Greek" discussed above. Note that because of literalness this text in many ways does not fit the Hellenistic Greek of the time, full of semiticisms.

{{quote|Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων. Μωυσῆς ὁ θεράπων μου τετελεύτηκεν· νῦν οὖν ἀναστὰς διάβηθι τὸν Ιορδάνην, σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς. πᾶς ὁ τόπος, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἐπιβῆτε τῷ ἴχνει τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δώσω αὐτόν, ὃν τρόπον εἴρηκα τῷ Μωυσῇ, τὴν ἔρημον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αντιλίβανον ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου, καὶ ἕως τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου δυσμῶν ἔσται τὰ ὅρια ὑμῶν. οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου, καὶ ὥσπερ ἤμην μετὰ Μωυσῆ, οὕτως ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε. ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου· σὺ γὰρ ἀποδιαστελεῖς τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ τὴν γῆν, ἣν ὤμοσα τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς. ἴσχυε οὖν καὶ ἀνδρίζου φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν καθότι ἐνετείλατό σοι Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς μου, καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά, ἵνα συνῇς ἐν πᾶσιν, οἷς ἐὰν πράσσῃς. καὶ οὐκ ἀποστήσεται ἡ βίβλος τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου, καὶ μελετήσεις ἐν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἵνα συνῇς ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα· τότε εὐοδωθήσῃ καὶ εὐοδώσεις τὰς ὁδούς σου καὶ τότε συνήσεις. ἰδοὺ ἐντέταλμαί σοι· ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου, μὴ δειλιάσῃς μηδὲ φοβηθῇς, ὅτι μετὰ σοῦ κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς πάντα, οὗ ἐὰν πορεύῃ. Καὶ ἐνετείλατο ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων. Εἰσέλθατε κατὰ μέσον τῆς παρεμβολῆς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐντείλασθε τῷ λαῷ λέγοντες ῾Ετοιμάζεσθε ἐπισιτισμόν, ὅτι ἔτι τρεῖς ἡμέραι καὶ ὑμεῖς διαβαίνετε τὸν Ιορδάνην τοῦτον εἰσελθόντες κατασχεῖν τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν. καὶ τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση εἶπεν ᾿Ιησοῦς. Μνήσθητε τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου, ὃ ἐνετείλατο ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου λέγων Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν κατέπαυσεν ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν γῆν ταύτην. αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ παιδία ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ κτήνη ὑμῶν κατοικείτωσαν ἐν τῇ γῇ, ᾗ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν· ὑμεῖς δὲ διαβήσεσθε εὔζωνοι πρότεροι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, πᾶς ὁ ἰσχύων, καὶ συμμαχήσετε αὐτοῖς, ἕως ἂν καταπαύσῃ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμᾶς καὶ κληρονομήσωσιν καὶ οὗτοι τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἀπελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ, ἣν δέδωκεν ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου. καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ εἶπαν Πάντα, ὅσα ἂν ἐντείλῃ ἡμῖν, ποιήσομεν καὶ εἰς πάντα τόπον, οὗ ἐὰν ἀποστείλῃς ἡμᾶς, πορευσόμεθα· κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν Μωυσῆ, ἀκουσόμεθα σοῦ, πλὴν ἔστω κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν μετὰ σοῦ, ὃν τρόπον ἦν μετὰ Μωυσῆ. ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν ἀπειθήσῃ σοι καὶ ὅστις μὴ ἀκούσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων σου καθότι ἂν αὐτῷ ἐντείλῃ, ἀποθανέτω. ἀλλὰ ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου.}}

==Further reading==
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Primer''. ISBN 0718892062
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Intermediate. From Morphology to Translation''. ISBN 0718892003

==Notes==

* 1. pronounced Koine Greek: [kɔɪˈnɛ], Modern Greek: [ciˈni eliniˈci]; see e.g. Κοπιδάκης, Μ. Ζ. "Εισαγωγή στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή", in Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Κοπιδάκης, Μ.Ζ. (ed.), Athens, 1999, pp. 82-92
* 2. Andriotis, Nikolaos P. History of the Greek Language.
* 3. Remarks on the synonyms of the New Testament by Johann August Heinrich Tittmann, Edward Craig, Edward Robinson, Moses Stuart pg 148-155
* 4. A history of ancient Greek by Maria Chritē, Maria Arapopoulou, Centre for the Greek Language (Thessalonikē, Greece) pg 436 ISBN 0521833078
* 5. Augsburg.
* 6. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare(1856-1924) Grammar of Septuagint Greek
* 7. Horrocks (1997: ch.5.11.)
* 8. G. Horrocks (1997), Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, p. 87), cf. also pp. 105-109.
* 9. Horrocks (1997: 94).

==References==
* Abel, F.-M. ''Grammaire du grec biblique''.
* Allen, W. Sidney, ''Vox Graeca: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Greek – 3rd ed.'', Cambridge University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-521-33555-8
* Andriotis, Nikolaos P. ''History of the Greek Language''
* Buth, Randall, ''[http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf Ἡ κοινὴ προφορά: Koine Greek of Early Roman Period]''
* Conybeare, F.C. and Stock, St. George. ''Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes''.
* Smyth, Herbert Weir, ''Greek Grammar'', Harvard University Press, 1956. ISBN 0-674-36250-0

==External links==
*[http://greek-language.com Greek-Language.com] Dictionaries, manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and tools for applying linguistics to the study of Hellenistic Greek
*[http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html New Testament Greek Online]
*[http://www.poliskoine.com Polis Koine] A method to learn Koine Greek including a video of a class
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek Wikipedia article on Koine Greek]

[[Category:Koine Greek| ]]
[[Category:Ancient languages|Greek, Koine]]
[[Category:Hellenistic civilization]]
[[Category:Languages of ancient Macedonia]]
[[Category:Offshoots of the Macedonian Empire]]
[[Category:Standard languages|Greek, Koine]]

Koine Greek

2011-01-19T23:20:10Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* References */

'''Koine Greek''' (Ελληνιστική Κοινή[1] "Hellenistic common [language]"; or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect", also simply called ''koine'' "common [language]", besides "Alexandrian dialect", "common Attic" or "Hellenistic Greek") is the popular form of the [[Greek language]] spoken throughout post-[[Classical antiquity]] (c.[[300 BC]] – [[300 AD|AD 300]]), developing from the [[Attic dialect]], with admixture of elements especially from [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].

Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a ''[[lingua franca]]'' for the [[eastern Mediterranean]] and [[Near East]] throughout the [[Roman Empire|Roman period]].

It is also the language of the [[Septuagint]] (the Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]]) and of the [[Christian Bible|Christian]] [[New Testament]].[] Koine is the main ancestor of [[modern Greek]].
As the language of the New Testament and of the [[Church Fathers]], Koine Greek is also known as Biblical, Patristic or New Testament Greek.[][]

==Name==
'''Koinḗ''' (Κοινή), Greek for "common", is a term which had been previously applied by ancient scholars to several forms of Greek speech. A school of scholars such as [[Apollonius Dyscolus]] and [[Aelius Herodianus]] maintained the term ''Koine'' to refer to the [[Proto-Greek language]], while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed from the literary language.<ref name=andriotes/> When ''Koine'' gradually became a language of literature, some people distinguished it in two forms: ''Hellenic'' (Greek) as the literary post-classical form, and ''Koine'' (common) as the spoken popular form.[] Others chose to refer to ''Koine'' as the ''Alexandrian dialect'' (Περὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου) or ''the dialect of [[Alexandria]]'', a term often used by modern classicists.

==Origins and history==
Koine Greek arose as a common dialect within the armies of [[Alexander the Great]].[] Under the leadership of [[Macedon]], which colonized the known world, their newly formed common dialect was spoken from [[Ptolemaic Egypt|Egypt]] to [[Seleucid Empire|Mesopotamia]].[] Though elements of Koine Greek took shape during the [[Classical Greece|Classical Era]], the post-Classical period of Greek is defined as beginning with the death of [[Alexander the Great]] in [[323 BC]], when cultures under [[Hellenistic era|Hellenistic]] sway in turn began to influence the language.
The passage into the next period, known as [[Medieval Greek]], dates from the foundation of [[Constantinople]] by [[Constantine I]] in [[330 AD|330]]. The post-Classical period of Greek thus refers to the creation and evolution of Koine Greek throughout the entire Hellenistic and Roman eras of history until the start of the Middle Ages.[]

The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the [[Hellenistic]] age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main [[Ancient Greek]] dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by [[Paul Kretschmer]] in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while [[Ulrich Wilamowitz]] and [[Antoine Meillet]], based on the intense Ionic elements of the Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].[] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[] In that respect, the varieties of Koine spoken in the [[Ionia]]n colonies of [[Asia Minor]] (e.g. [[Pontus]]) would have more intense [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] characteristics than others and those of Laconia and Cyprus would preserve some [[Doric dialect|Doric]] and [[Arcado-Cypriot]] characteristics, respectively etc. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as ''Common Attic''.[]

==Sources==
The first scholars who studied Koine, both in Alexandrian and contemporary times, were classicists whose prototype had been the literary [[Attic Greek|Attic]] language of the Classical period, and would frown upon any other kind of [[Ancient Greek|Hellenic]] speech. Koine Greek was therefore considered a decayed form of Greek which was not worthy of attention.[] The reconsideration on the historical and linguistic importance of Koine Greek began only in the early 19th century, where renowned scholars conducted a series of studies on the evolution of Koine throughout the entire [[Hellenistic]] and Roman period which it covered. The sources used on the studies of Koine have been numerous and of unequal reliability. The most significant ones are the inscriptions of the post-Classical periods and the [[papyrus|papyri]], for being two kinds of texts which have authentic content and can be studied directly.[] Other significant sources are the [[Septuagint]], the somewhat literal Greek translation of the [[Old Testament]], and the [[New Testament]], parts of which may have been translated from the [[Hebrew Gospel]] by Jerome (or others) using similar rules to the Septuagint translators. The teaching of the Testaments was aimed at the most common people, and for that reason they use the most popular language of the era. Information can also be derived from some [[Atticism|Atticist]] scholars of the [[Hellenistic]] and Roman periods, who, in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" [[Attic Greek|Attic]] against the "wrong" Koine by citing examples. For example, [[Phrynichus Arabius]] during the 2nd century AD wrote:

{{quote|Βασίλισσα οὐδείς τῶν Ἀρχαίων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ βασίλεια ἢ βασιλίς. ''Basilissa'' (Queen) none of the Ancients said, but ''Basileia'' or ''Basilis''. Διωρία ἑσχάτως ἀδόκιμον, ἀντ' αυτοῦ δὲ προθεσμίαν ἐρεῖς. ''Dioria'' (deadline) is badly illiteral, instead use ''Prothesmia''. Πάντοτε μὴ λέγε, ἀλλὰ ἑκάστοτε καὶ διὰ παντός. Do not say ''Pantote'' (always), but ''Hekastote'' and ''Dia pantos''.}}

Other sources can be based on random findings such as inscriptions on vases written by popular painters, mistakes made by [[Atticism|Atticists]] due to their imperfect knowledge of pure [[Attic Greek|Attic]], or even some surviving Greco-Latin glossaries of the Roman period,[] e.g.:

{{quote|Καλήμερον, ἦλθες; Bono die, venisti? Good day, you came? Ἐὰν θέλεις, ἐλθὲ μεθ' ἡμῶν. Si vis, veni mecum. If you want, come with us (The Latin actually says with me, not us). Ποῦ; Ubi? Where?. Πρὸς φίλον ἡμέτερον Λεύκιον. Ad amicum nostrum Lucium. To our friend Lucius. Τί γὰρ ἔχει; Quid enim habet? Indeed, what does he have? What is it with him?. Ἀρρωστεῖ. Aegrotat. He's sick.}}

Finally, a very important source of information on the ancient Koine is the [[modern Greek]] language with all its dialects and its own ''Koine'' form, which have preserved some of the ancient language's oral linguistic details which the written tradition has lost. For example the [[Pontic language|Pontic]] and [[Cappadocian Greek language|Cappadocian]] dialects preserved the ancient pronunciation of η as ε (νύφε, συνέλικος, τίμεσον, πεγάδι etc.), while the [[Tsakonic]] preserved the long α instead of η (ἁμέρα, ἀστραπά, λίμνα, χοά etc.) and the other local characteristics of [[Doric Greek|Laconic]].[] Dialects from the Southern part of the Greek-speaking regions ([[Dodecanese]], [[Cyprus]] etc.), preserve the pronunciation of the double similar consonants (ἄλ-λος, Ἑλ-λάδα, θάλασ-σα), while others pronounce in many words υ as ου or preserve ancient double forms (κρόμμυον — κρεμ-μυον, ράξ — ρώξ etc.). Linguistic phenomena like the above imply that those characteristics survived within Koine, which in turn had countless variations in the Greek-speaking world.[]

==Types==
===Biblical Koine===
"Biblical Koine" refers to the varieties of Koine Greek used in the Christian Bible and related texts. Its main sources are:
* the [[Septuagint]], supposed to be a 3rd century BC Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]] which included the [[Deuterocanon]]. Most of the texts are translations, but there are some portions and texts composed in [[Greek language|Greek]]. [[Ben Sira|Sirach]], for instance, has not been found in Hebrew;
* the [[New Testament]], compiled originally in Greek according to the dominant theory of [[Greek primacy]] (although some books may have had a Hebrew-Aramaic [[Substratum#Substratum|substrate]] and contain some Semitic influence on the language, see also [[Aramaic of Jesus]]).

====Septuagint Greek====
There has been some debate to what degree Biblical Greek represents the mainstream of contemporary spoken Koine and to what extent it contains specifically [[Semitic languages|Semitic]] [[substratum]] features (''cf.'' [[Aramaic primacy]]). These could have been induced either through the practice of translating closely from [[Biblical Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] originals, or through the influence of the regional non-standard [[Hellenistic Judaism|Greek spoken by the originally Aramaic-speaking Jews]]. Some of the features discussed in this context are the Septuagint's normative absence of the particles μέν and δέ, and the use of ἐγένετο to denote "it came to pass." Some features of Biblical Greek which are thought to have originally been non-standard elements eventually found their way into the main of the Greek language.

====New Testament Greek====
The Greek of the New Testament is less distinctively Semitic than that of the Septuagint, partly because it appeared 300 years later and partly because it is largely a de novo composition in Greek, not primarily a translation from [[Biblical Hebrew]] and [[Biblical Aramaic]].[]

===Patristic Greek===
The term ''Patristic Greek'' is sometimes used for the Greek written by the [[Church Fathers]], the [[Early Christian]] theologians in late antiquity. Christian writers in the earliest time tended to use a simple register of Koiné, relatively close to the spoken language of their time, following the model of the Bible. After the 4th century, when [[State church of the Roman Empire|Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire]], more learned registers of Koiné influenced by Atticism came also to be used.[]

==Differences between Attic and Koine Greek==
The study of all sources from the six centuries which are symbolically covered by Koine reveals linguistic changes from [[ancient Greek]] on elements of the spoken language including:
* [[grammar]] - accidence and syntax,
* [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] - word formation
* [[vocabulary]]
* [[phonology]] - pronunciation
Most new forms start off as rare and gradually become more frequent until they are established. From the linguistic changes which took place in Koine, Greek gained such a resemblance to its [[Medieval Greek|medieval]] and [[Modern Greek|modern]] successors that almost all characteristics of modern Greek can be traced in the surviving texts of Koine.[] As most of the changes between modern and ancient Greek were introduced via Koine, Koine is largely intelligible to speakers of the modern language.

===Differences in grammar===
''See Also [[Koine Greek grammar]]''

===Phonology===
''See Also [[Koine Greek phonology|Ancient Greek phonology|Modern Greek phonology]]''

During the period generally designated as "Koine" Greek, a great deal of phonological change occurred: at the start of the period, the pronunciation was virtually identical to [[Ancient Greek phonology]], whereas in the end it had much more in common with [[Modern Greek phonology]].

The three most significant changes were the loss of vowel length distinction, the substitution of the pitch accent system with a stress accent system, and the monophthongization of several diphthongs:
*The ancient distinction between long and short vowels was gradually lost, and from the 2nd century BC all vowels were isochronic.[]

*Since the 2nd century BC, the means of accenting words changed from [[Pitch accent|pitch]] to [[Stress (phonology)|stress]], meaning that the accented syllable is not pronounced in a musical tone but louder and/or stronger.[]

*The [[Spiritus asper|aspirate breathing]] ([[aspiration (phonetics)|aspiration]]), which was already lost in the [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] varieties of [[Asia Minor]] and the [[Aeolic Greek|Aeolic]] of [[Lesbos Island|Lesbos]], stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The ι in long diphthongs (those with the long vowels: ᾱͅ, ῃ, ῳ) stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The diphthongs αι, ει, and οι became single vowels. In this manner 'αι', which had already been converted by the Boeotians into a long ε since the 4th century BC and written η (e.g. {{Polytonic|πῆς, χῆρε, μέμφομη}}), became in Koine, too, first a long ε and then short. The diphthong 'ει' had already merged with ι in the 5th century BC in regions such as [[Argos]] or in the 4th c. BC in [[Corinth]] (e.g. {{Polytonic|ΛΕΓΙΣ}}), and it acquired this pronunciation also in Koine. The diphthong 'οι' acquired the pronunciation of the modern [[French language|French]] 'U' ({{IPAblink|y}}), which lasted until the 10th century AD. The diphthong 'υι' came to be pronounced {{IPA|[yj]}}, and remained pronounced as a diphthong. The diphthong 'ου' had already acquired the pronunciation of [[Latin]] 'U' since the 6th century BC and preserved it in modern times.[]

*The diphthongs αυ and ευ came to be pronounced [av] and [ev] (via [aβ], [eβ]), but are partly [[Assimilation (linguistics)|assimilated]] to [af], [ef] before the [[voiceless consonant]]s θ, κ, ξ, π, σ, τ, φ, χ, and ψ.<ref name=andriotes/>

*Simple vowels have preserved their ancient pronunciations, except η which is pronounced as ι, and υ, which retained the pronunciation {{IPA|[y]}} of modern [[French language|French]] 'U' only until the 10th c. AD, and was later also pronounced as ι. With those changes in phonology there were common spelling mistakes between υ and οι, while the sound of ι was multiplied ([[iotacism]]).<ref name=andriotes/>

*The consonants also preserved their ancient pronunciations to a great extent, except β, γ, δ, φ, θ, χ and ζ. Β, Γ, Δ (Beta, Gamma, Delta), which were originally pronounced {{IPA|[b, ɡ, d]}}, acquired the sounds of ''v, gh,'' and ''dh'' ({{IPA|[v]}} (via {{IPAblink|β}}), {{IPAblink|ɣ}}, {{IPAblink|ð}}), which they still have today, except when preceded by a nasal consonant (μ, ν); in that case, they retain their ancient sounds (e.g. {{Polytonic|γαμβρός — γαmbρός, άνδρας — άndρας, άγγελος — άŋgελος}}). The latter three (Φ, Θ, Χ), which were initially pronounced as [[Aspirated consonant|aspirate]]s ({{IPA|/pʰ/}}, {{IPA|/tʰ/}} and {{IPA|/kʰ/}} respectively), developed into the fricatives {{IPA|[f]}} (via {{IPA|[ɸ]}}), {{IPA|[θ]}}, and {{IPA|[x]}}. Finally the letter Ζ, which is still categorised as a double consonant with ξ and ψ, because it was initially pronounced as σδ (sd), later acquired the sound of Z as it appears in [[Modern English]] and [[Modern Greek|Greek]].<ref name=andriotes/>

'''New Testament Greek Phonology'''
The Koine Greek in the table represents a reconstruction of New Testament Koine Greek, deriving to some degree from the dialect spoken in Judaea and Galilaea during the 1st century and similar to the dialect spoken in Alexandria, Egypt. Note the realizations of certain phonemes differ from the more standard Attic dialect of Koine. Note the soft fricative "β" in intervocalic position, the preservation of the aspirated plosive value of "ph", "th" and "kh", the preservation of a distinction between the four front vowels "i", "ē", "e", and "y" (which is still rounded), and other features.

{|class="wikitable" style="background:white"
|-
|'''letter'''|| '''Greek''' || Transliteration || '''[[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]'''
|-
|Alpha||α||a||{{IPA|ɑ}}
|-
|Beta||β (-β-)||b||{{IPA|b (-β-)}}
|-
|Gamma||γ||g||{{IPA|ɣ}}
|-
|Delta||δ||d||{{IPA|d}}
|-
|Epsilon||ε||e||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
|Zeta||ζ||z||{{IPA|zː}}
|-
|Eta||η||ē||{{IPA|e}}
|-
|Theta||θ||th||{{IPA|tʰ}}
|-
|Iota||ι||i||{{IPA|i}}
|-
|Kappa||κ||k||{{IPA|k}}
|-
|Lambda||λ||l||{{IPA|l}}
|-
|Mu||μ||m||{{IPA|m}}
|-
|Nu||ν||n||{{IPA|n}}
|-
|Xi||ξ||x||{{IPA|ks}}
|-
|Omicron||ο||o||{{IPA|o}}
|-
|Pi|| π||p||{{IPA|p}}
|-
|Rho||ρ||r||{{IPA|ɾ}}
|-
|Sigma||σ (-σ-/-σσ-)||s (-s-/-ss-)||{{IPA|s (-z-/-sː-)}}
|-
|Tau||τ||t||{{IPA|t}}
|-
|Upsilon||υ||y||{{IPA|y}}
|-
|Phi||φ||ph||{{IPA|pʰ}}
|-
|Chi||χ||ch||{{IPA|kʰ}}
|-
|Psi||ψ||ps||{{IPA|ps}}
|-
|Omega||ω||ō||{{IPA|o}}
|-
| . ||αι||ai||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
| . ||ει||ei||{{IPA|i}}
|-
| . ||οι||oi||{{IPA|y}}
|-
| . ||αυ||au||{{IPA|ɑw}}
|-
| . ||ευ||eu||{{IPA|ɛw}}
|-
| . ||ηυ||ēu||{{IPA|ew}}
|-
| . ||ου||ou||{{IPA|u}}
|}

==Sample Koine texts ==
The following texts show differences from Attic Greek in all aspects - grammar, morphology, vocabulary and can be inferred to show differences in phonology.

The following comments illustrate the phonological development within the period of Koine. The phonetic transcriptions are tentative, and are intended to illustrate two different stages in the reconstructed development, an early conservative variety still relatively close to Classical Attic, and a somewhat later, more progressive variety approaching Modern Greek in some respects.

===Sample 1 - A Roman Decree===
The following excerpt, from a decree of the Roman Senate to the town of Thisbae in [[Boeotia]] in 170 BC, is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a hypothetical conservative variety of mainland Greek Koiné in the early Hellenistic era.<ref>G. Horrocks (1997), ''Greek: A history of the language and its speakers'', p. 87), cf. also pp. 105-109.</ref> The transcription shows partial, but not yet completed raising of η and ει to /i/, retention of pitch accent, fricativization of γ to /j/ {{Clarify|June 2009|reason=/j/ is not a fricative, /ɣ/ would be, but anyway neither appear in the following IPA transcription, only /ɡ/ does|date=June 2009}} but no fricativisation of the other stops as yet, and retention of word-initial /h/.

{{quote|περὶ ὧν Θισ[β]εῖς λόγους ἐποιήσαντο· περὶ τῶν καθ᾿αὑ[τ]οὺς πραγμάτων, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐνέμειναν, ὅπως αὐτοῖς δοθῶσιν [ο]ἷς τὰ καθ᾿ αὑτοὺς πράγματα ἐξηγήσωνται, περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος οὕτως ἔδοξεν· ὅπως Κόιντος Μαίνιος στρατηγὸς τῶν ἐκ τῆς συνκλήτου [π]έντε ἀποτάξῃ οἳ ἂν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων πρα[γμ]άτων καὶ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεων φαίνωνται. ˈperì hôːn tʰizbîːs lóɡuːs epojéːsanto; perì tôːn katʰ hautùːs praɡmátoːn, hoítines en tîː pʰilíaːi tîː heːmetéraːi enémiːnan, hópoːs autoîs dotʰôːsin hoîs tà katʰ hautùːs práɡmata ekseːɡéːsoːntai, perì túːtuː tûː práɡmatos húːtoːs édoksen; hópoːs ˈkʷintos ˈmainios strateːɡòs tôːn ek têːs syŋkléːtuː pénte apotáksiː, hoì àn autôːi ek tôːn deːmosíoːn praɡmátoːn kaì têːs idíaːs písteoːs pʰaínoːntai Concerning those matters about which the citizens of Thisbae made representations. Concerning their own affairs: the following decision was taken concerning the proposal that those who remained true to our friendship should be given the facilities to conduct their own affairs; that our governor Quintus Maenius should delegate five members of the senate who seemed to him suitable in the light of their public actions and individual good faith.}}

===Sample 2 - Greek New Testament===
The following excerpt, the beginning of the [[Gospel of St John]], is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a progressive popular variety of Koiné in the early Christian era, with vowels approaching those of Modern Greek.<ref>Horrocks (1997: 94).</ref>

{{quote| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. ˈen arˈkʰi in o ˈloɣos, ke o ˈloɣos in bros to(n) tʰeˈo(n), ke tʰeˈos in o ˈloɣos. ˈutos in en arˈkʰi pros to(n) tʰeˈo(n). ˈpanda di aɸˈtu eˈjeneto, ke kʰoˈris aɸˈtu eˈjeneto ude ˈen o ˈjeɣonen. en aɸˈto zoˈi in, ke i zoˈi in to pʰos ton anˈtʰropon; ke to pʰos en di skoˈtia ˈpʰeni, ke i skoˈti(a) a(ɸ)ˈto u kaˈtelaβen In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.}}

===Sample 3 - Greek Old Testament ===
This is from the [[Septuagint|LXX]] version of [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]], dating to c. 150 BC. This Greek is the "Biblical Greek" discussed above. Note that because of literalness this text in many ways does not fit the Hellenistic Greek of the time, full of semiticisms.

{{quote|Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων. Μωυσῆς ὁ θεράπων μου τετελεύτηκεν· νῦν οὖν ἀναστὰς διάβηθι τὸν Ιορδάνην, σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς. πᾶς ὁ τόπος, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἐπιβῆτε τῷ ἴχνει τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δώσω αὐτόν, ὃν τρόπον εἴρηκα τῷ Μωυσῇ, τὴν ἔρημον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αντιλίβανον ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου, καὶ ἕως τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου δυσμῶν ἔσται τὰ ὅρια ὑμῶν. οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου, καὶ ὥσπερ ἤμην μετὰ Μωυσῆ, οὕτως ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε. ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου· σὺ γὰρ ἀποδιαστελεῖς τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ τὴν γῆν, ἣν ὤμοσα τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς. ἴσχυε οὖν καὶ ἀνδρίζου φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν καθότι ἐνετείλατό σοι Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς μου, καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά, ἵνα συνῇς ἐν πᾶσιν, οἷς ἐὰν πράσσῃς. καὶ οὐκ ἀποστήσεται ἡ βίβλος τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου, καὶ μελετήσεις ἐν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἵνα συνῇς ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα· τότε εὐοδωθήσῃ καὶ εὐοδώσεις τὰς ὁδούς σου καὶ τότε συνήσεις. ἰδοὺ ἐντέταλμαί σοι· ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου, μὴ δειλιάσῃς μηδὲ φοβηθῇς, ὅτι μετὰ σοῦ κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς πάντα, οὗ ἐὰν πορεύῃ. Καὶ ἐνετείλατο ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων. Εἰσέλθατε κατὰ μέσον τῆς παρεμβολῆς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐντείλασθε τῷ λαῷ λέγοντες ῾Ετοιμάζεσθε ἐπισιτισμόν, ὅτι ἔτι τρεῖς ἡμέραι καὶ ὑμεῖς διαβαίνετε τὸν Ιορδάνην τοῦτον εἰσελθόντες κατασχεῖν τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν. καὶ τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση εἶπεν ᾿Ιησοῦς. Μνήσθητε τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου, ὃ ἐνετείλατο ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου λέγων Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν κατέπαυσεν ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν γῆν ταύτην. αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ παιδία ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ κτήνη ὑμῶν κατοικείτωσαν ἐν τῇ γῇ, ᾗ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν· ὑμεῖς δὲ διαβήσεσθε εὔζωνοι πρότεροι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, πᾶς ὁ ἰσχύων, καὶ συμμαχήσετε αὐτοῖς, ἕως ἂν καταπαύσῃ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμᾶς καὶ κληρονομήσωσιν καὶ οὗτοι τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἀπελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ, ἣν δέδωκεν ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου. καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ εἶπαν Πάντα, ὅσα ἂν ἐντείλῃ ἡμῖν, ποιήσομεν καὶ εἰς πάντα τόπον, οὗ ἐὰν ἀποστείλῃς ἡμᾶς, πορευσόμεθα· κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν Μωυσῆ, ἀκουσόμεθα σοῦ, πλὴν ἔστω κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν μετὰ σοῦ, ὃν τρόπον ἦν μετὰ Μωυσῆ. ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν ἀπειθήσῃ σοι καὶ ὅστις μὴ ἀκούσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων σου καθότι ἂν αὐτῷ ἐντείλῃ, ἀποθανέτω. ἀλλὰ ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου.}}

==Further reading==
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Primer''. ISBN 0718892062
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Intermediate. From Morphology to Translation''. ISBN 0718892003

==Notes==

* 1. pronounced Koine Greek: [kɔɪˈnɛ], Modern Greek: [ciˈni eliniˈci]; see e.g. Κοπιδάκης, Μ. Ζ. "Εισαγωγή στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή", in Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Κοπιδάκης, Μ.Ζ. (ed.), Athens, 1999, pp. 82-92
* 2. Andriotis, Nikolaos P. History of the Greek Language.
* 3. Remarks on the synonyms of the New Testament by Johann August Heinrich Tittmann, Edward Craig, Edward Robinson, Moses Stuart pg 148-155
* 4. A history of ancient Greek by Maria Chritē, Maria Arapopoulou, Centre for the Greek Language (Thessalonikē, Greece) pg 436 ISBN 0521833078
* 5. Augsburg.
* 6. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare(1856-1924) Grammar of Septuagint Greek
* 7. Horrocks (1997: ch.5.11.)
* 8. G. Horrocks (1997), Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, p. 87), cf. also pp. 105-109.
* 9. Horrocks (1997: 94).

==References==
* Abel, F.-M. ''Grammaire du grec biblique''.
* Allen, W. Sidney, ''Vox Graeca: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Greek – 3rd ed.'', Cambridge University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-521-33555-8
* Andriotis, Nikolaos P. ''History of the Greek Language''
* Buth, Randall, ''[http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf Ἡ κοινὴ προφορά: Koine Greek of Early Roman Period]''
* Conybeare, F.C. and Stock, St. George. ''Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes''.
* Smyth, Herbert Weir, ''Greek Grammar'', Harvard University Press, 1956. ISBN 0-674-36250-0

==External links==
*[http://greek-language.com Greek-Language.com] Dictionaries, manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and tools for applying linguistics to the study of Hellenistic Greek
*[http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html New Testament Greek Online]
*[http://www.poliskoine.com Polis Koine] A method to learn Koine Greek including a video of a class
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek Wikipedia article on Koine Greek]

[[Category:Koine Greek| ]]
[[Category:Ancient languages|Greek, Koine]]
[[Category:Hellenistic civilization]]
[[Category:Languages of ancient Macedonia]]
[[Category:Offshoots of the Macedonian Empire]]
[[Category:Standard languages|Greek, Koine]]

Koine Greek

2011-01-19T23:19:33Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Notes */

'''Koine Greek''' (Ελληνιστική Κοινή[1] "Hellenistic common [language]"; or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect", also simply called ''koine'' "common [language]", besides "Alexandrian dialect", "common Attic" or "Hellenistic Greek") is the popular form of the [[Greek language]] spoken throughout post-[[Classical antiquity]] (c.[[300 BC]] – [[300 AD|AD 300]]), developing from the [[Attic dialect]], with admixture of elements especially from [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].

Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a ''[[lingua franca]]'' for the [[eastern Mediterranean]] and [[Near East]] throughout the [[Roman Empire|Roman period]].

It is also the language of the [[Septuagint]] (the Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]]) and of the [[Christian Bible|Christian]] [[New Testament]].[] Koine is the main ancestor of [[modern Greek]].
As the language of the New Testament and of the [[Church Fathers]], Koine Greek is also known as Biblical, Patristic or New Testament Greek.[][]

==Name==
'''Koinḗ''' (Κοινή), Greek for "common", is a term which had been previously applied by ancient scholars to several forms of Greek speech. A school of scholars such as [[Apollonius Dyscolus]] and [[Aelius Herodianus]] maintained the term ''Koine'' to refer to the [[Proto-Greek language]], while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed from the literary language.<ref name=andriotes/> When ''Koine'' gradually became a language of literature, some people distinguished it in two forms: ''Hellenic'' (Greek) as the literary post-classical form, and ''Koine'' (common) as the spoken popular form.[] Others chose to refer to ''Koine'' as the ''Alexandrian dialect'' (Περὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου) or ''the dialect of [[Alexandria]]'', a term often used by modern classicists.

==Origins and history==
Koine Greek arose as a common dialect within the armies of [[Alexander the Great]].[] Under the leadership of [[Macedon]], which colonized the known world, their newly formed common dialect was spoken from [[Ptolemaic Egypt|Egypt]] to [[Seleucid Empire|Mesopotamia]].[] Though elements of Koine Greek took shape during the [[Classical Greece|Classical Era]], the post-Classical period of Greek is defined as beginning with the death of [[Alexander the Great]] in [[323 BC]], when cultures under [[Hellenistic era|Hellenistic]] sway in turn began to influence the language.
The passage into the next period, known as [[Medieval Greek]], dates from the foundation of [[Constantinople]] by [[Constantine I]] in [[330 AD|330]]. The post-Classical period of Greek thus refers to the creation and evolution of Koine Greek throughout the entire Hellenistic and Roman eras of history until the start of the Middle Ages.[]

The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the [[Hellenistic]] age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main [[Ancient Greek]] dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by [[Paul Kretschmer]] in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while [[Ulrich Wilamowitz]] and [[Antoine Meillet]], based on the intense Ionic elements of the Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].[] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[] In that respect, the varieties of Koine spoken in the [[Ionia]]n colonies of [[Asia Minor]] (e.g. [[Pontus]]) would have more intense [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] characteristics than others and those of Laconia and Cyprus would preserve some [[Doric dialect|Doric]] and [[Arcado-Cypriot]] characteristics, respectively etc. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as ''Common Attic''.[]

==Sources==
The first scholars who studied Koine, both in Alexandrian and contemporary times, were classicists whose prototype had been the literary [[Attic Greek|Attic]] language of the Classical period, and would frown upon any other kind of [[Ancient Greek|Hellenic]] speech. Koine Greek was therefore considered a decayed form of Greek which was not worthy of attention.[] The reconsideration on the historical and linguistic importance of Koine Greek began only in the early 19th century, where renowned scholars conducted a series of studies on the evolution of Koine throughout the entire [[Hellenistic]] and Roman period which it covered. The sources used on the studies of Koine have been numerous and of unequal reliability. The most significant ones are the inscriptions of the post-Classical periods and the [[papyrus|papyri]], for being two kinds of texts which have authentic content and can be studied directly.[] Other significant sources are the [[Septuagint]], the somewhat literal Greek translation of the [[Old Testament]], and the [[New Testament]], parts of which may have been translated from the [[Hebrew Gospel]] by Jerome (or others) using similar rules to the Septuagint translators. The teaching of the Testaments was aimed at the most common people, and for that reason they use the most popular language of the era. Information can also be derived from some [[Atticism|Atticist]] scholars of the [[Hellenistic]] and Roman periods, who, in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" [[Attic Greek|Attic]] against the "wrong" Koine by citing examples. For example, [[Phrynichus Arabius]] during the 2nd century AD wrote:

{{quote|Βασίλισσα οὐδείς τῶν Ἀρχαίων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ βασίλεια ἢ βασιλίς. ''Basilissa'' (Queen) none of the Ancients said, but ''Basileia'' or ''Basilis''. Διωρία ἑσχάτως ἀδόκιμον, ἀντ' αυτοῦ δὲ προθεσμίαν ἐρεῖς. ''Dioria'' (deadline) is badly illiteral, instead use ''Prothesmia''. Πάντοτε μὴ λέγε, ἀλλὰ ἑκάστοτε καὶ διὰ παντός. Do not say ''Pantote'' (always), but ''Hekastote'' and ''Dia pantos''.}}

Other sources can be based on random findings such as inscriptions on vases written by popular painters, mistakes made by [[Atticism|Atticists]] due to their imperfect knowledge of pure [[Attic Greek|Attic]], or even some surviving Greco-Latin glossaries of the Roman period,[] e.g.:

{{quote|Καλήμερον, ἦλθες; Bono die, venisti? Good day, you came? Ἐὰν θέλεις, ἐλθὲ μεθ' ἡμῶν. Si vis, veni mecum. If you want, come with us (The Latin actually says with me, not us). Ποῦ; Ubi? Where?. Πρὸς φίλον ἡμέτερον Λεύκιον. Ad amicum nostrum Lucium. To our friend Lucius. Τί γὰρ ἔχει; Quid enim habet? Indeed, what does he have? What is it with him?. Ἀρρωστεῖ. Aegrotat. He's sick.}}

Finally, a very important source of information on the ancient Koine is the [[modern Greek]] language with all its dialects and its own ''Koine'' form, which have preserved some of the ancient language's oral linguistic details which the written tradition has lost. For example the [[Pontic language|Pontic]] and [[Cappadocian Greek language|Cappadocian]] dialects preserved the ancient pronunciation of η as ε (νύφε, συνέλικος, τίμεσον, πεγάδι etc.), while the [[Tsakonic]] preserved the long α instead of η (ἁμέρα, ἀστραπά, λίμνα, χοά etc.) and the other local characteristics of [[Doric Greek|Laconic]].[] Dialects from the Southern part of the Greek-speaking regions ([[Dodecanese]], [[Cyprus]] etc.), preserve the pronunciation of the double similar consonants (ἄλ-λος, Ἑλ-λάδα, θάλασ-σα), while others pronounce in many words υ as ου or preserve ancient double forms (κρόμμυον — κρεμ-μυον, ράξ — ρώξ etc.). Linguistic phenomena like the above imply that those characteristics survived within Koine, which in turn had countless variations in the Greek-speaking world.[]

==Types==
===Biblical Koine===
"Biblical Koine" refers to the varieties of Koine Greek used in the Christian Bible and related texts. Its main sources are:
* the [[Septuagint]], supposed to be a 3rd century BC Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]] which included the [[Deuterocanon]]. Most of the texts are translations, but there are some portions and texts composed in [[Greek language|Greek]]. [[Ben Sira|Sirach]], for instance, has not been found in Hebrew;
* the [[New Testament]], compiled originally in Greek according to the dominant theory of [[Greek primacy]] (although some books may have had a Hebrew-Aramaic [[Substratum#Substratum|substrate]] and contain some Semitic influence on the language, see also [[Aramaic of Jesus]]).

====Septuagint Greek====
There has been some debate to what degree Biblical Greek represents the mainstream of contemporary spoken Koine and to what extent it contains specifically [[Semitic languages|Semitic]] [[substratum]] features (''cf.'' [[Aramaic primacy]]). These could have been induced either through the practice of translating closely from [[Biblical Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] originals, or through the influence of the regional non-standard [[Hellenistic Judaism|Greek spoken by the originally Aramaic-speaking Jews]]. Some of the features discussed in this context are the Septuagint's normative absence of the particles μέν and δέ, and the use of ἐγένετο to denote "it came to pass." Some features of Biblical Greek which are thought to have originally been non-standard elements eventually found their way into the main of the Greek language.

====New Testament Greek====
The Greek of the New Testament is less distinctively Semitic than that of the Septuagint, partly because it appeared 300 years later and partly because it is largely a de novo composition in Greek, not primarily a translation from [[Biblical Hebrew]] and [[Biblical Aramaic]].[]

===Patristic Greek===
The term ''Patristic Greek'' is sometimes used for the Greek written by the [[Church Fathers]], the [[Early Christian]] theologians in late antiquity. Christian writers in the earliest time tended to use a simple register of Koiné, relatively close to the spoken language of their time, following the model of the Bible. After the 4th century, when [[State church of the Roman Empire|Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire]], more learned registers of Koiné influenced by Atticism came also to be used.[]

==Differences between Attic and Koine Greek==
The study of all sources from the six centuries which are symbolically covered by Koine reveals linguistic changes from [[ancient Greek]] on elements of the spoken language including:
* [[grammar]] - accidence and syntax,
* [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] - word formation
* [[vocabulary]]
* [[phonology]] - pronunciation
Most new forms start off as rare and gradually become more frequent until they are established. From the linguistic changes which took place in Koine, Greek gained such a resemblance to its [[Medieval Greek|medieval]] and [[Modern Greek|modern]] successors that almost all characteristics of modern Greek can be traced in the surviving texts of Koine.[] As most of the changes between modern and ancient Greek were introduced via Koine, Koine is largely intelligible to speakers of the modern language.

===Differences in grammar===
''See Also [[Koine Greek grammar]]''

===Phonology===
''See Also [[Koine Greek phonology|Ancient Greek phonology|Modern Greek phonology]]''

During the period generally designated as "Koine" Greek, a great deal of phonological change occurred: at the start of the period, the pronunciation was virtually identical to [[Ancient Greek phonology]], whereas in the end it had much more in common with [[Modern Greek phonology]].

The three most significant changes were the loss of vowel length distinction, the substitution of the pitch accent system with a stress accent system, and the monophthongization of several diphthongs:
*The ancient distinction between long and short vowels was gradually lost, and from the 2nd century BC all vowels were isochronic.[]

*Since the 2nd century BC, the means of accenting words changed from [[Pitch accent|pitch]] to [[Stress (phonology)|stress]], meaning that the accented syllable is not pronounced in a musical tone but louder and/or stronger.[]

*The [[Spiritus asper|aspirate breathing]] ([[aspiration (phonetics)|aspiration]]), which was already lost in the [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] varieties of [[Asia Minor]] and the [[Aeolic Greek|Aeolic]] of [[Lesbos Island|Lesbos]], stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The ι in long diphthongs (those with the long vowels: ᾱͅ, ῃ, ῳ) stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The diphthongs αι, ει, and οι became single vowels. In this manner 'αι', which had already been converted by the Boeotians into a long ε since the 4th century BC and written η (e.g. {{Polytonic|πῆς, χῆρε, μέμφομη}}), became in Koine, too, first a long ε and then short. The diphthong 'ει' had already merged with ι in the 5th century BC in regions such as [[Argos]] or in the 4th c. BC in [[Corinth]] (e.g. {{Polytonic|ΛΕΓΙΣ}}), and it acquired this pronunciation also in Koine. The diphthong 'οι' acquired the pronunciation of the modern [[French language|French]] 'U' ({{IPAblink|y}}), which lasted until the 10th century AD. The diphthong 'υι' came to be pronounced {{IPA|[yj]}}, and remained pronounced as a diphthong. The diphthong 'ου' had already acquired the pronunciation of [[Latin]] 'U' since the 6th century BC and preserved it in modern times.[]

*The diphthongs αυ and ευ came to be pronounced [av] and [ev] (via [aβ], [eβ]), but are partly [[Assimilation (linguistics)|assimilated]] to [af], [ef] before the [[voiceless consonant]]s θ, κ, ξ, π, σ, τ, φ, χ, and ψ.<ref name=andriotes/>

*Simple vowels have preserved their ancient pronunciations, except η which is pronounced as ι, and υ, which retained the pronunciation {{IPA|[y]}} of modern [[French language|French]] 'U' only until the 10th c. AD, and was later also pronounced as ι. With those changes in phonology there were common spelling mistakes between υ and οι, while the sound of ι was multiplied ([[iotacism]]).<ref name=andriotes/>

*The consonants also preserved their ancient pronunciations to a great extent, except β, γ, δ, φ, θ, χ and ζ. Β, Γ, Δ (Beta, Gamma, Delta), which were originally pronounced {{IPA|[b, ɡ, d]}}, acquired the sounds of ''v, gh,'' and ''dh'' ({{IPA|[v]}} (via {{IPAblink|β}}), {{IPAblink|ɣ}}, {{IPAblink|ð}}), which they still have today, except when preceded by a nasal consonant (μ, ν); in that case, they retain their ancient sounds (e.g. {{Polytonic|γαμβρός — γαmbρός, άνδρας — άndρας, άγγελος — άŋgελος}}). The latter three (Φ, Θ, Χ), which were initially pronounced as [[Aspirated consonant|aspirate]]s ({{IPA|/pʰ/}}, {{IPA|/tʰ/}} and {{IPA|/kʰ/}} respectively), developed into the fricatives {{IPA|[f]}} (via {{IPA|[ɸ]}}), {{IPA|[θ]}}, and {{IPA|[x]}}. Finally the letter Ζ, which is still categorised as a double consonant with ξ and ψ, because it was initially pronounced as σδ (sd), later acquired the sound of Z as it appears in [[Modern English]] and [[Modern Greek|Greek]].<ref name=andriotes/>

'''New Testament Greek Phonology'''
The Koine Greek in the table represents a reconstruction of New Testament Koine Greek, deriving to some degree from the dialect spoken in Judaea and Galilaea during the 1st century and similar to the dialect spoken in Alexandria, Egypt. Note the realizations of certain phonemes differ from the more standard Attic dialect of Koine. Note the soft fricative "β" in intervocalic position, the preservation of the aspirated plosive value of "ph", "th" and "kh", the preservation of a distinction between the four front vowels "i", "ē", "e", and "y" (which is still rounded), and other features.

{|class="wikitable" style="background:white"
|-
|'''letter'''|| '''Greek''' || Transliteration || '''[[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]'''
|-
|Alpha||α||a||{{IPA|ɑ}}
|-
|Beta||β (-β-)||b||{{IPA|b (-β-)}}
|-
|Gamma||γ||g||{{IPA|ɣ}}
|-
|Delta||δ||d||{{IPA|d}}
|-
|Epsilon||ε||e||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
|Zeta||ζ||z||{{IPA|zː}}
|-
|Eta||η||ē||{{IPA|e}}
|-
|Theta||θ||th||{{IPA|tʰ}}
|-
|Iota||ι||i||{{IPA|i}}
|-
|Kappa||κ||k||{{IPA|k}}
|-
|Lambda||λ||l||{{IPA|l}}
|-
|Mu||μ||m||{{IPA|m}}
|-
|Nu||ν||n||{{IPA|n}}
|-
|Xi||ξ||x||{{IPA|ks}}
|-
|Omicron||ο||o||{{IPA|o}}
|-
|Pi|| π||p||{{IPA|p}}
|-
|Rho||ρ||r||{{IPA|ɾ}}
|-
|Sigma||σ (-σ-/-σσ-)||s (-s-/-ss-)||{{IPA|s (-z-/-sː-)}}
|-
|Tau||τ||t||{{IPA|t}}
|-
|Upsilon||υ||y||{{IPA|y}}
|-
|Phi||φ||ph||{{IPA|pʰ}}
|-
|Chi||χ||ch||{{IPA|kʰ}}
|-
|Psi||ψ||ps||{{IPA|ps}}
|-
|Omega||ω||ō||{{IPA|o}}
|-
| . ||αι||ai||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
| . ||ει||ei||{{IPA|i}}
|-
| . ||οι||oi||{{IPA|y}}
|-
| . ||αυ||au||{{IPA|ɑw}}
|-
| . ||ευ||eu||{{IPA|ɛw}}
|-
| . ||ηυ||ēu||{{IPA|ew}}
|-
| . ||ου||ou||{{IPA|u}}
|}

==Sample Koine texts ==
The following texts show differences from Attic Greek in all aspects - grammar, morphology, vocabulary and can be inferred to show differences in phonology.

The following comments illustrate the phonological development within the period of Koine. The phonetic transcriptions are tentative, and are intended to illustrate two different stages in the reconstructed development, an early conservative variety still relatively close to Classical Attic, and a somewhat later, more progressive variety approaching Modern Greek in some respects.

===Sample 1 - A Roman Decree===
The following excerpt, from a decree of the Roman Senate to the town of Thisbae in [[Boeotia]] in 170 BC, is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a hypothetical conservative variety of mainland Greek Koiné in the early Hellenistic era.<ref>G. Horrocks (1997), ''Greek: A history of the language and its speakers'', p. 87), cf. also pp. 105-109.</ref> The transcription shows partial, but not yet completed raising of η and ει to /i/, retention of pitch accent, fricativization of γ to /j/ {{Clarify|June 2009|reason=/j/ is not a fricative, /ɣ/ would be, but anyway neither appear in the following IPA transcription, only /ɡ/ does|date=June 2009}} but no fricativisation of the other stops as yet, and retention of word-initial /h/.

{{quote|περὶ ὧν Θισ[β]εῖς λόγους ἐποιήσαντο· περὶ τῶν καθ᾿αὑ[τ]οὺς πραγμάτων, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐνέμειναν, ὅπως αὐτοῖς δοθῶσιν [ο]ἷς τὰ καθ᾿ αὑτοὺς πράγματα ἐξηγήσωνται, περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος οὕτως ἔδοξεν· ὅπως Κόιντος Μαίνιος στρατηγὸς τῶν ἐκ τῆς συνκλήτου [π]έντε ἀποτάξῃ οἳ ἂν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων πρα[γμ]άτων καὶ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεων φαίνωνται. ˈperì hôːn tʰizbîːs lóɡuːs epojéːsanto; perì tôːn katʰ hautùːs praɡmátoːn, hoítines en tîː pʰilíaːi tîː heːmetéraːi enémiːnan, hópoːs autoîs dotʰôːsin hoîs tà katʰ hautùːs práɡmata ekseːɡéːsoːntai, perì túːtuː tûː práɡmatos húːtoːs édoksen; hópoːs ˈkʷintos ˈmainios strateːɡòs tôːn ek têːs syŋkléːtuː pénte apotáksiː, hoì àn autôːi ek tôːn deːmosíoːn praɡmátoːn kaì têːs idíaːs písteoːs pʰaínoːntai Concerning those matters about which the citizens of Thisbae made representations. Concerning their own affairs: the following decision was taken concerning the proposal that those who remained true to our friendship should be given the facilities to conduct their own affairs; that our governor Quintus Maenius should delegate five members of the senate who seemed to him suitable in the light of their public actions and individual good faith.}}

===Sample 2 - Greek New Testament===
The following excerpt, the beginning of the [[Gospel of St John]], is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a progressive popular variety of Koiné in the early Christian era, with vowels approaching those of Modern Greek.<ref>Horrocks (1997: 94).</ref>

{{quote| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. ˈen arˈkʰi in o ˈloɣos, ke o ˈloɣos in bros to(n) tʰeˈo(n), ke tʰeˈos in o ˈloɣos. ˈutos in en arˈkʰi pros to(n) tʰeˈo(n). ˈpanda di aɸˈtu eˈjeneto, ke kʰoˈris aɸˈtu eˈjeneto ude ˈen o ˈjeɣonen. en aɸˈto zoˈi in, ke i zoˈi in to pʰos ton anˈtʰropon; ke to pʰos en di skoˈtia ˈpʰeni, ke i skoˈti(a) a(ɸ)ˈto u kaˈtelaβen In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.}}

===Sample 3 - Greek Old Testament ===
This is from the [[Septuagint|LXX]] version of [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]], dating to c. 150 BC. This Greek is the "Biblical Greek" discussed above. Note that because of literalness this text in many ways does not fit the Hellenistic Greek of the time, full of semiticisms.

{{quote|Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων. Μωυσῆς ὁ θεράπων μου τετελεύτηκεν· νῦν οὖν ἀναστὰς διάβηθι τὸν Ιορδάνην, σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς. πᾶς ὁ τόπος, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἐπιβῆτε τῷ ἴχνει τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δώσω αὐτόν, ὃν τρόπον εἴρηκα τῷ Μωυσῇ, τὴν ἔρημον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αντιλίβανον ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου, καὶ ἕως τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου δυσμῶν ἔσται τὰ ὅρια ὑμῶν. οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου, καὶ ὥσπερ ἤμην μετὰ Μωυσῆ, οὕτως ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε. ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου· σὺ γὰρ ἀποδιαστελεῖς τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ τὴν γῆν, ἣν ὤμοσα τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς. ἴσχυε οὖν καὶ ἀνδρίζου φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν καθότι ἐνετείλατό σοι Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς μου, καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά, ἵνα συνῇς ἐν πᾶσιν, οἷς ἐὰν πράσσῃς. καὶ οὐκ ἀποστήσεται ἡ βίβλος τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου, καὶ μελετήσεις ἐν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἵνα συνῇς ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα· τότε εὐοδωθήσῃ καὶ εὐοδώσεις τὰς ὁδούς σου καὶ τότε συνήσεις. ἰδοὺ ἐντέταλμαί σοι· ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου, μὴ δειλιάσῃς μηδὲ φοβηθῇς, ὅτι μετὰ σοῦ κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς πάντα, οὗ ἐὰν πορεύῃ. Καὶ ἐνετείλατο ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων. Εἰσέλθατε κατὰ μέσον τῆς παρεμβολῆς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐντείλασθε τῷ λαῷ λέγοντες ῾Ετοιμάζεσθε ἐπισιτισμόν, ὅτι ἔτι τρεῖς ἡμέραι καὶ ὑμεῖς διαβαίνετε τὸν Ιορδάνην τοῦτον εἰσελθόντες κατασχεῖν τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν. καὶ τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση εἶπεν ᾿Ιησοῦς. Μνήσθητε τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου, ὃ ἐνετείλατο ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου λέγων Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν κατέπαυσεν ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν γῆν ταύτην. αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ παιδία ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ κτήνη ὑμῶν κατοικείτωσαν ἐν τῇ γῇ, ᾗ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν· ὑμεῖς δὲ διαβήσεσθε εὔζωνοι πρότεροι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, πᾶς ὁ ἰσχύων, καὶ συμμαχήσετε αὐτοῖς, ἕως ἂν καταπαύσῃ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμᾶς καὶ κληρονομήσωσιν καὶ οὗτοι τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἀπελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ, ἣν δέδωκεν ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου. καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ εἶπαν Πάντα, ὅσα ἂν ἐντείλῃ ἡμῖν, ποιήσομεν καὶ εἰς πάντα τόπον, οὗ ἐὰν ἀποστείλῃς ἡμᾶς, πορευσόμεθα· κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν Μωυσῆ, ἀκουσόμεθα σοῦ, πλὴν ἔστω κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν μετὰ σοῦ, ὃν τρόπον ἦν μετὰ Μωυσῆ. ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν ἀπειθήσῃ σοι καὶ ὅστις μὴ ἀκούσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων σου καθότι ἂν αὐτῷ ἐντείλῃ, ἀποθανέτω. ἀλλὰ ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου.}}

==Further reading==
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Primer''. ISBN 0718892062
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Intermediate. From Morphology to Translation''. ISBN 0718892003

==Notes==

* 1. pronounced Koine Greek: [kɔɪˈnɛ], Modern Greek: [ciˈni eliniˈci]; see e.g. Κοπιδάκης, Μ. Ζ. "Εισαγωγή στην Ελληνιστική Κοινή", in Ιστορία της Ελληνικής Γλώσσας, Κοπιδάκης, Μ.Ζ. (ed.), Athens, 1999, pp. 82-92
* 2. Andriotis, Nikolaos P. History of the Greek Language.
* 3. Remarks on the synonyms of the New Testament by Johann August Heinrich Tittmann, Edward Craig, Edward Robinson, Moses Stuart pg 148-155
* 4. A history of ancient Greek by Maria Chritē, Maria Arapopoulou, Centre for the Greek Language (Thessalonikē, Greece) pg 436 ISBN 0521833078
* 5. Augsburg.
* 6. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare(1856-1924) Grammar of Septuagint Greek
* 7. Horrocks (1997: ch.5.11.)
* 8. G. Horrocks (1997), Greek: A history of the language and its speakers, p. 87), cf. also pp. 105-109.
* 9. Horrocks (1997: 94).

==References==
* Abel, F.-M. ''Grammaire du grec biblique''.
* Allen, W. Sidney, ''Vox Graeca: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Greek – 3rd ed.'', Cambridge University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-521-33555-8
* Andriotis, Nikolaos P. ''History of the Greek Language''
* Buth, Randall, ''[http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf {{polytonic|Ἡ κοινὴ προφορά}}: Koine Greek of Early Roman Period]''
* Conybeare, F.C. and Stock, St. George. ''Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes''.
* Smyth, Herbert Weir, ''Greek Grammar'', Harvard University Press, 1956. ISBN 0-674-36250-0

==External links==
*[http://greek-language.com Greek-Language.com] Dictionaries, manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and tools for applying linguistics to the study of Hellenistic Greek
*[http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html New Testament Greek Online]
*[http://www.poliskoine.com Polis Koine] A method to learn Koine Greek including a video of a class
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek Wikipedia article on Koine Greek]

[[Category:Koine Greek| ]]
[[Category:Ancient languages|Greek, Koine]]
[[Category:Hellenistic civilization]]
[[Category:Languages of ancient Macedonia]]
[[Category:Offshoots of the Macedonian Empire]]
[[Category:Standard languages|Greek, Koine]]

Scriptures Containing 4862

2011-01-19T23:15:08Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Romans */

==Matthew==

Mt 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with <4862> him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

==Mark==

Mr 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with <4862> him?
Mr 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with <4862> the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mr 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with <4862> his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mr 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with <4862> Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
Mr 15:27 And with <4862> him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

==luke==

Lu 1:56 And Mary abode with <4862> her about three months, and returned to her own house.
Lu 2:5 To be taxed with <4862> Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Lu 2:13 And suddenly there was with <4862> the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Lu 5:9 For he was astonished, and all that were <4862> with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:
Lu 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with <4862> his couch into the midst before Jesus.
Lu 7:6 Then Jesus went with <4862> them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
Lu 7:12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with <4862> her.
Lu 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with <4862> him,
Lu 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with <4862> him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
Lu 9:32 But Peter and they that were with <4862> him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.
Lu 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with <4862> usury?
Lu 20:1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with <4862> the elders,
Lu 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with <4862> him.
Lu 22:56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with <4862> him.
Lu 23:11 And Herod with <4862> his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
Lu 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with <4862> him to be put to death.
Lu 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with <4862> them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
Lu 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with <4862> them.
Lu 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with <4862> them, which told these things unto the apostles.
Lu 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside <4862> all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
Lu 24:24 And certain of them which were with <4862> us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
Lu 24:29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with <4862> them.
Lu 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with <4862> them,
Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with <4862> you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

==John==

Joh 18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with <4862> his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
Joh 21:3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with <4862> thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.

==Acts==

Ac 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with <4862> the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with <4862> his brethren.
Ac 1:17 For he was numbered with <4862> us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Ac 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with <4862> us of his resurrection.
Ac 2:14 But Peter, standing up with <4862> the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Ac 3:4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with <4862> John, said, Look on us.
Ac 3:8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with <4862> them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
Ac 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with <4862> Jesus.
Ac 4:14 And beholding the man which was healed standing with <4862> them, they could say nothing against it.
Ac 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with <4862> the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Ac 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with <4862> Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Ac 5:17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with <4862> him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
Ac 5:21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with <4862> him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Ac 5:26 Then went the captain with <4862> the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Ac 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with <4862> thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Ac 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with <4862> him.
Ac 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with <4862> all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
Ac 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with <4862> them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
Ac 10:23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with <4862> them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
Ac 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied <4862> me, and we entered into the man’s house:
Ac 13:7 Which was with <4862> the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
Ac 14:4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with <4862> the Jews, and part with <4862> the apostles.
Ac 14:5 And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with <4862> their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them,
Ac 14:13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with <4862> the people.
Ac 14:20 Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with <4862> Barnabas to Derbe.
Ac 14:28 And there they abode long time with <4862> the disciples.
Ac 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with <4862> the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with <4862> Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Ac 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with <4862> our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Ac 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with <4862> him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Ac 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with <4862> them.
Ac 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with <4862> all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Ac 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with <4862> him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
Ac 19:38 Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with <4862> him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.
Ac 20:36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with <4862> them all.
Ac 21:5 And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with <4862> wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.
Ac 21:16 There went with <4862> us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.
Ac 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with <4862> us unto James; and all the elders were present.
Ac 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with <4862> them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Ac 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with <4862> them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Ac 21:29 (For they had seen before with <4862> him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
Ac 22:9 And they that were with <4862> me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Ac 23:15 Now therefore ye with <4862> the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you to morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.
Ac 23:27 This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with <4862> an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman.
Ac 23:32 On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with <4862> him, and returned to the castle:
Ac 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with <4862> his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Ac 25:23 And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with <4862> the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth.
Ac 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with <4862> me.
Ac 27:2 And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with <4862> us.
Ac 28:16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with <4862> a soldier that kept him.

==Romans==

Ro 6:8 Now if we be dead with <4862> Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Ro 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with <4862> him also freely give us all things?
Ro 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with <4862> them.
Ro 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with <4862> them.

1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with <4862> all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with <4862> the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with <4862> the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with <4862> the world.
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with <4862> me.
1Co 16:4 And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with <4862> me.
1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with <4862> the church that is in their house.

2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with <4862> all the saints which are in all Achaia:
2Co 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with <4862> you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
2Co 4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with <4862> you.
2Co 8:19 And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with <4862> this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:
2Co 9:4 Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with <4862> me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting.
2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with <4862> him by the power of God toward you.

Ga 1:2 And all the brethren which are with <4862> me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Ga 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with <4862> me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Ga 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with <4862> faithful Abraham.
Ga 5:24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with <4862> the affections and lusts.

Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with <4862> all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with <4862> all malice:

Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with <4862> the bishops and deacons:
Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with <4862> Christ; which is far better:
Php 2:22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with <4862> me in the gospel.
Php 4:21 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with <4862> me greet you.

Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with <4862> you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with <4862> him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with <4862> Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with <4862> Christ in God.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with <4862> him in glory.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with <4862> him in glory.
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with <4862> his deeds;
Col 4:9 With <4862> Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here.

1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with <4862> him.
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with <4862> them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with <4862> the Lord.
1Th 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with <4862> him.

==James==

Jas 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with <4862> a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.

==2 Peter==

2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with <4862> him in the holy mount.

==See Also==

* [[4862]]

Scriptures Containing 4862

2011-01-19T23:14:07Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Romans */

==Matthew==

Mt 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with <4862> him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

==Mark==

Mr 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with <4862> him?
Mr 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with <4862> the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mr 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with <4862> his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mr 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with <4862> Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
Mr 15:27 And with <4862> him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

==luke==

Lu 1:56 And Mary abode with <4862> her about three months, and returned to her own house.
Lu 2:5 To be taxed with <4862> Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Lu 2:13 And suddenly there was with <4862> the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Lu 5:9 For he was astonished, and all that were <4862> with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:
Lu 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with <4862> his couch into the midst before Jesus.
Lu 7:6 Then Jesus went with <4862> them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
Lu 7:12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with <4862> her.
Lu 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with <4862> him,
Lu 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with <4862> him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
Lu 9:32 But Peter and they that were with <4862> him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.
Lu 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with <4862> usury?
Lu 20:1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with <4862> the elders,
Lu 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with <4862> him.
Lu 22:56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with <4862> him.
Lu 23:11 And Herod with <4862> his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
Lu 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with <4862> him to be put to death.
Lu 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with <4862> them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
Lu 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with <4862> them.
Lu 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with <4862> them, which told these things unto the apostles.
Lu 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside <4862> all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
Lu 24:24 And certain of them which were with <4862> us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
Lu 24:29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with <4862> them.
Lu 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with <4862> them,
Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with <4862> you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

==John==

Joh 18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with <4862> his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
Joh 21:3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with <4862> thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.

==Acts==

Ac 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with <4862> the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with <4862> his brethren.
Ac 1:17 For he was numbered with <4862> us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Ac 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with <4862> us of his resurrection.
Ac 2:14 But Peter, standing up with <4862> the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Ac 3:4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with <4862> John, said, Look on us.
Ac 3:8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with <4862> them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
Ac 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with <4862> Jesus.
Ac 4:14 And beholding the man which was healed standing with <4862> them, they could say nothing against it.
Ac 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with <4862> the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Ac 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with <4862> Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Ac 5:17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with <4862> him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
Ac 5:21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with <4862> him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Ac 5:26 Then went the captain with <4862> the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Ac 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with <4862> thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Ac 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with <4862> him.
Ac 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with <4862> all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
Ac 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with <4862> them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
Ac 10:23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with <4862> them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
Ac 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied <4862> me, and we entered into the man’s house:
Ac 13:7 Which was with <4862> the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
Ac 14:4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with <4862> the Jews, and part with <4862> the apostles.
Ac 14:5 And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with <4862> their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them,
Ac 14:13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with <4862> the people.
Ac 14:20 Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with <4862> Barnabas to Derbe.
Ac 14:28 And there they abode long time with <4862> the disciples.
Ac 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with <4862> the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with <4862> Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Ac 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with <4862> our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Ac 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with <4862> him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Ac 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with <4862> them.
Ac 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with <4862> all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Ac 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with <4862> him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
Ac 19:38 Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with <4862> him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.
Ac 20:36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with <4862> them all.
Ac 21:5 And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with <4862> wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.
Ac 21:16 There went with <4862> us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.
Ac 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with <4862> us unto James; and all the elders were present.
Ac 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with <4862> them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Ac 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with <4862> them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Ac 21:29 (For they had seen before with <4862> him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
Ac 22:9 And they that were with <4862> me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Ac 23:15 Now therefore ye with <4862> the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you to morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.
Ac 23:27 This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with <4862> an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman.
Ac 23:32 On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with <4862> him, and returned to the castle:
Ac 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with <4862> his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Ac 25:23 And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with <4862> the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth.
Ac 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with <4862> me.
Ac 27:2 And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with <4862> us.
Ac 28:16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with <4862> a soldier that kept him.

==Romans==

Ro 6:8 Now if we be dead with <4862> Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Ro 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with <4862> him also freely give us all things?
Ro 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with <4862> them.
Ro 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with <4862> them.
1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with <4862> all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with <4862> the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with <4862> the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with <4862> the world.
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with <4862> me.
1Co 16:4 And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with <4862> me.
1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with <4862> the church that is in their house.
2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with <4862> all the saints which are in all Achaia:
2Co 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with <4862> you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
2Co 4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with <4862> you.
2Co 8:19 And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with <4862> this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:
2Co 9:4 Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with <4862> me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting.
2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with <4862> him by the power of God toward you.
Ga 1:2 And all the brethren which are with <4862> me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Ga 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with <4862> me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Ga 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with <4862> faithful Abraham.
Ga 5:24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with <4862> the affections and lusts.
Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with <4862> all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with <4862> all malice:
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with <4862> the bishops and deacons:
Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with <4862> Christ; which is far better:
Php 2:22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with <4862> me in the gospel.
Php 4:21 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with <4862> me greet you.
Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with <4862> you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with <4862> him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with <4862> Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with <4862> Christ in God.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with <4862> him in glory.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with <4862> him in glory.
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with <4862> his deeds;
Col 4:9 With <4862> Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with <4862> him.
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with <4862> them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with <4862> the Lord.
1Th 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with <4862> him.
Jas 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with <4862> a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with <4862> him in the holy mount.

==See Also==

* [[4862]]

Scriptures Containing 4862

2011-01-19T23:13:32Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: ==Matthew== Mt 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with <4862> him, one on the right hand, and another on the left. ==Mark== Mr 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the day...

==Matthew==

Mt 27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with <4862> him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.

==Mark==

Mr 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with <4862> him?
Mr 4:10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with <4862> the twelve asked of him the parable.
Mr 8:34 And when he had called the people unto him with <4862> his disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
Mr 9:4 And there appeared unto them Elias with <4862> Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
Mr 15:27 And with <4862> him they crucify two thieves; the one on his right hand, and the other on his left.

==luke==

Lu 1:56 And Mary abode with <4862> her about three months, and returned to her own house.
Lu 2:5 To be taxed with <4862> Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.
Lu 2:13 And suddenly there was with <4862> the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying,
Lu 5:9 For he was astonished, and all that were <4862> with him, at the draught of the fishes which they had taken:
Lu 5:19 And when they could not find by what way they might bring him in because of the multitude, they went upon the housetop, and let him down through the tiling with <4862> his couch into the midst before Jesus.
Lu 7:6 Then Jesus went with <4862> them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof:
Lu 7:12 Now when he came nigh to the gate of the city, behold, there was a dead man carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow: and much people of the city was with <4862> her.
Lu 8:1 And it came to pass afterward, that he went throughout every city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the kingdom of God: and the twelve were with <4862> him,
Lu 8:38 Now the man out of whom the devils were departed besought him that he might be with <4862> him: but Jesus sent him away, saying,
Lu 9:32 But Peter and they that were with <4862> him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.
Lu 19:23 Wherefore then gavest not thou my money into the bank, that at my coming I might have required mine own with <4862> usury?
Lu 20:1 And it came to pass, that on one of those days, as he taught the people in the temple, and preached the gospel, the chief priests and the scribes came upon him with <4862> the elders,
Lu 22:14 And when the hour was come, he sat down, and the twelve apostles with <4862> him.
Lu 22:56 But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with <4862> him.
Lu 23:11 And Herod with <4862> his men of war set him at nought, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe, and sent him again to Pilate.
Lu 23:32 And there were also two other, malefactors, led with <4862> him to be put to death.
Lu 23:35 And the people stood beholding. And the rulers also with <4862> them derided him, saying, He saved others; let him save himself, if he be Christ, the chosen of God.
Lu 24:1 Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with <4862> them.
Lu 24:10 It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with <4862> them, which told these things unto the apostles.
Lu 24:21 But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and beside <4862> all this, to day is the third day since these things were done.
Lu 24:24 And certain of them which were with <4862> us went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had said: but him they saw not.
Lu 24:29 But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us: for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to tarry with <4862> them.
Lu 24:33 And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with <4862> them,
Lu 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with <4862> you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

==John==

Joh 18:1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with <4862> his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples.
Joh 21:3 Simon Peter saith unto them, I go a fishing. They say unto him, We also go with <4862> thee. They went forth, and entered into a ship immediately; and that night they caught nothing.

==Acts==

Ac 1:14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with <4862> the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with <4862> his brethren.
Ac 1:17 For he was numbered with <4862> us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
Ac 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with <4862> us of his resurrection.
Ac 2:14 But Peter, standing up with <4862> the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words:
Ac 3:4 And Peter, fastening his eyes upon him with <4862> John, said, Look on us.
Ac 3:8 And he leaping up stood, and walked, and entered with <4862> them into the temple, walking, and leaping, and praising God.
Ac 4:13 Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with <4862> Jesus.
Ac 4:14 And beholding the man which was healed standing with <4862> them, they could say nothing against it.
Ac 4:27 For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with <4862> the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were gathered together,
Ac 5:1 But a certain man named Ananias, with <4862> Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
Ac 5:17 Then the high priest rose up, and all they that were with <4862> him, (which is the sect of the Sadducees,) and were filled with indignation,
Ac 5:21 And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with <4862> him, and called the council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison to have them brought.
Ac 5:26 Then went the captain with <4862> the officers, and brought them without violence: for they feared the people, lest they should have been stoned.
Ac 8:20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with <4862> thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.
Ac 8:31 And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with <4862> him.
Ac 10:2 A devout man, and one that feared God with <4862> all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.
Ac 10:20 Arise therefore, and get thee down, and go with <4862> them, doubting nothing: for I have sent them.
Ac 10:23 Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with <4862> them, and certain brethren from Joppa accompanied him.
Ac 11:12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied <4862> me, and we entered into the man’s house:
Ac 13:7 Which was with <4862> the deputy of the country, Sergius Paulus, a prudent man; who called for Barnabas and Saul, and desired to hear the word of God.
Ac 14:4 But the multitude of the city was divided: and part held with <4862> the Jews, and part with <4862> the apostles.
Ac 14:5 And when there was an assault made both of the Gentiles, and also of the Jews with <4862> their rulers, to use them despitefully, and to stone them,
Ac 14:13 Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates, and would have done sacrifice with <4862> the people.
Ac 14:20 Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up, and came into the city: and the next day he departed with <4862> Barnabas to Derbe.
Ac 14:28 And there they abode long time with <4862> the disciples.
Ac 15:22 Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with <4862> the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with <4862> Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Ac 15:25 It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with <4862> our beloved Barnabas and Paul,
Ac 16:3 Him would Paul have to go forth with <4862> him; and took and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in those quarters: for they knew all that his father was a Greek.
Ac 17:34 Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and believed: among the which was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with <4862> them.
Ac 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with <4862> all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized.
Ac 18:18 And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with <4862> him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.
Ac 19:38 Wherefore if Demetrius, and the craftsmen which are with <4862> him, have a matter against any man, the law is open, and there are deputies: let them implead one another.
Ac 20:36 And when he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with <4862> them all.
Ac 21:5 And when we had accomplished those days, we departed and went our way; and they all brought us on our way, with <4862> wives and children, till we were out of the city: and we kneeled down on the shore, and prayed.
Ac 21:16 There went with <4862> us also certain of the disciples of Caesarea, and brought with them one Mnason of Cyprus, an old disciple, with whom we should lodge.
Ac 21:18 And the day following Paul went in with <4862> us unto James; and all the elders were present.
Ac 21:24 Them take, and purify thyself with <4862> them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law.
Ac 21:26 Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with <4862> them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them.
Ac 21:29 (For they had seen before with <4862> him in the city Trophimus an Ephesian, whom they supposed that Paul had brought into the temple.)
Ac 22:9 And they that were with <4862> me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Ac 23:15 Now therefore ye with <4862> the council signify to the chief captain that he bring him down unto you to morrow, as though ye would enquire something more perfectly concerning him: and we, or ever he come near, are ready to kill him.
Ac 23:27 This man was taken of the Jews, and should have been killed of them: then came I with <4862> an army, and rescued him, having understood that he was a Roman.
Ac 23:32 On the morrow they left the horsemen to go with <4862> him, and returned to the castle:
Ac 24:24 And after certain days, when Felix came with <4862> his wife Drusilla, which was a Jewess, he sent for Paul, and heard him concerning the faith in Christ.
Ac 25:23 And on the morrow, when Agrippa was come, and Bernice, with great pomp, and was entered into the place of hearing, with <4862> the chief captains, and principal men of the city, at Festus’ commandment Paul was brought forth.
Ac 26:13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with <4862> me.
Ac 27:2 And entering into a ship of Adramyttium, we launched, meaning to sail by the coasts of Asia; one Aristarchus, a Macedonian of Thessalonica, being with <4862> us.
Ac 28:16 And when we came to Rome, the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard: but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with <4862> a soldier that kept him.

==Romans==

Ro 6:8 Now if we be dead with <4862> Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
Ro 8:32 He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with <4862> him also freely give us all things?
Ro 16:14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with <4862> them.
Ro 16:15 Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with <4862> them.
1Co 1:2 Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with <4862> all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:
1Co 5:4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with <4862> the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,
1Co 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with <4862> the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.
1Co 11:32 But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with <4862> the world.
1Co 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with <4862> me.
1Co 16:4 And if it be meet that I go also, they shall go with <4862> me.
1Co 16:19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with <4862> the church that is in their house.
2Co 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, and Timothy our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth, with <4862> all the saints which are in all Achaia:
2Co 1:21 Now he which stablisheth us with <4862> you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God;
2Co 4:14 Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with <4862> you.
2Co 8:19 And not that only, but who was also chosen of the churches to travel with us with <4862> this grace, which is administered by us to the glory of the same Lord, and declaration of your ready mind:
2Co 9:4 Lest haply if they of Macedonia come with <4862> me, and find you unprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this same confident boasting.
2Co 13:4 For though he was crucified through weakness, yet he liveth by the power of God. For we also are weak in him, but we shall live with <4862> him by the power of God toward you.
Ga 1:2 And all the brethren which are with <4862> me, unto the churches of Galatia:
Ga 2:3 But neither Titus, who was with <4862> me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised:
Ga 3:9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with <4862> faithful Abraham.
Ga 5:24 And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with <4862> the affections and lusts.
Eph 3:18 May be able to comprehend with <4862> all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;
Eph 4:31 Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with <4862> all malice:
Php 1:1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with <4862> the bishops and deacons:
Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with <4862> Christ; which is far better:
Php 2:22 But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with <4862> me in the gospel.
Php 4:21 Salute every saint in Christ Jesus. The brethren which are with <4862> me greet you.
Col 2:5 For though I be absent in the flesh, yet am I with <4862> you in the spirit, joying and beholding your order, and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ.
Col 2:13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with <4862> him, having forgiven you all trespasses;
Col 2:20 Wherefore if ye be dead with <4862> Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances,
Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with <4862> Christ in God.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with <4862> him in glory.
Col 3:4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with <4862> him in glory.
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with <4862> his deeds;
Col 4:9 With <4862> Onesimus, a faithful and beloved brother, who is one of you. They shall make known unto you all things which are done here.
1Th 4:14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with <4862> him.
1Th 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with <4862> them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with <4862> the Lord.
1Th 5:10 Who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with <4862> him.
Jas 1:11 For the sun is no sooner risen with <4862> a burning heat, but it withereth the grass, and the flower thereof falleth, and the grace of the fashion of it perisheth: so also shall the rich man fade away in his ways.
2Pe 1:18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with <4862> him in the holy mount.

4862

2011-01-19T23:09:08Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''4862''' συν ''sun soon''

a primary preposition denoting union; [[Preposition]]

[[AV]]-with 123, beside 1, accompany + [[2064]] 1; 125

:'''1)''' with

==See Also==

* [[Scriptures Containing 4862]]

4862

2011-01-19T23:08:38Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: '''4862''' συν ''sun soon'' a primary preposition denoting union; Preposition AV-with 123, beside 1, accompany + 2064 1; 125 :'''1)''' with

'''4862''' συν ''sun soon''

a primary preposition denoting union; [[Preposition]]

[[AV]]-with 123, beside 1, accompany + [[2064]] 1; 125

:'''1)''' with

Scriptures Containing 2839

2011-01-19T23:06:44Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Jude */

==Mark==

* [[Mark 7:2]] And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled <2839>, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault.

==Acts==

* [[Acts 2:44]] And all that believed were together, and had all things common <2839>;

* [[Acts 4:32]] And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common <2839>.

* [[Acts 10:14]] But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common <2839> or unclean.

* [[Acts 10:28]] And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common <2839> or unclean.

* [[Acts 11:8]] But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common <2839> or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.

==Romans==

* [[Romans 14:14]] I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean <2839> of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean <2839>, to him it is unclean <2839>.

==Titus==

* [[Titus 1:4]] To Titus, mine own son after the common <2839> faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.

==Hebrews==

* [[Hebrews 10:29]] Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing <2839>, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

==Jude==

* [[Jude 1:3]] Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common <2839> salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

==See Also==

* [[2839]]

Romans 14:14

2011-01-19T23:05:48Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: '''Romans 14:14''' I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

'''Romans 14:14''' I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.

Scriptures Containing 2839

2011-01-19T23:05:04Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: ==Mark== * Mark 7:2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled <2839>, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. ==Acts== * Acts 2:44 And all ...

2839

2011-01-19T23:02:45Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''2839''' κοινος ''koinos koy-nos’''

probably from [[4862]]; [[Adjective]]

[[AV]]-common 7, unclean 3, defiled 1, unholy 1; 12

:'''1)''' common
:'''2)''' common i.e. ordinary, belonging to generality
::2a) by the Jews, unhallowed, profane, Levitically unclean

==See Also==

* [[Scriptures Containing 2839]]

2839

2011-01-19T23:02:12Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: '''2839''' κοινος ''koinos koy-nos’'' probably from 4862; Adjective AV-common 7, unclean 3, defiled 1, unholy 1; 12 :'''1)''' common :'''2)''' common i.e. ordinar...

Koine Greek

2011-01-19T22:50:57Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''Koine Greek''' (Ελληνιστική Κοινή[1] "Hellenistic common [language]"; or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect", also simply called ''koine'' "common [language]", besides "Alexandrian dialect", "common Attic" or "Hellenistic Greek") is the popular form of the [[Greek language]] spoken throughout post-[[Classical antiquity]] (c.[[300 BC]] – [[300 AD|AD 300]]), developing from the [[Attic dialect]], with admixture of elements especially from [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].

Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a ''[[lingua franca]]'' for the [[eastern Mediterranean]] and [[Near East]] throughout the [[Roman Empire|Roman period]].

It is also the language of the [[Septuagint]] (the Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]]) and of the [[Christian Bible|Christian]] [[New Testament]].[] Koine is the main ancestor of [[modern Greek]].
As the language of the New Testament and of the [[Church Fathers]], Koine Greek is also known as Biblical, Patristic or New Testament Greek.[][]

==Name==
'''Koinḗ''' (Κοινή), Greek for "common", is a term which had been previously applied by ancient scholars to several forms of Greek speech. A school of scholars such as [[Apollonius Dyscolus]] and [[Aelius Herodianus]] maintained the term ''Koine'' to refer to the [[Proto-Greek language]], while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed from the literary language.<ref name=andriotes/> When ''Koine'' gradually became a language of literature, some people distinguished it in two forms: ''Hellenic'' (Greek) as the literary post-classical form, and ''Koine'' (common) as the spoken popular form.[] Others chose to refer to ''Koine'' as the ''Alexandrian dialect'' (Περὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου) or ''the dialect of [[Alexandria]]'', a term often used by modern classicists.

==Origins and history==
Koine Greek arose as a common dialect within the armies of [[Alexander the Great]].[] Under the leadership of [[Macedon]], which colonized the known world, their newly formed common dialect was spoken from [[Ptolemaic Egypt|Egypt]] to [[Seleucid Empire|Mesopotamia]].[] Though elements of Koine Greek took shape during the [[Classical Greece|Classical Era]], the post-Classical period of Greek is defined as beginning with the death of [[Alexander the Great]] in [[323 BC]], when cultures under [[Hellenistic era|Hellenistic]] sway in turn began to influence the language.
The passage into the next period, known as [[Medieval Greek]], dates from the foundation of [[Constantinople]] by [[Constantine I]] in [[330 AD|330]]. The post-Classical period of Greek thus refers to the creation and evolution of Koine Greek throughout the entire Hellenistic and Roman eras of history until the start of the Middle Ages.[]

The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the [[Hellenistic]] age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main [[Ancient Greek]] dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by [[Paul Kretschmer]] in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while [[Ulrich Wilamowitz]] and [[Antoine Meillet]], based on the intense Ionic elements of the Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].[] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[] In that respect, the varieties of Koine spoken in the [[Ionia]]n colonies of [[Asia Minor]] (e.g. [[Pontus]]) would have more intense [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] characteristics than others and those of Laconia and Cyprus would preserve some [[Doric dialect|Doric]] and [[Arcado-Cypriot]] characteristics, respectively etc. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as ''Common Attic''.[]

==Sources==
The first scholars who studied Koine, both in Alexandrian and contemporary times, were classicists whose prototype had been the literary [[Attic Greek|Attic]] language of the Classical period, and would frown upon any other kind of [[Ancient Greek|Hellenic]] speech. Koine Greek was therefore considered a decayed form of Greek which was not worthy of attention.[] The reconsideration on the historical and linguistic importance of Koine Greek began only in the early 19th century, where renowned scholars conducted a series of studies on the evolution of Koine throughout the entire [[Hellenistic]] and Roman period which it covered. The sources used on the studies of Koine have been numerous and of unequal reliability. The most significant ones are the inscriptions of the post-Classical periods and the [[papyrus|papyri]], for being two kinds of texts which have authentic content and can be studied directly.[] Other significant sources are the [[Septuagint]], the somewhat literal Greek translation of the [[Old Testament]], and the [[New Testament]], parts of which may have been translated from the [[Hebrew Gospel]] by Jerome (or others) using similar rules to the Septuagint translators. The teaching of the Testaments was aimed at the most common people, and for that reason they use the most popular language of the era. Information can also be derived from some [[Atticism|Atticist]] scholars of the [[Hellenistic]] and Roman periods, who, in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" [[Attic Greek|Attic]] against the "wrong" Koine by citing examples. For example, [[Phrynichus Arabius]] during the 2nd century AD wrote:

{{quote|Βασίλισσα οὐδείς τῶν Ἀρχαίων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ βασίλεια ἢ βασιλίς. ''Basilissa'' (Queen) none of the Ancients said, but ''Basileia'' or ''Basilis''. Διωρία ἑσχάτως ἀδόκιμον, ἀντ' αυτοῦ δὲ προθεσμίαν ἐρεῖς. ''Dioria'' (deadline) is badly illiteral, instead use ''Prothesmia''. Πάντοτε μὴ λέγε, ἀλλὰ ἑκάστοτε καὶ διὰ παντός. Do not say ''Pantote'' (always), but ''Hekastote'' and ''Dia pantos''.}}

Other sources can be based on random findings such as inscriptions on vases written by popular painters, mistakes made by [[Atticism|Atticists]] due to their imperfect knowledge of pure [[Attic Greek|Attic]], or even some surviving Greco-Latin glossaries of the Roman period,[] e.g.:

{{quote|Καλήμερον, ἦλθες; Bono die, venisti? Good day, you came? Ἐὰν θέλεις, ἐλθὲ μεθ' ἡμῶν. Si vis, veni mecum. If you want, come with us (The Latin actually says with me, not us). Ποῦ; Ubi? Where?. Πρὸς φίλον ἡμέτερον Λεύκιον. Ad amicum nostrum Lucium. To our friend Lucius. Τί γὰρ ἔχει; Quid enim habet? Indeed, what does he have? What is it with him?. Ἀρρωστεῖ. Aegrotat. He's sick.}}

Finally, a very important source of information on the ancient Koine is the [[modern Greek]] language with all its dialects and its own ''Koine'' form, which have preserved some of the ancient language's oral linguistic details which the written tradition has lost. For example the [[Pontic language|Pontic]] and [[Cappadocian Greek language|Cappadocian]] dialects preserved the ancient pronunciation of η as ε (νύφε, συνέλικος, τίμεσον, πεγάδι etc.), while the [[Tsakonic]] preserved the long α instead of η (ἁμέρα, ἀστραπά, λίμνα, χοά etc.) and the other local characteristics of [[Doric Greek|Laconic]].[] Dialects from the Southern part of the Greek-speaking regions ([[Dodecanese]], [[Cyprus]] etc.), preserve the pronunciation of the double similar consonants (ἄλ-λος, Ἑλ-λάδα, θάλασ-σα), while others pronounce in many words υ as ου or preserve ancient double forms (κρόμμυον — κρεμ-μυον, ράξ — ρώξ etc.). Linguistic phenomena like the above imply that those characteristics survived within Koine, which in turn had countless variations in the Greek-speaking world.[]

==Types==
===Biblical Koine===
"Biblical Koine" refers to the varieties of Koine Greek used in the Christian Bible and related texts. Its main sources are:
* the [[Septuagint]], supposed to be a 3rd century BC Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]] which included the [[Deuterocanon]]. Most of the texts are translations, but there are some portions and texts composed in [[Greek language|Greek]]. [[Ben Sira|Sirach]], for instance, has not been found in Hebrew;
* the [[New Testament]], compiled originally in Greek according to the dominant theory of [[Greek primacy]] (although some books may have had a Hebrew-Aramaic [[Substratum#Substratum|substrate]] and contain some Semitic influence on the language, see also [[Aramaic of Jesus]]).

====Septuagint Greek====
There has been some debate to what degree Biblical Greek represents the mainstream of contemporary spoken Koine and to what extent it contains specifically [[Semitic languages|Semitic]] [[substratum]] features (''cf.'' [[Aramaic primacy]]). These could have been induced either through the practice of translating closely from [[Biblical Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] originals, or through the influence of the regional non-standard [[Hellenistic Judaism|Greek spoken by the originally Aramaic-speaking Jews]]. Some of the features discussed in this context are the Septuagint's normative absence of the particles μέν and δέ, and the use of ἐγένετο to denote "it came to pass." Some features of Biblical Greek which are thought to have originally been non-standard elements eventually found their way into the main of the Greek language.

====New Testament Greek====
The Greek of the New Testament is less distinctively Semitic than that of the Septuagint, partly because it appeared 300 years later and partly because it is largely a de novo composition in Greek, not primarily a translation from [[Biblical Hebrew]] and [[Biblical Aramaic]].[]

===Patristic Greek===
The term ''Patristic Greek'' is sometimes used for the Greek written by the [[Church Fathers]], the [[Early Christian]] theologians in late antiquity. Christian writers in the earliest time tended to use a simple register of Koiné, relatively close to the spoken language of their time, following the model of the Bible. After the 4th century, when [[State church of the Roman Empire|Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire]], more learned registers of Koiné influenced by Atticism came also to be used.[]

==Differences between Attic and Koine Greek==
The study of all sources from the six centuries which are symbolically covered by Koine reveals linguistic changes from [[ancient Greek]] on elements of the spoken language including:
* [[grammar]] - accidence and syntax,
* [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] - word formation
* [[vocabulary]]
* [[phonology]] - pronunciation
Most new forms start off as rare and gradually become more frequent until they are established. From the linguistic changes which took place in Koine, Greek gained such a resemblance to its [[Medieval Greek|medieval]] and [[Modern Greek|modern]] successors that almost all characteristics of modern Greek can be traced in the surviving texts of Koine.[] As most of the changes between modern and ancient Greek were introduced via Koine, Koine is largely intelligible to speakers of the modern language.

===Differences in grammar===
''See Also [[Koine Greek grammar]]''

===Phonology===
''See Also [[Koine Greek phonology|Ancient Greek phonology|Modern Greek phonology]]''

During the period generally designated as "Koine" Greek, a great deal of phonological change occurred: at the start of the period, the pronunciation was virtually identical to [[Ancient Greek phonology]], whereas in the end it had much more in common with [[Modern Greek phonology]].

The three most significant changes were the loss of vowel length distinction, the substitution of the pitch accent system with a stress accent system, and the monophthongization of several diphthongs:
*The ancient distinction between long and short vowels was gradually lost, and from the 2nd century BC all vowels were isochronic.[]

*Since the 2nd century BC, the means of accenting words changed from [[Pitch accent|pitch]] to [[Stress (phonology)|stress]], meaning that the accented syllable is not pronounced in a musical tone but louder and/or stronger.[]

*The [[Spiritus asper|aspirate breathing]] ([[aspiration (phonetics)|aspiration]]), which was already lost in the [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] varieties of [[Asia Minor]] and the [[Aeolic Greek|Aeolic]] of [[Lesbos Island|Lesbos]], stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The ι in long diphthongs (those with the long vowels: ᾱͅ, ῃ, ῳ) stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The diphthongs αι, ει, and οι became single vowels. In this manner 'αι', which had already been converted by the Boeotians into a long ε since the 4th century BC and written η (e.g. {{Polytonic|πῆς, χῆρε, μέμφομη}}), became in Koine, too, first a long ε and then short. The diphthong 'ει' had already merged with ι in the 5th century BC in regions such as [[Argos]] or in the 4th c. BC in [[Corinth]] (e.g. {{Polytonic|ΛΕΓΙΣ}}), and it acquired this pronunciation also in Koine. The diphthong 'οι' acquired the pronunciation of the modern [[French language|French]] 'U' ({{IPAblink|y}}), which lasted until the 10th century AD. The diphthong 'υι' came to be pronounced {{IPA|[yj]}}, and remained pronounced as a diphthong. The diphthong 'ου' had already acquired the pronunciation of [[Latin]] 'U' since the 6th century BC and preserved it in modern times.[]

*The diphthongs αυ and ευ came to be pronounced [av] and [ev] (via [aβ], [eβ]), but are partly [[Assimilation (linguistics)|assimilated]] to [af], [ef] before the [[voiceless consonant]]s θ, κ, ξ, π, σ, τ, φ, χ, and ψ.<ref name=andriotes/>

*Simple vowels have preserved their ancient pronunciations, except η which is pronounced as ι, and υ, which retained the pronunciation {{IPA|[y]}} of modern [[French language|French]] 'U' only until the 10th c. AD, and was later also pronounced as ι. With those changes in phonology there were common spelling mistakes between υ and οι, while the sound of ι was multiplied ([[iotacism]]).<ref name=andriotes/>

*The consonants also preserved their ancient pronunciations to a great extent, except β, γ, δ, φ, θ, χ and ζ. Β, Γ, Δ (Beta, Gamma, Delta), which were originally pronounced {{IPA|[b, ɡ, d]}}, acquired the sounds of ''v, gh,'' and ''dh'' ({{IPA|[v]}} (via {{IPAblink|β}}), {{IPAblink|ɣ}}, {{IPAblink|ð}}), which they still have today, except when preceded by a nasal consonant (μ, ν); in that case, they retain their ancient sounds (e.g. {{Polytonic|γαμβρός — γαmbρός, άνδρας — άndρας, άγγελος — άŋgελος}}). The latter three (Φ, Θ, Χ), which were initially pronounced as [[Aspirated consonant|aspirate]]s ({{IPA|/pʰ/}}, {{IPA|/tʰ/}} and {{IPA|/kʰ/}} respectively), developed into the fricatives {{IPA|[f]}} (via {{IPA|[ɸ]}}), {{IPA|[θ]}}, and {{IPA|[x]}}. Finally the letter Ζ, which is still categorised as a double consonant with ξ and ψ, because it was initially pronounced as σδ (sd), later acquired the sound of Z as it appears in [[Modern English]] and [[Modern Greek|Greek]].<ref name=andriotes/>

'''New Testament Greek Phonology'''
The Koine Greek in the table represents a reconstruction of New Testament Koine Greek, deriving to some degree from the dialect spoken in Judaea and Galilaea during the 1st century and similar to the dialect spoken in Alexandria, Egypt. Note the realizations of certain phonemes differ from the more standard Attic dialect of Koine. Note the soft fricative "β" in intervocalic position, the preservation of the aspirated plosive value of "ph", "th" and "kh", the preservation of a distinction between the four front vowels "i", "ē", "e", and "y" (which is still rounded), and other features.

{|class="wikitable" style="background:white"
|-
|'''letter'''|| '''Greek''' || Transliteration || '''[[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]'''
|-
|Alpha||α||a||{{IPA|ɑ}}
|-
|Beta||β (-β-)||b||{{IPA|b (-β-)}}
|-
|Gamma||γ||g||{{IPA|ɣ}}
|-
|Delta||δ||d||{{IPA|d}}
|-
|Epsilon||ε||e||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
|Zeta||ζ||z||{{IPA|zː}}
|-
|Eta||η||ē||{{IPA|e}}
|-
|Theta||θ||th||{{IPA|tʰ}}
|-
|Iota||ι||i||{{IPA|i}}
|-
|Kappa||κ||k||{{IPA|k}}
|-
|Lambda||λ||l||{{IPA|l}}
|-
|Mu||μ||m||{{IPA|m}}
|-
|Nu||ν||n||{{IPA|n}}
|-
|Xi||ξ||x||{{IPA|ks}}
|-
|Omicron||ο||o||{{IPA|o}}
|-
|Pi|| π||p||{{IPA|p}}
|-
|Rho||ρ||r||{{IPA|ɾ}}
|-
|Sigma||σ (-σ-/-σσ-)||s (-s-/-ss-)||{{IPA|s (-z-/-sː-)}}
|-
|Tau||τ||t||{{IPA|t}}
|-
|Upsilon||υ||y||{{IPA|y}}
|-
|Phi||φ||ph||{{IPA|pʰ}}
|-
|Chi||χ||ch||{{IPA|kʰ}}
|-
|Psi||ψ||ps||{{IPA|ps}}
|-
|Omega||ω||ō||{{IPA|o}}
|-
| . ||αι||ai||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
| . ||ει||ei||{{IPA|i}}
|-
| . ||οι||oi||{{IPA|y}}
|-
| . ||αυ||au||{{IPA|ɑw}}
|-
| . ||ευ||eu||{{IPA|ɛw}}
|-
| . ||ηυ||ēu||{{IPA|ew}}
|-
| . ||ου||ou||{{IPA|u}}
|}

==Sample Koine texts ==
The following texts show differences from Attic Greek in all aspects - grammar, morphology, vocabulary and can be inferred to show differences in phonology.

The following comments illustrate the phonological development within the period of Koine. The phonetic transcriptions are tentative, and are intended to illustrate two different stages in the reconstructed development, an early conservative variety still relatively close to Classical Attic, and a somewhat later, more progressive variety approaching Modern Greek in some respects.

===Sample 1 - A Roman Decree===
The following excerpt, from a decree of the Roman Senate to the town of Thisbae in [[Boeotia]] in 170 BC, is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a hypothetical conservative variety of mainland Greek Koiné in the early Hellenistic era.<ref>G. Horrocks (1997), ''Greek: A history of the language and its speakers'', p. 87), cf. also pp. 105-109.</ref> The transcription shows partial, but not yet completed raising of η and ει to /i/, retention of pitch accent, fricativization of γ to /j/ {{Clarify|June 2009|reason=/j/ is not a fricative, /ɣ/ would be, but anyway neither appear in the following IPA transcription, only /ɡ/ does|date=June 2009}} but no fricativisation of the other stops as yet, and retention of word-initial /h/.

{{quote|περὶ ὧν Θισ[β]εῖς λόγους ἐποιήσαντο· περὶ τῶν καθ᾿αὑ[τ]οὺς πραγμάτων, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐνέμειναν, ὅπως αὐτοῖς δοθῶσιν [ο]ἷς τὰ καθ᾿ αὑτοὺς πράγματα ἐξηγήσωνται, περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος οὕτως ἔδοξεν· ὅπως Κόιντος Μαίνιος στρατηγὸς τῶν ἐκ τῆς συνκλήτου [π]έντε ἀποτάξῃ οἳ ἂν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων πρα[γμ]άτων καὶ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεων φαίνωνται. ˈperì hôːn tʰizbîːs lóɡuːs epojéːsanto; perì tôːn katʰ hautùːs praɡmátoːn, hoítines en tîː pʰilíaːi tîː heːmetéraːi enémiːnan, hópoːs autoîs dotʰôːsin hoîs tà katʰ hautùːs práɡmata ekseːɡéːsoːntai, perì túːtuː tûː práɡmatos húːtoːs édoksen; hópoːs ˈkʷintos ˈmainios strateːɡòs tôːn ek têːs syŋkléːtuː pénte apotáksiː, hoì àn autôːi ek tôːn deːmosíoːn praɡmátoːn kaì têːs idíaːs písteoːs pʰaínoːntai Concerning those matters about which the citizens of Thisbae made representations. Concerning their own affairs: the following decision was taken concerning the proposal that those who remained true to our friendship should be given the facilities to conduct their own affairs; that our governor Quintus Maenius should delegate five members of the senate who seemed to him suitable in the light of their public actions and individual good faith.}}

===Sample 2 - Greek New Testament===
The following excerpt, the beginning of the [[Gospel of St John]], is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a progressive popular variety of Koiné in the early Christian era, with vowels approaching those of Modern Greek.<ref>Horrocks (1997: 94).</ref>

{{quote| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. ˈen arˈkʰi in o ˈloɣos, ke o ˈloɣos in bros to(n) tʰeˈo(n), ke tʰeˈos in o ˈloɣos. ˈutos in en arˈkʰi pros to(n) tʰeˈo(n). ˈpanda di aɸˈtu eˈjeneto, ke kʰoˈris aɸˈtu eˈjeneto ude ˈen o ˈjeɣonen. en aɸˈto zoˈi in, ke i zoˈi in to pʰos ton anˈtʰropon; ke to pʰos en di skoˈtia ˈpʰeni, ke i skoˈti(a) a(ɸ)ˈto u kaˈtelaβen In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.}}

===Sample 3 - Greek Old Testament ===
This is from the [[Septuagint|LXX]] version of [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]], dating to c. 150 BC. This Greek is the "Biblical Greek" discussed above. Note that because of literalness this text in many ways does not fit the Hellenistic Greek of the time, full of semiticisms.

{{quote|Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων. Μωυσῆς ὁ θεράπων μου τετελεύτηκεν· νῦν οὖν ἀναστὰς διάβηθι τὸν Ιορδάνην, σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς. πᾶς ὁ τόπος, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἐπιβῆτε τῷ ἴχνει τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δώσω αὐτόν, ὃν τρόπον εἴρηκα τῷ Μωυσῇ, τὴν ἔρημον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αντιλίβανον ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου, καὶ ἕως τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου δυσμῶν ἔσται τὰ ὅρια ὑμῶν. οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου, καὶ ὥσπερ ἤμην μετὰ Μωυσῆ, οὕτως ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε. ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου· σὺ γὰρ ἀποδιαστελεῖς τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ τὴν γῆν, ἣν ὤμοσα τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς. ἴσχυε οὖν καὶ ἀνδρίζου φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν καθότι ἐνετείλατό σοι Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς μου, καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά, ἵνα συνῇς ἐν πᾶσιν, οἷς ἐὰν πράσσῃς. καὶ οὐκ ἀποστήσεται ἡ βίβλος τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου, καὶ μελετήσεις ἐν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἵνα συνῇς ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα· τότε εὐοδωθήσῃ καὶ εὐοδώσεις τὰς ὁδούς σου καὶ τότε συνήσεις. ἰδοὺ ἐντέταλμαί σοι· ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου, μὴ δειλιάσῃς μηδὲ φοβηθῇς, ὅτι μετὰ σοῦ κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς πάντα, οὗ ἐὰν πορεύῃ. Καὶ ἐνετείλατο ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων. Εἰσέλθατε κατὰ μέσον τῆς παρεμβολῆς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐντείλασθε τῷ λαῷ λέγοντες ῾Ετοιμάζεσθε ἐπισιτισμόν, ὅτι ἔτι τρεῖς ἡμέραι καὶ ὑμεῖς διαβαίνετε τὸν Ιορδάνην τοῦτον εἰσελθόντες κατασχεῖν τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν. καὶ τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση εἶπεν ᾿Ιησοῦς. Μνήσθητε τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου, ὃ ἐνετείλατο ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου λέγων Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν κατέπαυσεν ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν γῆν ταύτην. αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ παιδία ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ κτήνη ὑμῶν κατοικείτωσαν ἐν τῇ γῇ, ᾗ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν· ὑμεῖς δὲ διαβήσεσθε εὔζωνοι πρότεροι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, πᾶς ὁ ἰσχύων, καὶ συμμαχήσετε αὐτοῖς, ἕως ἂν καταπαύσῃ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμᾶς καὶ κληρονομήσωσιν καὶ οὗτοι τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἀπελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ, ἣν δέδωκεν ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου. καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ εἶπαν Πάντα, ὅσα ἂν ἐντείλῃ ἡμῖν, ποιήσομεν καὶ εἰς πάντα τόπον, οὗ ἐὰν ἀποστείλῃς ἡμᾶς, πορευσόμεθα· κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν Μωυσῆ, ἀκουσόμεθα σοῦ, πλὴν ἔστω κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν μετὰ σοῦ, ὃν τρόπον ἦν μετὰ Μωυσῆ. ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν ἀπειθήσῃ σοι καὶ ὅστις μὴ ἀκούσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων σου καθότι ἂν αὐτῷ ἐντείλῃ, ἀποθανέτω. ἀλλὰ ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου.}}

==Further reading==
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Primer''. ISBN 0718892062
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Intermediate. From Morphology to Translation''. ISBN 0718892003

==Notes==

==References==
* Abel, F.-M. ''Grammaire du grec biblique''.
* Allen, W. Sidney, ''Vox Graeca: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Greek – 3rd ed.'', Cambridge University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-521-33555-8
* Andriotis, Nikolaos P. ''History of the Greek Language''
* Buth, Randall, ''[http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf {{polytonic|Ἡ κοινὴ προφορά}}: Koine Greek of Early Roman Period]''
* Conybeare, F.C. and Stock, St. George. ''Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes''.
* Smyth, Herbert Weir, ''Greek Grammar'', Harvard University Press, 1956. ISBN 0-674-36250-0

==External links==
*[http://greek-language.com Greek-Language.com] Dictionaries, manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and tools for applying linguistics to the study of Hellenistic Greek
*[http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html New Testament Greek Online]
*[http://www.poliskoine.com Polis Koine] A method to learn Koine Greek including a video of a class
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek Wikipedia article on Koine Greek]

[[Category:Koine Greek| ]]
[[Category:Ancient languages|Greek, Koine]]
[[Category:Hellenistic civilization]]
[[Category:Languages of ancient Macedonia]]
[[Category:Offshoots of the Macedonian Empire]]
[[Category:Standard languages|Greek, Koine]]

Koine Greek

2011-01-19T22:50:35Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''Koine Greek''' ({{lang-el|Ελληνιστική Κοινή[1]}} "Hellenistic common [language]"; or ἡ κοινὴ διάλεκτος, "the common dialect", also simply called ''koine'' "common [language]", besides "Alexandrian dialect", "common Attic" or "Hellenistic Greek") is the popular form of the [[Greek language]] spoken throughout post-[[Classical antiquity]] (c.[[300 BC]] – [[300 AD|AD 300]]), developing from the [[Attic dialect]], with admixture of elements especially from [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].

Koine was the first common supra-regional dialect in Greece and came to serve as a ''[[lingua franca]]'' for the [[eastern Mediterranean]] and [[Near East]] throughout the [[Roman Empire|Roman period]].

It is also the language of the [[Septuagint]] (the Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]]) and of the [[Christian Bible|Christian]] [[New Testament]].[] Koine is the main ancestor of [[modern Greek]].
As the language of the New Testament and of the [[Church Fathers]], Koine Greek is also known as Biblical, Patristic or New Testament Greek.[][]

==Name==
'''Koinḗ''' (Κοινή), Greek for "common", is a term which had been previously applied by ancient scholars to several forms of Greek speech. A school of scholars such as [[Apollonius Dyscolus]] and [[Aelius Herodianus]] maintained the term ''Koine'' to refer to the [[Proto-Greek language]], while others would use it to refer to any vernacular form of Greek speech which differed from the literary language.<ref name=andriotes/> When ''Koine'' gradually became a language of literature, some people distinguished it in two forms: ''Hellenic'' (Greek) as the literary post-classical form, and ''Koine'' (common) as the spoken popular form.[] Others chose to refer to ''Koine'' as the ''Alexandrian dialect'' (Περὶ τῆς Ἀλεξανδρέων διαλέκτου) or ''the dialect of [[Alexandria]]'', a term often used by modern classicists.

==Origins and history==
Koine Greek arose as a common dialect within the armies of [[Alexander the Great]].[] Under the leadership of [[Macedon]], which colonized the known world, their newly formed common dialect was spoken from [[Ptolemaic Egypt|Egypt]] to [[Seleucid Empire|Mesopotamia]].[] Though elements of Koine Greek took shape during the [[Classical Greece|Classical Era]], the post-Classical period of Greek is defined as beginning with the death of [[Alexander the Great]] in [[323 BC]], when cultures under [[Hellenistic era|Hellenistic]] sway in turn began to influence the language.
The passage into the next period, known as [[Medieval Greek]], dates from the foundation of [[Constantinople]] by [[Constantine I]] in [[330 AD|330]]. The post-Classical period of Greek thus refers to the creation and evolution of Koine Greek throughout the entire Hellenistic and Roman eras of history until the start of the Middle Ages.[]

The linguistic roots of the Common Greek dialect had been unclear since ancient times. During the [[Hellenistic]] age, most scholars thought of Koine as the result of the mixture of the four main [[Ancient Greek]] dialects, "ἡ ἐκ τῶν τεττάρων συνεστῶσα" (the composition of the Four). This view was supported in the early 20th century by [[Paul Kretschmer]] in his book "Die Entstehung der Koine" (1901), while [[Ulrich Wilamowitz]] and [[Antoine Meillet]], based on the intense Ionic elements of the Koine — such as σσ instead of ττ and ρσ instead of ρρ (θάλασσα — θάλαττα, ἀρσενικός — ἀρρενικός) — considered Koine to be a simplified form of [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]].[] The final answer which is academically accepted today was given by the Greek linguist G. N. Hatzidakis, who proved that, despite the "composition of the Four", the "stable nucleus" of Koine Greek is Attic. In other words, Koine Greek can be regarded as Attic with the admixture of elements especially from Ionic, but also from other dialects. The degree of importance of the non-Attic linguistic elements on Koine can vary depending on the region of the Hellenistic World.[] In that respect, the varieties of Koine spoken in the [[Ionia]]n colonies of [[Asia Minor]] (e.g. [[Pontus]]) would have more intense [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] characteristics than others and those of Laconia and Cyprus would preserve some [[Doric dialect|Doric]] and [[Arcado-Cypriot]] characteristics, respectively etc. The literary Koine of the Hellenistic age resembles Attic in such a degree that it is often mentioned as ''Common Attic''.[]

==Sources==
The first scholars who studied Koine, both in Alexandrian and contemporary times, were classicists whose prototype had been the literary [[Attic Greek|Attic]] language of the Classical period, and would frown upon any other kind of [[Ancient Greek|Hellenic]] speech. Koine Greek was therefore considered a decayed form of Greek which was not worthy of attention.[] The reconsideration on the historical and linguistic importance of Koine Greek began only in the early 19th century, where renowned scholars conducted a series of studies on the evolution of Koine throughout the entire [[Hellenistic]] and Roman period which it covered. The sources used on the studies of Koine have been numerous and of unequal reliability. The most significant ones are the inscriptions of the post-Classical periods and the [[papyrus|papyri]], for being two kinds of texts which have authentic content and can be studied directly.[] Other significant sources are the [[Septuagint]], the somewhat literal Greek translation of the [[Old Testament]], and the [[New Testament]], parts of which may have been translated from the [[Hebrew Gospel]] by Jerome (or others) using similar rules to the Septuagint translators. The teaching of the Testaments was aimed at the most common people, and for that reason they use the most popular language of the era. Information can also be derived from some [[Atticism|Atticist]] scholars of the [[Hellenistic]] and Roman periods, who, in order to fight the evolution of the language, published works which compared the supposedly "correct" [[Attic Greek|Attic]] against the "wrong" Koine by citing examples. For example, [[Phrynichus Arabius]] during the 2nd century AD wrote:

{{quote|Βασίλισσα οὐδείς τῶν Ἀρχαίων εἶπεν, ἀλλὰ βασίλεια ἢ βασιλίς. ''Basilissa'' (Queen) none of the Ancients said, but ''Basileia'' or ''Basilis''. Διωρία ἑσχάτως ἀδόκιμον, ἀντ' αυτοῦ δὲ προθεσμίαν ἐρεῖς. ''Dioria'' (deadline) is badly illiteral, instead use ''Prothesmia''. Πάντοτε μὴ λέγε, ἀλλὰ ἑκάστοτε καὶ διὰ παντός. Do not say ''Pantote'' (always), but ''Hekastote'' and ''Dia pantos''.}}

Other sources can be based on random findings such as inscriptions on vases written by popular painters, mistakes made by [[Atticism|Atticists]] due to their imperfect knowledge of pure [[Attic Greek|Attic]], or even some surviving Greco-Latin glossaries of the Roman period,[] e.g.:

{{quote|Καλήμερον, ἦλθες; Bono die, venisti? Good day, you came? Ἐὰν θέλεις, ἐλθὲ μεθ' ἡμῶν. Si vis, veni mecum. If you want, come with us (The Latin actually says with me, not us). Ποῦ; Ubi? Where?. Πρὸς φίλον ἡμέτερον Λεύκιον. Ad amicum nostrum Lucium. To our friend Lucius. Τί γὰρ ἔχει; Quid enim habet? Indeed, what does he have? What is it with him?. Ἀρρωστεῖ. Aegrotat. He's sick.}}

Finally, a very important source of information on the ancient Koine is the [[modern Greek]] language with all its dialects and its own ''Koine'' form, which have preserved some of the ancient language's oral linguistic details which the written tradition has lost. For example the [[Pontic language|Pontic]] and [[Cappadocian Greek language|Cappadocian]] dialects preserved the ancient pronunciation of η as ε (νύφε, συνέλικος, τίμεσον, πεγάδι etc.), while the [[Tsakonic]] preserved the long α instead of η (ἁμέρα, ἀστραπά, λίμνα, χοά etc.) and the other local characteristics of [[Doric Greek|Laconic]].[] Dialects from the Southern part of the Greek-speaking regions ([[Dodecanese]], [[Cyprus]] etc.), preserve the pronunciation of the double similar consonants (ἄλ-λος, Ἑλ-λάδα, θάλασ-σα), while others pronounce in many words υ as ου or preserve ancient double forms (κρόμμυον — κρεμ-μυον, ράξ — ρώξ etc.). Linguistic phenomena like the above imply that those characteristics survived within Koine, which in turn had countless variations in the Greek-speaking world.[]

==Types==
===Biblical Koine===
"Biblical Koine" refers to the varieties of Koine Greek used in the Christian Bible and related texts. Its main sources are:
* the [[Septuagint]], supposed to be a 3rd century BC Greek translation of the [[Hebrew Bible]] which included the [[Deuterocanon]]. Most of the texts are translations, but there are some portions and texts composed in [[Greek language|Greek]]. [[Ben Sira|Sirach]], for instance, has not been found in Hebrew;
* the [[New Testament]], compiled originally in Greek according to the dominant theory of [[Greek primacy]] (although some books may have had a Hebrew-Aramaic [[Substratum#Substratum|substrate]] and contain some Semitic influence on the language, see also [[Aramaic of Jesus]]).

====Septuagint Greek====
There has been some debate to what degree Biblical Greek represents the mainstream of contemporary spoken Koine and to what extent it contains specifically [[Semitic languages|Semitic]] [[substratum]] features (''cf.'' [[Aramaic primacy]]). These could have been induced either through the practice of translating closely from [[Biblical Hebrew language|Hebrew]] or [[Aramaic language|Aramaic]] originals, or through the influence of the regional non-standard [[Hellenistic Judaism|Greek spoken by the originally Aramaic-speaking Jews]]. Some of the features discussed in this context are the Septuagint's normative absence of the particles μέν and δέ, and the use of ἐγένετο to denote "it came to pass." Some features of Biblical Greek which are thought to have originally been non-standard elements eventually found their way into the main of the Greek language.

====New Testament Greek====
The Greek of the New Testament is less distinctively Semitic than that of the Septuagint, partly because it appeared 300 years later and partly because it is largely a de novo composition in Greek, not primarily a translation from [[Biblical Hebrew]] and [[Biblical Aramaic]].[]

===Patristic Greek===
The term ''Patristic Greek'' is sometimes used for the Greek written by the [[Church Fathers]], the [[Early Christian]] theologians in late antiquity. Christian writers in the earliest time tended to use a simple register of Koiné, relatively close to the spoken language of their time, following the model of the Bible. After the 4th century, when [[State church of the Roman Empire|Christianity became the official state religion of the Roman Empire]], more learned registers of Koiné influenced by Atticism came also to be used.[]

==Differences between Attic and Koine Greek==
The study of all sources from the six centuries which are symbolically covered by Koine reveals linguistic changes from [[ancient Greek]] on elements of the spoken language including:
* [[grammar]] - accidence and syntax,
* [[morphology (linguistics)|morphology]] - word formation
* [[vocabulary]]
* [[phonology]] - pronunciation
Most new forms start off as rare and gradually become more frequent until they are established. From the linguistic changes which took place in Koine, Greek gained such a resemblance to its [[Medieval Greek|medieval]] and [[Modern Greek|modern]] successors that almost all characteristics of modern Greek can be traced in the surviving texts of Koine.[] As most of the changes between modern and ancient Greek were introduced via Koine, Koine is largely intelligible to speakers of the modern language.

===Differences in grammar===
''See Also [[Koine Greek grammar]]''

===Phonology===
''See Also [[Koine Greek phonology|Ancient Greek phonology|Modern Greek phonology]]''

During the period generally designated as "Koine" Greek, a great deal of phonological change occurred: at the start of the period, the pronunciation was virtually identical to [[Ancient Greek phonology]], whereas in the end it had much more in common with [[Modern Greek phonology]].

The three most significant changes were the loss of vowel length distinction, the substitution of the pitch accent system with a stress accent system, and the monophthongization of several diphthongs:
*The ancient distinction between long and short vowels was gradually lost, and from the 2nd century BC all vowels were isochronic.[]

*Since the 2nd century BC, the means of accenting words changed from [[Pitch accent|pitch]] to [[Stress (phonology)|stress]], meaning that the accented syllable is not pronounced in a musical tone but louder and/or stronger.[]

*The [[Spiritus asper|aspirate breathing]] ([[aspiration (phonetics)|aspiration]]), which was already lost in the [[Ionic Greek|Ionic]] varieties of [[Asia Minor]] and the [[Aeolic Greek|Aeolic]] of [[Lesbos Island|Lesbos]], stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The ι in long diphthongs (those with the long vowels: ᾱͅ, ῃ, ῳ) stopped being pronounced and written in popular texts.[]

*The diphthongs αι, ει, and οι became single vowels. In this manner 'αι', which had already been converted by the Boeotians into a long ε since the 4th century BC and written η (e.g. {{Polytonic|πῆς, χῆρε, μέμφομη}}), became in Koine, too, first a long ε and then short. The diphthong 'ει' had already merged with ι in the 5th century BC in regions such as [[Argos]] or in the 4th c. BC in [[Corinth]] (e.g. {{Polytonic|ΛΕΓΙΣ}}), and it acquired this pronunciation also in Koine. The diphthong 'οι' acquired the pronunciation of the modern [[French language|French]] 'U' ({{IPAblink|y}}), which lasted until the 10th century AD. The diphthong 'υι' came to be pronounced {{IPA|[yj]}}, and remained pronounced as a diphthong. The diphthong 'ου' had already acquired the pronunciation of [[Latin]] 'U' since the 6th century BC and preserved it in modern times.[]

*The diphthongs αυ and ευ came to be pronounced [av] and [ev] (via [aβ], [eβ]), but are partly [[Assimilation (linguistics)|assimilated]] to [af], [ef] before the [[voiceless consonant]]s θ, κ, ξ, π, σ, τ, φ, χ, and ψ.<ref name=andriotes/>

*Simple vowels have preserved their ancient pronunciations, except η which is pronounced as ι, and υ, which retained the pronunciation {{IPA|[y]}} of modern [[French language|French]] 'U' only until the 10th c. AD, and was later also pronounced as ι. With those changes in phonology there were common spelling mistakes between υ and οι, while the sound of ι was multiplied ([[iotacism]]).<ref name=andriotes/>

*The consonants also preserved their ancient pronunciations to a great extent, except β, γ, δ, φ, θ, χ and ζ. Β, Γ, Δ (Beta, Gamma, Delta), which were originally pronounced {{IPA|[b, ɡ, d]}}, acquired the sounds of ''v, gh,'' and ''dh'' ({{IPA|[v]}} (via {{IPAblink|β}}), {{IPAblink|ɣ}}, {{IPAblink|ð}}), which they still have today, except when preceded by a nasal consonant (μ, ν); in that case, they retain their ancient sounds (e.g. {{Polytonic|γαμβρός — γαmbρός, άνδρας — άndρας, άγγελος — άŋgελος}}). The latter three (Φ, Θ, Χ), which were initially pronounced as [[Aspirated consonant|aspirate]]s ({{IPA|/pʰ/}}, {{IPA|/tʰ/}} and {{IPA|/kʰ/}} respectively), developed into the fricatives {{IPA|[f]}} (via {{IPA|[ɸ]}}), {{IPA|[θ]}}, and {{IPA|[x]}}. Finally the letter Ζ, which is still categorised as a double consonant with ξ and ψ, because it was initially pronounced as σδ (sd), later acquired the sound of Z as it appears in [[Modern English]] and [[Modern Greek|Greek]].<ref name=andriotes/>

'''New Testament Greek Phonology'''
The Koine Greek in the table represents a reconstruction of New Testament Koine Greek, deriving to some degree from the dialect spoken in Judaea and Galilaea during the 1st century and similar to the dialect spoken in Alexandria, Egypt. Note the realizations of certain phonemes differ from the more standard Attic dialect of Koine. Note the soft fricative "β" in intervocalic position, the preservation of the aspirated plosive value of "ph", "th" and "kh", the preservation of a distinction between the four front vowels "i", "ē", "e", and "y" (which is still rounded), and other features.

{|class="wikitable" style="background:white"
|-
|'''letter'''|| '''Greek''' || Transliteration || '''[[International Phonetic Alphabet|IPA]]'''
|-
|Alpha||α||a||{{IPA|ɑ}}
|-
|Beta||β (-β-)||b||{{IPA|b (-β-)}}
|-
|Gamma||γ||g||{{IPA|ɣ}}
|-
|Delta||δ||d||{{IPA|d}}
|-
|Epsilon||ε||e||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
|Zeta||ζ||z||{{IPA|zː}}
|-
|Eta||η||ē||{{IPA|e}}
|-
|Theta||θ||th||{{IPA|tʰ}}
|-
|Iota||ι||i||{{IPA|i}}
|-
|Kappa||κ||k||{{IPA|k}}
|-
|Lambda||λ||l||{{IPA|l}}
|-
|Mu||μ||m||{{IPA|m}}
|-
|Nu||ν||n||{{IPA|n}}
|-
|Xi||ξ||x||{{IPA|ks}}
|-
|Omicron||ο||o||{{IPA|o}}
|-
|Pi|| π||p||{{IPA|p}}
|-
|Rho||ρ||r||{{IPA|ɾ}}
|-
|Sigma||σ (-σ-/-σσ-)||s (-s-/-ss-)||{{IPA|s (-z-/-sː-)}}
|-
|Tau||τ||t||{{IPA|t}}
|-
|Upsilon||υ||y||{{IPA|y}}
|-
|Phi||φ||ph||{{IPA|pʰ}}
|-
|Chi||χ||ch||{{IPA|kʰ}}
|-
|Psi||ψ||ps||{{IPA|ps}}
|-
|Omega||ω||ō||{{IPA|o}}
|-
| . ||αι||ai||{{IPA|ɛ}}
|-
| . ||ει||ei||{{IPA|i}}
|-
| . ||οι||oi||{{IPA|y}}
|-
| . ||αυ||au||{{IPA|ɑw}}
|-
| . ||ευ||eu||{{IPA|ɛw}}
|-
| . ||ηυ||ēu||{{IPA|ew}}
|-
| . ||ου||ou||{{IPA|u}}
|}

==Sample Koine texts ==
The following texts show differences from Attic Greek in all aspects - grammar, morphology, vocabulary and can be inferred to show differences in phonology.

The following comments illustrate the phonological development within the period of Koine. The phonetic transcriptions are tentative, and are intended to illustrate two different stages in the reconstructed development, an early conservative variety still relatively close to Classical Attic, and a somewhat later, more progressive variety approaching Modern Greek in some respects.

===Sample 1 - A Roman Decree===
The following excerpt, from a decree of the Roman Senate to the town of Thisbae in [[Boeotia]] in 170 BC, is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a hypothetical conservative variety of mainland Greek Koiné in the early Hellenistic era.<ref>G. Horrocks (1997), ''Greek: A history of the language and its speakers'', p. 87), cf. also pp. 105-109.</ref> The transcription shows partial, but not yet completed raising of η and ει to /i/, retention of pitch accent, fricativization of γ to /j/ {{Clarify|June 2009|reason=/j/ is not a fricative, /ɣ/ would be, but anyway neither appear in the following IPA transcription, only /ɡ/ does|date=June 2009}} but no fricativisation of the other stops as yet, and retention of word-initial /h/.

{{quote|περὶ ὧν Θισ[β]εῖς λόγους ἐποιήσαντο· περὶ τῶν καθ᾿αὑ[τ]οὺς πραγμάτων, οἵτινες ἐν τῇ φιλίᾳ τῇ ἡμετέρᾳ ἐνέμειναν, ὅπως αὐτοῖς δοθῶσιν [ο]ἷς τὰ καθ᾿ αὑτοὺς πράγματα ἐξηγήσωνται, περὶ τούτου τοῦ πράγματος οὕτως ἔδοξεν· ὅπως Κόιντος Μαίνιος στρατηγὸς τῶν ἐκ τῆς συνκλήτου [π]έντε ἀποτάξῃ οἳ ἂν αὐτῷ ἐκ τῶν δημοσίων πρα[γμ]άτων καὶ τῆς ἰδίας πίστεων φαίνωνται. ˈperì hôːn tʰizbîːs lóɡuːs epojéːsanto; perì tôːn katʰ hautùːs praɡmátoːn, hoítines en tîː pʰilíaːi tîː heːmetéraːi enémiːnan, hópoːs autoîs dotʰôːsin hoîs tà katʰ hautùːs práɡmata ekseːɡéːsoːntai, perì túːtuː tûː práɡmatos húːtoːs édoksen; hópoːs ˈkʷintos ˈmainios strateːɡòs tôːn ek têːs syŋkléːtuː pénte apotáksiː, hoì àn autôːi ek tôːn deːmosíoːn praɡmátoːn kaì têːs idíaːs písteoːs pʰaínoːntai Concerning those matters about which the citizens of Thisbae made representations. Concerning their own affairs: the following decision was taken concerning the proposal that those who remained true to our friendship should be given the facilities to conduct their own affairs; that our governor Quintus Maenius should delegate five members of the senate who seemed to him suitable in the light of their public actions and individual good faith.}}

===Sample 2 - Greek New Testament===
The following excerpt, the beginning of the [[Gospel of St John]], is rendered in a reconstructed pronunciation representing a progressive popular variety of Koiné in the early Christian era, with vowels approaching those of Modern Greek.<ref>Horrocks (1997: 94).</ref>

{{quote| Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν θεόν. πάντα δι᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν. ὃ γέγονεν. ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν. ˈen arˈkʰi in o ˈloɣos, ke o ˈloɣos in bros to(n) tʰeˈo(n), ke tʰeˈos in o ˈloɣos. ˈutos in en arˈkʰi pros to(n) tʰeˈo(n). ˈpanda di aɸˈtu eˈjeneto, ke kʰoˈris aɸˈtu eˈjeneto ude ˈen o ˈjeɣonen. en aɸˈto zoˈi in, ke i zoˈi in to pʰos ton anˈtʰropon; ke to pʰos en di skoˈtia ˈpʰeni, ke i skoˈti(a) a(ɸ)ˈto u kaˈtelaβen In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shone in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.}}

===Sample 3 - Greek Old Testament ===
This is from the [[Septuagint|LXX]] version of [[Book of Joshua|Joshua]], dating to c. 150 BC. This Greek is the "Biblical Greek" discussed above. Note that because of literalness this text in many ways does not fit the Hellenistic Greek of the time, full of semiticisms.

{{quote|Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν Μωυσῆ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη τῷ ὑπουργῷ Μωυσῆ λέγων. Μωυσῆς ὁ θεράπων μου τετελεύτηκεν· νῦν οὖν ἀναστὰς διάβηθι τὸν Ιορδάνην, σὺ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς οὗτος, εἰς τὴν γῆν, ἣν ἐγὼ δίδωμι αὐτοῖς. πᾶς ὁ τόπος, ἐφ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἐπιβῆτε τῷ ἴχνει τῶν ποδῶν ὑμῶν, ὑμῖν δώσω αὐτόν, ὃν τρόπον εἴρηκα τῷ Μωυσῇ, τὴν ἔρημον καὶ τὸν ᾿Αντιλίβανον ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ τοῦ μεγάλου, ποταμοῦ Εὐφράτου, καὶ ἕως τῆς θαλάσσης τῆς ἐσχάτης ἀφ᾽ ἡλίου δυσμῶν ἔσται τὰ ὅρια ὑμῶν. οὐκ ἀντιστήσεται ἄνθρωπος κατενώπιον ὑμῶν πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῆς ζωῆς σου, καὶ ὥσπερ ἤμην μετὰ Μωυσῆ, οὕτως ἔσομαι καὶ μετὰ σοῦ καὶ οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψω σε οὐδὲ ὑπερόψομαί σε. ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου· σὺ γὰρ ἀποδιαστελεῖς τῷ λαῷ τούτῳ τὴν γῆν, ἣν ὤμοσα τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν δοῦναι αὐτοῖς. ἴσχυε οὖν καὶ ἀνδρίζου φυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν καθότι ἐνετείλατό σοι Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς μου, καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά, ἵνα συνῇς ἐν πᾶσιν, οἷς ἐὰν πράσσῃς. καὶ οὐκ ἀποστήσεται ἡ βίβλος τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου, καὶ μελετήσεις ἐν αὐτῷ ἡμέρας καὶ νυκτός, ἵνα συνῇς ποιεῖν πάντα τὰ γεγραμμένα· τότε εὐοδωθήσῃ καὶ εὐοδώσεις τὰς ὁδούς σου καὶ τότε συνήσεις. ἰδοὺ ἐντέταλμαί σοι· ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου, μὴ δειλιάσῃς μηδὲ φοβηθῇς, ὅτι μετὰ σοῦ κύριος ὁ θεός σου εἰς πάντα, οὗ ἐὰν πορεύῃ. Καὶ ἐνετείλατο ᾿Ιησοῦς τοῖς γραμματεῦσιν τοῦ λαοῦ λέγων. Εἰσέλθατε κατὰ μέσον τῆς παρεμβολῆς τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ ἐντείλασθε τῷ λαῷ λέγοντες ῾Ετοιμάζεσθε ἐπισιτισμόν, ὅτι ἔτι τρεῖς ἡμέραι καὶ ὑμεῖς διαβαίνετε τὸν Ιορδάνην τοῦτον εἰσελθόντες κατασχεῖν τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων ὑμῶν δίδωσιν ὑμῖν. καὶ τῷ Ρουβην καὶ τῷ Γαδ καὶ τῷ ἡμίσει φυλῆς Μανασση εἶπεν ᾿Ιησοῦς. Μνήσθητε τὸ ῥῆμα κυρίου, ὃ ἐνετείλατο ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς κυρίου λέγων Κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν κατέπαυσεν ὑμᾶς καὶ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν τὴν γῆν ταύτην. αἱ γυναῖκες ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ παιδία ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ κτήνη ὑμῶν κατοικείτωσαν ἐν τῇ γῇ, ᾗ ἔδωκεν ὑμῖν· ὑμεῖς δὲ διαβήσεσθε εὔζωνοι πρότεροι τῶν ἀδελφῶν ὑμῶν, πᾶς ὁ ἰσχύων, καὶ συμμαχήσετε αὐτοῖς, ἕως ἂν καταπαύσῃ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ὑμῶν ὥσπερ καὶ ὑμᾶς καὶ κληρονομήσωσιν καὶ οὗτοι τὴν γῆν, ἣν κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν δίδωσιν αὐτοῖς· καὶ ἀπελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ, ἣν δέδωκεν ὑμῖν Μωυσῆς εἰς τὸ πέραν τοῦ Ιορδάνου ἀπ᾽ ἀνατολῶν ἡλίου. καὶ ἀποκριθέντες τῷ ᾿Ιησοῖ εἶπαν Πάντα, ὅσα ἂν ἐντείλῃ ἡμῖν, ποιήσομεν καὶ εἰς πάντα τόπον, οὗ ἐὰν ἀποστείλῃς ἡμᾶς, πορευσόμεθα· κατὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἠκούσαμεν Μωυσῆ, ἀκουσόμεθα σοῦ, πλὴν ἔστω κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν μετὰ σοῦ, ὃν τρόπον ἦν μετὰ Μωυσῆ. ὁ δὲ ἄνθρωπος, ὃς ἐὰν ἀπειθήσῃ σοι καὶ ὅστις μὴ ἀκούσῃ τῶν ῥημάτων σου καθότι ἂν αὐτῷ ἐντείλῃ, ἀποθανέτω. ἀλλὰ ἴσχυε καὶ ἀνδρίζου.}}

==Further reading==
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Primer''. ISBN 0718892062
*Stevens, Gerald L. ''New Testament Greek Intermediate. From Morphology to Translation''. ISBN 0718892003

==Notes==

==References==
* Abel, F.-M. ''Grammaire du grec biblique''.
* Allen, W. Sidney, ''Vox Graeca: a guide to the pronunciation of classical Greek – 3rd ed.'', Cambridge University Press, 1987. ISBN 0-521-33555-8
* Andriotis, Nikolaos P. ''History of the Greek Language''
* Buth, Randall, ''[http://www.biblicalulpan.org/pages/Common/Greek%20Pronunciation%20(2008).pdf {{polytonic|Ἡ κοινὴ προφορά}}: Koine Greek of Early Roman Period]''
* Conybeare, F.C. and Stock, St. George. ''Grammar of Septuagint Greek: With Selected Readings, Vocabularies, and Updated Indexes''.
* Smyth, Herbert Weir, ''Greek Grammar'', Harvard University Press, 1956. ISBN 0-674-36250-0

==External links==
*[http://greek-language.com Greek-Language.com] Dictionaries, manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, and tools for applying linguistics to the study of Hellenistic Greek
*[http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ntgol-0-X.html New Testament Greek Online]
*[http://www.poliskoine.com Polis Koine] A method to learn Koine Greek including a video of a class
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek Wikipedia article on Koine Greek]

[[Category:Koine Greek| ]]
[[Category:Ancient languages|Greek, Koine]]
[[Category:Hellenistic civilization]]
[[Category:Languages of ancient Macedonia]]
[[Category:Offshoots of the Macedonian Empire]]
[[Category:Standard languages|Greek, Koine]]

Eisegesis

2011-01-19T22:21:16Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: '''Eisegesis''' (from Greek εἰς "into" and ending from exegesis from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way ...

'''Eisegesis''' (from [[Ancient Greek|Greek]] εἰς "into" and ending from [[exegesis]] from ἐξηγεῖσθαι "to lead out") is the process of misinterpreting a text in such a way that it introduces one's own ideas, reading into the text. This is best understood when contrasted with [[exegesis]]. While exegesis draws out the meaning from the text, '''eisegesis''' occurs when a reader reads his/her interpretation into the text. As a result, exegesis tends to be objective when employed effectively while eisegesis is regarded as highly subjective. An individual who practices eisegesis is known as an ''eisegete,'' as someone who practices exegesis is known as an ''exegete''. The term eisegete is often used in a mildly derogatory fashion.

==Eisegesis in Biblical study==
While exegesis attempts to determine the historical context within which a particular verse exists - the so-called "[[Sitz im Leben]]" or life setting - eisegetes often neglect this aspect of [[Bible|Biblical study]].

In the field of [[Biblical exegesis]] scholars take great care to avoid eisegesis. In this field, eisegesis is regarded as "poor exegesis."

While some denominations and scholars denounce Biblical eisegesis, many Christians are known to employ it — albeit inadvertently — as part of their own experiential [[theology]]. Modern [[Evangelicalism|evangelical]] scholars accuse [[liberal Protestant]]s of practicing Biblical eisegesis, while [[Mainline (Protestant)|mainline]] scholars accuse [[Fundamentalist Christianity|fundamentalists]] of practicing eisegesis. [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholics]] and [[Eastern Orthodox Church|Orthodox Christians]] say that all [[Protestantism|Protestants]] engage in eisegesis, because the [[Bible]] can be correctly understood only through the lens of [[Holy Tradition]] as handed down by the institutional Church. Jews counter that all Christians practice eisegesis when they read the [[Hebrew Bible]] as a book about Jesus.

Exactly what constitutes eisegesis remains a source of debate among theologians, but most scholars agree about the importance of determining the authorial intentions. Still, to determine the author's intent can often be difficult, especially for books which were written anonymously.

==Further reading==
* ''Exegesis, Biblical'' Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003). 2:237.

[[Category:Biblical exegesis]]
[[Category:Hermeneutics]]

St. John the Apostle

2011-01-19T21:35:02Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* In the Bible */

[[Image:1 248px-Hans Memling 039.jpg‎ |250px|thumb|right|St. John the Apostle by Hans Memling, c. 1468
(The National Gallery, London)]]
'''John the Apostle''' (Greek Ιωάννης, Hebrew יוחנן, Yo-hanan, Aramaic ܝܘܚܢܢ Yokhanan, meaning "Jehovah is gracious"[2]) was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and brother of James, another of the Twelve Apostles.

Christian tradition identifies him as the author of several [[New Testament]] works: the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation. Some modern scholars believe that John the Apostle, the author of the Fourth Gospel, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals.[3] For one, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself by name. But apart for speculation, the vast majority of information about the books point to Johannine authorship.

== In the Bible ==

John the Apostle was the son of Zebedee, and the brother of Saint James the Greater. The Eastern Orthodox tradition gives his mother's name as Salome. They originally were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. He was first a disciple of John the Baptist and later one of the twelve apostles of Jesus.

John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body. Saint Peter, James, son of Zebedee, and John the Apostle were the only witnesses of the raising of Jairus' daughter,[[Mark 5:37|Mk 5:34]] of the Transfiguration[[Matthew 17:1|Mt 17:1]] and of the Agony in Gethsemane.[Mt 26:37] Only he and Peter were sent into the city to make the preparation for the final Passover meal (the Last Supper).[[Luke 22:8|Lk 22:8]] [4] At the meal itself, his place was next to Jesus on whose chest he leaned.[Jn 13:23-25] According to the general interpretation, John was also that "other disciple" who with Peter followed Jesus after the arrest into the palace of the high-priest.[Jn 18:15] John alone remained near Jesus at the foot of the cross on Calvary with Jesus’ mother, Mary, and the pious women and took Mary into his care as the last legacy of Jesus.[Jn 19:25-27]

[[Image:2 John Evangelist.jpg|250px|thumb|left|Russian Orthodox icon of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, 18th century (Iconostasis of Transfiguration Church, Kizhi Monastery, Karelia, Russia).]]
According to the Bible, after the Resurrection, John is sometimes speculated to be the unnamed disciple who ran together with Peter towards the tomb and thus the first of the apostles to believe that Jesus had truly risen.[Jn 20:2-10] The author of the Gospel of John was accustomed to identifying himself as "Beloved Disciple". After Jesus’ Ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, John, together with Peter, took a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the church. He is with Peter at the healing of the lame man in the Temple.[Ac 3:1 et seq] With Peter he is also thrown into prison.[Ac 4:3] He is also with Peter visiting the newly converted in Samaria.[Ac 8:14]

There is no positive information in the Bible (or elsewhere) concerning the duration of this activity in Judea. Apparently, John in common with the other Apostles remained some 12 years in this first field of labour, until the persecution of Herod Agrippa I led to the scattering of the Apostles through the various provinces of the Roman Empire. [cf. Ac 12:1-17] It does not appear improbable that John then went for the first time into Asia Minor . In any case a Christian community was already in existence at Ephesus before Paul's first labours there (cf. "the brethren"),[Ac 18:27] in addition to Priscilla and Aquila. Such a sojourn by John in Asia in this first period was neither long nor uninterrupted. He returned with the other disciples to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (about A.D. 51). Paul, in opposing his enemies in Galatia, recalls that John explicitly along with Peter and James the Just were referred to as "pillars of the church" and refers to the recognition that his Apostolic preaching of a gospel free from Jewish Law received from these three, the most prominent men of the Christian community at Jerusalem.[Gal 2:9] [5]

Of the other New Testament writings, it is only from the three Letters of John and the Book of Revelation that anything further is learned about John. Both the Letters and Revelation presuppose that John belonged to the multitude of personal eyewitnesses of the life and work of Jesus (cf. especially 1 John 1:1-5; 4:14), that he had lived for a long time in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of this part of the church. Moreover, Revelation says that its author was on the island of Patmos "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus", when he was honoured with the vision contained in Revelation.[Rev 1:9] John, like his Old Testament counterpart Daniel, was kept alive to receive the prophetic vision.

Though most scholars agree in placing the Gospel of John somewhere between AD 65 and 85,[6] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[7]:pp.284,307 Other critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three).[8]:p.43 The text refers to its author as "the Disciple Jesus loved". It is traditionally believed that John survived his contemporary apostles and lived to an extreme old age, dying at Ephesus in about A.D. 100.[9]

== Extrabiblical traditions ==

[[Image:3 431px-Byzantinischer Maler um 1100 001.jpg‎ |250px|thumb|right|Byzantine illumination depicting John dictating to his disciple, Prochorus (c. 1100).]]
John is traditionally thought to have moved to Ephesus, where he wrote the Gospel and the three epistles and eventually died. One Roman Catholic tradition holds that the Virgin Mary accompanied him and died there too, while an alternative tradition locates her death in Jerusalem.

According to tradition, John was also banished by Roman authorities to the island of Patmos, where he then wrote the Book of Revelation. According to Tertullian (in The Prescription Against Heretics) John was banished after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and remaining unharmed.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that John did not die, but that his body was translated so that he could "tarry" until Jesus' Second Coming. They base this belief on three passages: one in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 28:4-6), one in the Doctrine and Covenants (Section 7:1-3), and one in the New Testament (Jn 1:24).

John's traditional tomb is thought to be located at Selçuk, a small town in the vicinity of Ephesus.

When John was aged, he trained Polycarp who later became Bishop of Smyrna and the teacher of Saint Irenaeus of Lyon.

In art, John as the presumed author of the Gospel is often depicted with an eagle, which symbolizes the height he rose to in the first chapter of his gospel. In Orthodox icons, he is often depicted looking up into heaven and dictating his Gospel (or the Book of Revelation) to his disciple, traditionally named Prochorus.

== Liturgical commemoration ==

[[Image:4 759px-Tomb of St. John.jpg‎|250px|thumb|right|The traditional tomb of St. John at Ephesus, Turkey.]]
He is venerated as a saint by most sacramentalist branches of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church commemorate him as "John, Apostle and Evangelist" on December 27. This festival is also used to mark the beginning of the lodge year in some jurisdictions of Freemasonry, and is a day of special commemoration for them.

Another feast day, which appeared in the General Roman Calendar until 1960, is that of "St John Before the Latin Gate" on May 6, celebrating a tradition recounted by Jerome that St John was brought to Rome, and was thrown in a vat of boiling oil, from which he was miraculously preserved unharmed. A church (San Giovanni a Porta Latina) dedicated to him was built near the Latin gate of Rome, the traditional scene of this event.[10]

The Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite commemorate the "Repose of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian" on September 26. On May 8 they celebrate the "Feast of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian", on which date Christians used to draw forth from his grave fine ashes which were believed to be effective for healing the sick.

== See also ==

* St. John the Evangelist on Patmos
* Vision of St. John on Patmos

== References ==

*1. St. John the Apostle Catholic Online.
*2. New Bible Dictionary, 1986. Douglas J.D. and Hillyer N., eds. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, USA ISBN 0842346678
*3. Griggs, C. Wilfred. "John the Beloved" in Ludlow, Daniel H., ed. Selections from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Scriptures of the Church (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1992) p. 379. Griggs favors the "one John" theory but mentions that some modern scholars have hypothesized that there are multiple Johns.
*4. While Luke states that this is the Passover,[Lk 22:7-9] the Gospel of John specifically states that the Passover meal is to be partaken of on Friday[Jn 18:28]
*5. Fonck, Leopold (October 1 1910). "St. John the Evangelist". The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm. Retrieved 2007-10-27.
*6. Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. McGraw-Hill, 2006. ISBN 978-0072965483
*7. Robinson, John A.T. (1977). Redating the New Testament. SCM Press. ISBN 978-0334023005.
*8. Mark Allan Powell. Jesus as a figure in history. Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. ISBN 0664257038 / 978-0664257033
*9. St. John the Apostle Catholic Online
*10.Saint Andrew Daily Missal with Vespers for Sundays and Feasts by Dom. Gaspar LeFebvre, O.S.B., Saint Paul, MN: The E.M. Lohmann Co., 1952, p.1325-1326

== External links ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John_the_Apostle Wikipedia article on St. John the Apostle]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: ''St. John the Evangelist'']
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=101327/ '''Eastern Orthodox''' icon and Synaxarion of Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist (May 8)]
*[http://www.christusrex.org/www1/vaticano/M-Tapestry.html John in Art]
*[http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html John the Apostle in Art]
*[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6021 John the Apostle on Find-A-Grave]
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=102731 Repose of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian] Orthodox icon and synaxarion for September 26

St. John the Apostle

2011-01-19T21:32:43Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* In the Bible */

[[Image:1 248px-Hans Memling 039.jpg‎ |250px|thumb|right|St. John the Apostle by Hans Memling, c. 1468
(The National Gallery, London)]]
'''John the Apostle''' (Greek Ιωάννης, Hebrew יוחנן, Yo-hanan, Aramaic ܝܘܚܢܢ Yokhanan, meaning "Jehovah is gracious"[2]) was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and brother of James, another of the Twelve Apostles.

Christian tradition identifies him as the author of several [[New Testament]] works: the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation. Some modern scholars believe that John the Apostle, the author of the Fourth Gospel, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals.[3] For one, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself by name. But apart for speculation, the vast majority of information about the books point to Johannine authorship.

== In the Bible ==

John the Apostle was the son of Zebedee, and the brother of Saint James the Greater. The Eastern Orthodox tradition gives his mother's name as Salome. They originally were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. He was first a disciple of John the Baptist and later one of the twelve apostles of Jesus.

John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body. Saint Peter, James, son of Zebedee, and John the Apostle were the only witnesses of the raising of Jairus' daughter,[[Mark 5:37|Mk 5:34]] of the Transfiguration[[Matthew 17:1|Mt 17:1]] and of the Agony in Gethsemane.[Mt 26:37] Only he and Peter were sent into the city to make the preparation for the final Passover meal (the Last Supper).[Lk 22:8] [4] At the meal itself, his place was next to Jesus on whose chest he leaned.[Jn 13:23-25] According to the general interpretation, John was also that "other disciple" who with Peter followed Jesus after the arrest into the palace of the high-priest.[Jn 18:15] John alone remained near Jesus at the foot of the cross on Calvary with Jesus’ mother, Mary, and the pious women and took Mary into his care as the last legacy of Jesus.[Jn 19:25-27]

[[Image:2 John Evangelist.jpg|250px|thumb|left|Russian Orthodox icon of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, 18th century (Iconostasis of Transfiguration Church, Kizhi Monastery, Karelia, Russia).]]
According to the Bible, after the Resurrection, John is sometimes speculated to be the unnamed disciple who ran together with Peter towards the tomb and thus the first of the apostles to believe that Jesus had truly risen.[Jn 20:2-10] The author of the Gospel of John was accustomed to identifying himself as "Beloved Disciple". After Jesus’ Ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, John, together with Peter, took a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the church. He is with Peter at the healing of the lame man in the Temple.[Ac 3:1 et seq] With Peter he is also thrown into prison.[Ac 4:3] He is also with Peter visiting the newly converted in Samaria.[Ac 8:14]

There is no positive information in the Bible (or elsewhere) concerning the duration of this activity in Judea. Apparently, John in common with the other Apostles remained some 12 years in this first field of labour, until the persecution of Herod Agrippa I led to the scattering of the Apostles through the various provinces of the Roman Empire. [cf. Ac 12:1-17] It does not appear improbable that John then went for the first time into Asia Minor . In any case a Christian community was already in existence at Ephesus before Paul's first labours there (cf. "the brethren"),[Ac 18:27] in addition to Priscilla and Aquila. Such a sojourn by John in Asia in this first period was neither long nor uninterrupted. He returned with the other disciples to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (about A.D. 51). Paul, in opposing his enemies in Galatia, recalls that John explicitly along with Peter and James the Just were referred to as "pillars of the church" and refers to the recognition that his Apostolic preaching of a gospel free from Jewish Law received from these three, the most prominent men of the Christian community at Jerusalem.[Gal 2:9] [5]

Of the other New Testament writings, it is only from the three Letters of John and the Book of Revelation that anything further is learned about John. Both the Letters and Revelation presuppose that John belonged to the multitude of personal eyewitnesses of the life and work of Jesus (cf. especially 1 John 1:1-5; 4:14), that he had lived for a long time in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of this part of the church. Moreover, Revelation says that its author was on the island of Patmos "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus", when he was honoured with the vision contained in Revelation.[Rev 1:9] John, like his Old Testament counterpart Daniel, was kept alive to receive the prophetic vision.

Though most scholars agree in placing the Gospel of John somewhere between AD 65 and 85,[6] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[7]:pp.284,307 Other critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three).[8]:p.43 The text refers to its author as "the Disciple Jesus loved". It is traditionally believed that John survived his contemporary apostles and lived to an extreme old age, dying at Ephesus in about A.D. 100.[9]

== Extrabiblical traditions ==

[[Image:3 431px-Byzantinischer Maler um 1100 001.jpg‎ |250px|thumb|right|Byzantine illumination depicting John dictating to his disciple, Prochorus (c. 1100).]]
John is traditionally thought to have moved to Ephesus, where he wrote the Gospel and the three epistles and eventually died. One Roman Catholic tradition holds that the Virgin Mary accompanied him and died there too, while an alternative tradition locates her death in Jerusalem.

According to tradition, John was also banished by Roman authorities to the island of Patmos, where he then wrote the Book of Revelation. According to Tertullian (in The Prescription Against Heretics) John was banished after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and remaining unharmed.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that John did not die, but that his body was translated so that he could "tarry" until Jesus' Second Coming. They base this belief on three passages: one in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 28:4-6), one in the Doctrine and Covenants (Section 7:1-3), and one in the New Testament (Jn 1:24).

John's traditional tomb is thought to be located at Selçuk, a small town in the vicinity of Ephesus.

When John was aged, he trained Polycarp who later became Bishop of Smyrna and the teacher of Saint Irenaeus of Lyon.

In art, John as the presumed author of the Gospel is often depicted with an eagle, which symbolizes the height he rose to in the first chapter of his gospel. In Orthodox icons, he is often depicted looking up into heaven and dictating his Gospel (or the Book of Revelation) to his disciple, traditionally named Prochorus.

== Liturgical commemoration ==

[[Image:4 759px-Tomb of St. John.jpg‎|250px|thumb|right|The traditional tomb of St. John at Ephesus, Turkey.]]
He is venerated as a saint by most sacramentalist branches of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church commemorate him as "John, Apostle and Evangelist" on December 27. This festival is also used to mark the beginning of the lodge year in some jurisdictions of Freemasonry, and is a day of special commemoration for them.

Another feast day, which appeared in the General Roman Calendar until 1960, is that of "St John Before the Latin Gate" on May 6, celebrating a tradition recounted by Jerome that St John was brought to Rome, and was thrown in a vat of boiling oil, from which he was miraculously preserved unharmed. A church (San Giovanni a Porta Latina) dedicated to him was built near the Latin gate of Rome, the traditional scene of this event.[10]

The Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite commemorate the "Repose of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian" on September 26. On May 8 they celebrate the "Feast of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian", on which date Christians used to draw forth from his grave fine ashes which were believed to be effective for healing the sick.

== See also ==

* St. John the Evangelist on Patmos
* Vision of St. John on Patmos

== References ==

*1. St. John the Apostle Catholic Online.
*2. New Bible Dictionary, 1986. Douglas J.D. and Hillyer N., eds. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, USA ISBN 0842346678
*3. Griggs, C. Wilfred. "John the Beloved" in Ludlow, Daniel H., ed. Selections from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Scriptures of the Church (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1992) p. 379. Griggs favors the "one John" theory but mentions that some modern scholars have hypothesized that there are multiple Johns.
*4. While Luke states that this is the Passover,[Lk 22:7-9] the Gospel of John specifically states that the Passover meal is to be partaken of on Friday[Jn 18:28]
*5. Fonck, Leopold (October 1 1910). "St. John the Evangelist". The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm. Retrieved 2007-10-27.
*6. Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. McGraw-Hill, 2006. ISBN 978-0072965483
*7. Robinson, John A.T. (1977). Redating the New Testament. SCM Press. ISBN 978-0334023005.
*8. Mark Allan Powell. Jesus as a figure in history. Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. ISBN 0664257038 / 978-0664257033
*9. St. John the Apostle Catholic Online
*10.Saint Andrew Daily Missal with Vespers for Sundays and Feasts by Dom. Gaspar LeFebvre, O.S.B., Saint Paul, MN: The E.M. Lohmann Co., 1952, p.1325-1326

== External links ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John_the_Apostle Wikipedia article on St. John the Apostle]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: ''St. John the Evangelist'']
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=101327/ '''Eastern Orthodox''' icon and Synaxarion of Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist (May 8)]
*[http://www.christusrex.org/www1/vaticano/M-Tapestry.html John in Art]
*[http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html John the Apostle in Art]
*[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6021 John the Apostle on Find-A-Grave]
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=102731 Repose of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian] Orthodox icon and synaxarion for September 26

St. John the Apostle

2011-01-19T21:32:30Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* In the Bible */

[[Image:1 248px-Hans Memling 039.jpg‎ |250px|thumb|right|St. John the Apostle by Hans Memling, c. 1468
(The National Gallery, London)]]
'''John the Apostle''' (Greek Ιωάννης, Hebrew יוחנן, Yo-hanan, Aramaic ܝܘܚܢܢ Yokhanan, meaning "Jehovah is gracious"[2]) was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and brother of James, another of the Twelve Apostles.

Christian tradition identifies him as the author of several [[New Testament]] works: the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation. Some modern scholars believe that John the Apostle, the author of the Fourth Gospel, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals.[3] For one, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself by name. But apart for speculation, the vast majority of information about the books point to Johannine authorship.

== In the Bible ==

John the Apostle was the son of Zebedee, and the brother of Saint James the Greater. The Eastern Orthodox tradition gives his mother's name as Salome. They originally were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. He was first a disciple of John the Baptist and later one of the twelve apostles of Jesus.

John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body. Saint Peter, James, son of Zebedee, and John the Apostle were the only witnesses of the raising of Jairus' daughter,[[[Mark 5:37|Mk 5:34]]] of the Transfiguration[[[Matthew 17:1|Mt 17:1]]] and of the Agony in Gethsemane.[Mt 26:37] Only he and Peter were sent into the city to make the preparation for the final Passover meal (the Last Supper).[Lk 22:8] [4] At the meal itself, his place was next to Jesus on whose chest he leaned.[Jn 13:23-25] According to the general interpretation, John was also that "other disciple" who with Peter followed Jesus after the arrest into the palace of the high-priest.[Jn 18:15] John alone remained near Jesus at the foot of the cross on Calvary with Jesus’ mother, Mary, and the pious women and took Mary into his care as the last legacy of Jesus.[Jn 19:25-27]

[[Image:2 John Evangelist.jpg|250px|thumb|left|Russian Orthodox icon of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, 18th century (Iconostasis of Transfiguration Church, Kizhi Monastery, Karelia, Russia).]]
According to the Bible, after the Resurrection, John is sometimes speculated to be the unnamed disciple who ran together with Peter towards the tomb and thus the first of the apostles to believe that Jesus had truly risen.[Jn 20:2-10] The author of the Gospel of John was accustomed to identifying himself as "Beloved Disciple". After Jesus’ Ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, John, together with Peter, took a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the church. He is with Peter at the healing of the lame man in the Temple.[Ac 3:1 et seq] With Peter he is also thrown into prison.[Ac 4:3] He is also with Peter visiting the newly converted in Samaria.[Ac 8:14]

There is no positive information in the Bible (or elsewhere) concerning the duration of this activity in Judea. Apparently, John in common with the other Apostles remained some 12 years in this first field of labour, until the persecution of Herod Agrippa I led to the scattering of the Apostles through the various provinces of the Roman Empire. [cf. Ac 12:1-17] It does not appear improbable that John then went for the first time into Asia Minor . In any case a Christian community was already in existence at Ephesus before Paul's first labours there (cf. "the brethren"),[Ac 18:27] in addition to Priscilla and Aquila. Such a sojourn by John in Asia in this first period was neither long nor uninterrupted. He returned with the other disciples to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (about A.D. 51). Paul, in opposing his enemies in Galatia, recalls that John explicitly along with Peter and James the Just were referred to as "pillars of the church" and refers to the recognition that his Apostolic preaching of a gospel free from Jewish Law received from these three, the most prominent men of the Christian community at Jerusalem.[Gal 2:9] [5]

Of the other New Testament writings, it is only from the three Letters of John and the Book of Revelation that anything further is learned about John. Both the Letters and Revelation presuppose that John belonged to the multitude of personal eyewitnesses of the life and work of Jesus (cf. especially 1 John 1:1-5; 4:14), that he had lived for a long time in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of this part of the church. Moreover, Revelation says that its author was on the island of Patmos "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus", when he was honoured with the vision contained in Revelation.[Rev 1:9] John, like his Old Testament counterpart Daniel, was kept alive to receive the prophetic vision.

Though most scholars agree in placing the Gospel of John somewhere between AD 65 and 85,[6] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[7]:pp.284,307 Other critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three).[8]:p.43 The text refers to its author as "the Disciple Jesus loved". It is traditionally believed that John survived his contemporary apostles and lived to an extreme old age, dying at Ephesus in about A.D. 100.[9]

== Extrabiblical traditions ==

[[Image:3 431px-Byzantinischer Maler um 1100 001.jpg‎ |250px|thumb|right|Byzantine illumination depicting John dictating to his disciple, Prochorus (c. 1100).]]
John is traditionally thought to have moved to Ephesus, where he wrote the Gospel and the three epistles and eventually died. One Roman Catholic tradition holds that the Virgin Mary accompanied him and died there too, while an alternative tradition locates her death in Jerusalem.

According to tradition, John was also banished by Roman authorities to the island of Patmos, where he then wrote the Book of Revelation. According to Tertullian (in The Prescription Against Heretics) John was banished after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and remaining unharmed.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that John did not die, but that his body was translated so that he could "tarry" until Jesus' Second Coming. They base this belief on three passages: one in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 28:4-6), one in the Doctrine and Covenants (Section 7:1-3), and one in the New Testament (Jn 1:24).

John's traditional tomb is thought to be located at Selçuk, a small town in the vicinity of Ephesus.

When John was aged, he trained Polycarp who later became Bishop of Smyrna and the teacher of Saint Irenaeus of Lyon.

In art, John as the presumed author of the Gospel is often depicted with an eagle, which symbolizes the height he rose to in the first chapter of his gospel. In Orthodox icons, he is often depicted looking up into heaven and dictating his Gospel (or the Book of Revelation) to his disciple, traditionally named Prochorus.

== Liturgical commemoration ==

[[Image:4 759px-Tomb of St. John.jpg‎|250px|thumb|right|The traditional tomb of St. John at Ephesus, Turkey.]]
He is venerated as a saint by most sacramentalist branches of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church commemorate him as "John, Apostle and Evangelist" on December 27. This festival is also used to mark the beginning of the lodge year in some jurisdictions of Freemasonry, and is a day of special commemoration for them.

Another feast day, which appeared in the General Roman Calendar until 1960, is that of "St John Before the Latin Gate" on May 6, celebrating a tradition recounted by Jerome that St John was brought to Rome, and was thrown in a vat of boiling oil, from which he was miraculously preserved unharmed. A church (San Giovanni a Porta Latina) dedicated to him was built near the Latin gate of Rome, the traditional scene of this event.[10]

The Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite commemorate the "Repose of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian" on September 26. On May 8 they celebrate the "Feast of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian", on which date Christians used to draw forth from his grave fine ashes which were believed to be effective for healing the sick.

== See also ==

* St. John the Evangelist on Patmos
* Vision of St. John on Patmos

== References ==

*1. St. John the Apostle Catholic Online.
*2. New Bible Dictionary, 1986. Douglas J.D. and Hillyer N., eds. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, USA ISBN 0842346678
*3. Griggs, C. Wilfred. "John the Beloved" in Ludlow, Daniel H., ed. Selections from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Scriptures of the Church (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1992) p. 379. Griggs favors the "one John" theory but mentions that some modern scholars have hypothesized that there are multiple Johns.
*4. While Luke states that this is the Passover,[Lk 22:7-9] the Gospel of John specifically states that the Passover meal is to be partaken of on Friday[Jn 18:28]
*5. Fonck, Leopold (October 1 1910). "St. John the Evangelist". The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm. Retrieved 2007-10-27.
*6. Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. McGraw-Hill, 2006. ISBN 978-0072965483
*7. Robinson, John A.T. (1977). Redating the New Testament. SCM Press. ISBN 978-0334023005.
*8. Mark Allan Powell. Jesus as a figure in history. Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. ISBN 0664257038 / 978-0664257033
*9. St. John the Apostle Catholic Online
*10.Saint Andrew Daily Missal with Vespers for Sundays and Feasts by Dom. Gaspar LeFebvre, O.S.B., Saint Paul, MN: The E.M. Lohmann Co., 1952, p.1325-1326

== External links ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John_the_Apostle Wikipedia article on St. John the Apostle]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: ''St. John the Evangelist'']
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=101327/ '''Eastern Orthodox''' icon and Synaxarion of Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist (May 8)]
*[http://www.christusrex.org/www1/vaticano/M-Tapestry.html John in Art]
*[http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html John the Apostle in Art]
*[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6021 John the Apostle on Find-A-Grave]
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=102731 Repose of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian] Orthodox icon and synaxarion for September 26

St. John the Apostle

2011-01-19T21:30:23Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

[[Image:1 248px-Hans Memling 039.jpg‎ |250px|thumb|right|St. John the Apostle by Hans Memling, c. 1468
(The National Gallery, London)]]
'''John the Apostle''' (Greek Ιωάννης, Hebrew יוחנן, Yo-hanan, Aramaic ܝܘܚܢܢ Yokhanan, meaning "Jehovah is gracious"[2]) was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus. He was the son of Zebedee and Salome, and brother of James, another of the Twelve Apostles.

Christian tradition identifies him as the author of several [[New Testament]] works: the Gospel of John, the Epistles of John, and the Book of Revelation. Some modern scholars believe that John the Apostle, the author of the Fourth Gospel, and John of Patmos were three separate individuals.[3] For one, the author of Revelation identifies himself as "John" several times, but the author of the Gospel of John never identifies himself by name. But apart for speculation, the vast majority of information about the books point to Johannine authorship.

== In the Bible ==

John the Apostle was the son of Zebedee, and the brother of Saint James the Greater. The Eastern Orthodox tradition gives his mother's name as Salome. They originally were fishermen and fished with their father in the Lake of Genesareth. He was first a disciple of John the Baptist and later one of the twelve apostles of Jesus.

John had a prominent position in the Apostolic body. Saint Peter, James, son of Zebedee, and John the Apostle were the only witnesses of the raising of Jairus' daughter,[Mk 5:37] of the Transfiguration[Mt 17:1] and of the Agony in Gethsemane.[Mt 26:37] Only he and Peter were sent into the city to make the preparation for the final Passover meal (the Last Supper).[Lk 22:8] [4] At the meal itself, his place was next to Jesus on whose chest he leaned.[Jn 13:23-25] According to the general interpretation, John was also that "other disciple" who with Peter followed Jesus after the arrest into the palace of the high-priest.[Jn 18:15] John alone remained near Jesus at the foot of the cross on Calvary with Jesus’ mother, Mary, and the pious women and took Mary into his care as the last legacy of Jesus.[Jn 19:25-27]

[[Image:2 John Evangelist.jpg|250px|thumb|left|Russian Orthodox icon of the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, 18th century (Iconostasis of Transfiguration Church, Kizhi Monastery, Karelia, Russia).]]
According to the Bible, after the Resurrection, John is sometimes speculated to be the unnamed disciple who ran together with Peter towards the tomb and thus the first of the apostles to believe that Jesus had truly risen.[Jn 20:2-10] The author of the Gospel of John was accustomed to identifying himself as "Beloved Disciple". After Jesus’ Ascension and the descent of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, John, together with Peter, took a prominent part in the founding and guidance of the church. He is with Peter at the healing of the lame man in the Temple.[Ac 3:1 et seq] With Peter he is also thrown into prison.[Ac 4:3] He is also with Peter visiting the newly converted in Samaria.[Ac 8:14]

There is no positive information in the Bible (or elsewhere) concerning the duration of this activity in Judea. Apparently, John in common with the other Apostles remained some 12 years in this first field of labour, until the persecution of Herod Agrippa I led to the scattering of the Apostles through the various provinces of the Roman Empire. [cf. Ac 12:1-17] It does not appear improbable that John then went for the first time into Asia Minor . In any case a Christian community was already in existence at Ephesus before Paul's first labours there (cf. "the brethren"),[Ac 18:27] in addition to Priscilla and Aquila. Such a sojourn by John in Asia in this first period was neither long nor uninterrupted. He returned with the other disciples to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (about A.D. 51). Paul, in opposing his enemies in Galatia, recalls that John explicitly along with Peter and James the Just were referred to as "pillars of the church" and refers to the recognition that his Apostolic preaching of a gospel free from Jewish Law received from these three, the most prominent men of the Christian community at Jerusalem.[Gal 2:9] [5]

Of the other New Testament writings, it is only from the three Letters of John and the Book of Revelation that anything further is learned about John. Both the Letters and Revelation presuppose that John belonged to the multitude of personal eyewitnesses of the life and work of Jesus (cf. especially 1 John 1:1-5; 4:14), that he had lived for a long time in Asia Minor, was thoroughly acquainted with the conditions existing in the various Christian communities there, and that he had a position of authority recognized by all Christian communities as leader of this part of the church. Moreover, Revelation says that its author was on the island of Patmos "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus", when he was honoured with the vision contained in Revelation.[Rev 1:9] John, like his Old Testament counterpart Daniel, was kept alive to receive the prophetic vision.

Though most scholars agree in placing the Gospel of John somewhere between AD 65 and 85,[6] John A.T. Robinson proposes an initial edition by 50–55 and then a final edition by 65 due to narrative similarities with Paul.[7]:pp.284,307 Other critical scholars are of the opinion that John was composed in stages (probably two or three).[8]:p.43 The text refers to its author as "the Disciple Jesus loved". It is traditionally believed that John survived his contemporary apostles and lived to an extreme old age, dying at Ephesus in about A.D. 100.[9]

== Extrabiblical traditions ==

[[Image:3 431px-Byzantinischer Maler um 1100 001.jpg‎ |250px|thumb|right|Byzantine illumination depicting John dictating to his disciple, Prochorus (c. 1100).]]
John is traditionally thought to have moved to Ephesus, where he wrote the Gospel and the three epistles and eventually died. One Roman Catholic tradition holds that the Virgin Mary accompanied him and died there too, while an alternative tradition locates her death in Jerusalem.

According to tradition, John was also banished by Roman authorities to the island of Patmos, where he then wrote the Book of Revelation. According to Tertullian (in The Prescription Against Heretics) John was banished after being plunged into boiling oil in Rome and remaining unharmed.

Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that John did not die, but that his body was translated so that he could "tarry" until Jesus' Second Coming. They base this belief on three passages: one in the Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 28:4-6), one in the Doctrine and Covenants (Section 7:1-3), and one in the New Testament (Jn 1:24).

John's traditional tomb is thought to be located at Selçuk, a small town in the vicinity of Ephesus.

When John was aged, he trained Polycarp who later became Bishop of Smyrna and the teacher of Saint Irenaeus of Lyon.

In art, John as the presumed author of the Gospel is often depicted with an eagle, which symbolizes the height he rose to in the first chapter of his gospel. In Orthodox icons, he is often depicted looking up into heaven and dictating his Gospel (or the Book of Revelation) to his disciple, traditionally named Prochorus.

== Liturgical commemoration ==

[[Image:4 759px-Tomb of St. John.jpg‎|250px|thumb|right|The traditional tomb of St. John at Ephesus, Turkey.]]
He is venerated as a saint by most sacramentalist branches of Christianity. The Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion and the Lutheran Church commemorate him as "John, Apostle and Evangelist" on December 27. This festival is also used to mark the beginning of the lodge year in some jurisdictions of Freemasonry, and is a day of special commemoration for them.

Another feast day, which appeared in the General Roman Calendar until 1960, is that of "St John Before the Latin Gate" on May 6, celebrating a tradition recounted by Jerome that St John was brought to Rome, and was thrown in a vat of boiling oil, from which he was miraculously preserved unharmed. A church (San Giovanni a Porta Latina) dedicated to him was built near the Latin gate of Rome, the traditional scene of this event.[10]

The Eastern Orthodox Church and those Eastern Catholic Churches which follow the Byzantine Rite commemorate the "Repose of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian" on September 26. On May 8 they celebrate the "Feast of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian", on which date Christians used to draw forth from his grave fine ashes which were believed to be effective for healing the sick.

== See also ==

* St. John the Evangelist on Patmos
* Vision of St. John on Patmos

== References ==

*1. St. John the Apostle Catholic Online.
*2. New Bible Dictionary, 1986. Douglas J.D. and Hillyer N., eds. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., Wheaton, IL, USA ISBN 0842346678
*3. Griggs, C. Wilfred. "John the Beloved" in Ludlow, Daniel H., ed. Selections from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: Scriptures of the Church (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1992) p. 379. Griggs favors the "one John" theory but mentions that some modern scholars have hypothesized that there are multiple Johns.
*4. While Luke states that this is the Passover,[Lk 22:7-9] the Gospel of John specifically states that the Passover meal is to be partaken of on Friday[Jn 18:28]
*5. Fonck, Leopold (October 1 1910). "St. John the Evangelist". The Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm. Retrieved 2007-10-27.
*6. Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. McGraw-Hill, 2006. ISBN 978-0072965483
*7. Robinson, John A.T. (1977). Redating the New Testament. SCM Press. ISBN 978-0334023005.
*8. Mark Allan Powell. Jesus as a figure in history. Westminster John Knox Press, 1998. ISBN 0664257038 / 978-0664257033
*9. St. John the Apostle Catholic Online
*10.Saint Andrew Daily Missal with Vespers for Sundays and Feasts by Dom. Gaspar LeFebvre, O.S.B., Saint Paul, MN: The E.M. Lohmann Co., 1952, p.1325-1326

== External links ==

*[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._John_the_Apostle Wikipedia article on St. John the Apostle]
*[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08492a.htm Catholic Encyclopedia: ''St. John the Evangelist'']
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=101327/ '''Eastern Orthodox''' icon and Synaxarion of Saint John the Apostle and Evangelist (May 8)]
*[http://www.christusrex.org/www1/vaticano/M-Tapestry.html John in Art]
*[http://home.arcor.de/berzelmayr/st-john.html John the Apostle in Art]
*[http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=6021 John the Apostle on Find-A-Grave]
*[http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?SID=4&ID=1&FSID=102731 Repose of the Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian] Orthodox icon and synaxarion for September 26

Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd

2011-01-19T21:23:55Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Footnotes */

"And These Three Are One"

A Case For the Authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]]
Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

BY

JESSE M. BOYD

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

22 APRIL [[1999 AD|1999]]

This exegesis is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written word--perfectly preserved down through the ages and given to me in a language I can understand. Recognizing that, as [[Martin Luther]] once said, "The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself," I hereby construct this defense out of genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word of God as contained in the Authorized King James Bible. Without a perfectly preserved Written Word, I would know nothing of a personal relationship with the Living Word.

Secondly, it is dedicated to the many men, women, and children who gave their lives that I might have the Bible in English, a privilege which I do not take for granted. Thank-you for your sacrifice and may the Lord reward you richly in His kingdom.

Last, but not least, I dedicate this exegesis to my seminary professor, Dr. David Black, whose books have had a profound effect on my acquisition of a working knowledge of the Greek language. No biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students. The reasons for differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] are to be laid out in this paper. Despite disagreement, however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God. I pray, Dr. Black, that you would consider my presentation, acknowledging that this passage does not deserve the hasty dismissal it so often receives.

"And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory."
-II Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M. Boyd

==AND THESE THREE ARE ONE==
[[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], commonly referred to as the [[Johannine Comma]], has been one of the most hotly debated passages with regard to its authenticity for over a century.

Because it is one of those few passages included in the [[Textus Receptus]] which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts, many a student has paced his study for hours struggling with the question as to whether or not the Comma is a legitimate part of the Holy Scriptures. The hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern versions of the Bible is largely due to the fact that it is only found in eight of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth chapter of [[1 John|I John]]. Consequently, it is almost unanimously regarded among modern textual critics as a later scribal emendation.

The primary English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is the Authorized [[King James Bible]] which is based upon the Greek [[Textus Receptus]]. The passage reads:
* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Most modern translations ([[NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

* [[1 John 5:7|7]] For there are three that testify:
* [[1 John 5:8|8]] the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse [[1 John 5:7|7]], as found in the [[AV]]; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse [[1 John 5:8|8]] (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse [[1 John 5:7|7]].Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.

Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such [[Exegesis|exegesis]] is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The [[Exegesis|exegesis]] that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.[1] May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. [2]

==Historical Analysis==

The epistle of [[First Epistle of John|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD|85]]-[[90 AD|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,

:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[First Epistle of John|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel of John."[2]

This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. [[First Epistle of John|I John]] was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

:It [[First Epistle of John|I John]] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]

The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].[5]Cyprian writes around [[250 AD|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

==Literary Analysis==

In addition to the matter of historical context, the literary context of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] demands our attention. All three levels of literary analysis—canonical, remote, and immediate contexts—are important. With regard to the text's place in the New Testament canon, the Johannine Comma is the only clear affirmation of the [[Trinity]] throughout the entire [[New Testament]]. Apart from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together (e.g. [[Matthew 28:18]] + [[John 10:30]] + [[John 1:1]] + [[Acts 5:3]]-[[Acts 5:4|4).If a later scribe interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness. For example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in [[Matthew 28:19]].
The Johannine Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John. This can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre. I John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to simply edify other believers in the faith. However, it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament epistles. I John contains no formal greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or specified. Hayes argues, "There is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John. It might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and under almost any conditions. Its contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."[13]These facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in favor of the theological treatise such as is found in the Book of Hebrews. However, this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feelings."[14]

Perhaps the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle and treatise. Vedder argues that the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature. He writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."[15]In other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer. "A brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has written."[16]One, however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation. I John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a definite class of readers. "The writer is concerned throughout with a given situation. He takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph, to which the clue has now been lost."[17]With all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit I John. The Book contains numerous brief discourses dealing with a wide range of subjects. At the same time, however, while the Apostle chooses not to use the set epistolary forms, he approaches the readers as a community, briefly addressing them in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore, the theological discussions contained therein are laced with personal emotion and feeling which is common in New Testament epistles.

How does the genre of I John relate to the Comma? If the book is properly recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological teaching contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly. Such a statement, in fact, would be expected. The Epistle of I John can be broken down in the following manner:

I. Prologue (1:1-4)

II. Our Advocate (1:8-2:2)

III. Obedience (2:3-6)

IV. Purpose (2:12-14)

V. Love of the World (2:15-17)

VI. Antichrist (2:18-28)

VII. Character of God's Children (2:29-3:12)

IX. Love (3:13-24)

X. Test of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)

XI. God is Love (4:7-21)

XII. Victory of Faith (5:1-5)

XIII. Three Witnesses (5:6-13)

XIV. Prayer (5:14-17)

XV. Epilogue[18]

Each aforementioned section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes a brief discourse on a different theological topic. While no particular order is apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the readers understanding of Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of I John.

The Comma is found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses. This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials. The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth. It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God. In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty. If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down. The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses. They most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse (Victory of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).

Finally, I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. [[Bruce Metzger|Metzger]], in his [[Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament]], argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [[[The Johannine Comma]]] makes an awkward break in the sense."[19]Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true. For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."[20]Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.[21]What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree? In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage. "Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[22]The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted. The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

In a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and his consequent victory over the world. Such faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5, 11, 12, 20).This warrant is first presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy Ghost speaking by way of inspired men. In 5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father. Thirdly, the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning work of the Saviour.[23]Finally, as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge. "How harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."[24]

==FAITH'S SOLID WARRANT==
Textual Analysis[25]
The brunt of the argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma lies within the realm of textual criticism. Unfortunately, as mentioned, it is one of the few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from the Greek manuscript tradition. As a result, most modern critics toss it into the wastebasket. An example of such hasty dismissal can be seen in the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of The Greek New Testament.[26]In the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.[27]One is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers; and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.[28]Though such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad generalizations that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence. Perhaps the best approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's arguments, for they bespeak the opinions of most critical scholars. As noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of the Comma, such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the preserved Word of God. Nonetheless, the external evidence in favor of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us to believe by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."[29]

Metzger's presentation of the manuscript evidence is misleading.

The first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are as follows . . ."[30]Next, he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, 2318).Where is the eighth manuscript? The critical apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it. One is forced to wonder about this initial contradiction. Four of these eight manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636), while the other four include it as part of the text.[31]

It is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list the [[Codex Britannicus]] as evidence for the Comma.[32]Their reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators. The well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first and second editions. He argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript with the passage. Only then, would he include it in his edition.[33]Codex Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received it. Nevertheless he is said to have inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed to be the Codex Monfort).[34] First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely unsound. A careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius quod respondet . . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:

Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.[35]

Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript. Rather, he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk J. de Jonge states, "Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access."[36]In light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince Erasmus. If there had been, Erasmus would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.

Although [[Codex Monfortanius]] is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century (ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from. It did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.[37]It did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores of places.[38]Rather, the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which was not known in Europe until after 1552.[39]Besides, this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.[40]

As far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it cannot be equated with the Monfort, because the respective renderings of I John 5:7-8 are quite different.On the one hand, the Monfort omits the articles in verse seven (o, o, to) and transposes "agion pneuma."In verse 8, the articles (to, to, to), a conjunction (kai), and the last phrase (kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin) are missing.Britannicus, on the other hand, includes the articles and the final phrase but omits the adjective "agion" in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire the last clause for his third edition?He surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex Monfort, but from Britannicus. This is why Monfortanius "cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."[41]At this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.

After promulgating his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma, Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers." Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage). Gregory writes:

What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?[42]

In this brief excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle with three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the case if the Comma is omitted. In other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."[43]

Metzger's presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is misleading.

Metzger goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma, they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)."[44]There is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea). There is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in these major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves nothing. Nonetheless, Metzger completely ignores the fact that the verse was employed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by doing so, he would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used as proof of the Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates that arose and plagued the Church concerning these issues. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians (led byKing Huneric the Vandal) and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

In spite of this example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous testimony of the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was in all of their copies. Secondly, they assert that as no dispute took place, but the conference was broken up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept the passage. Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized.

Charles Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God's Word as their first line of defense.[46]The African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in their manuscripts. As a result, they were able to successfully employ the passage as they defended their faith before the Arian accusers.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.

Metzger follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary. He claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin . . ."[47]This allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."[48]F. H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect, agrees with Metzger. However, he does admit that it appears in a few copies of the Armenian and Slavonic, both being ancient version. Metzger's blanket statement overlooks this fact.

As far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma appeared in its early manuscripts. First of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920), syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."[49] Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies. In fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary. For example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."[50]Here, Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in conjunction with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8 with the Comma inserted. It must have been in some Syriac copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate allusion to it.

Tremellius' Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version. Tremellius translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.[51]Modern scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this. If Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he take the time to translate it? Better yet, why did he place it in the margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering, and leave a blank space for it? Tremellius must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac tradition. He himself wrote:

But because it was omitted not only in the printed version, but only in the manuscript Heidelberg codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I did not dare to insert it into the text.So in order that there might not be a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers may correspond to the numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed from the sixth to the eighth verse.[52]

As Maynard correctly concludes:

How often is a blank space provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek edition? The four questions together could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts. His actions are not in accord with his words. Perhaps, with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this spot. (Modern editors do not hesitate over a 'disturbance of the verses.' They merely split verse six in half.)[53]

Another Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern scholars. Also, of notable importance, is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.[54]It is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well. After all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the sixth century. Unfortunately, these have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain the Comma.[55]Therefore, Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the Old Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all the evidence. Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius, and Gutbier had to get the Comma from somewhere.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.

Metzger also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine). This too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage. If they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However, less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:

. . .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[56]

This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma. On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus. However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]

The [[Old Latin]] translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for [[Latin]] was the major language up through the Middle Ages. The [[Old Latin]] is not the same as the [[Latin]] of Jerome's [[Vulgate]], which by the way, does include the Comma. The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages. Did the [[Old Latin]] consistently contain the [[Johannine Comma]]? For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in [[Middle High German]]. This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus. As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century. This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63] According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value. But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w). The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]The Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the [[Textus Receptus]], but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English versions.

The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the [[Waldensians]]. History teaches that the [[Waldensians]] were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century. The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries. As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe."[67]

The translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the Comma because it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.[68]All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus Receptus. The first of these was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center of the Swiss Reformation. The basis for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin. This fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."[69]Secondly, the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. With Calvin's help, Beza brought out a later edition of the Textus Receptus. Wilkinson argues:

This later edition of the [[Received Text]] is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles [emphasis mine].[70]

The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati. Diodati, an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated the received text into Italian. "This version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."[71]The fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned, was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German. "This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."[72]In addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.[73]

In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick Nolan. In Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan. Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. All of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly Apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."[74]Therefore, claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.

The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard to I John 5:7-8.The passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.[75]Studies show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the minority text of a and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.[76]It is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remain unexamined. It is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.[77]Dogmatic conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all the evidence.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.

The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.[78]True, it does not appear in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome?In fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.[79]If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts, what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus (988).Scrivener said that the passage "is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps 49 out of every 50 of its manuscripts."[80]Moreover, against Metzger's claim of lateness, the Comma is claimed by others to be found in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts.[81]

As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger's external evidence for the omission of I John 5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive at almost every point. Thus, he fails to prove that the passage is an interpolation. The textual evidence supporting the Comma is much greater than most critics would have us to believe; an honest evaluation of the evidence yields a case for inclusion that is at least as plausible as one for exclusion.[82]Once again, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Metzger falls short.

If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John 5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14).Even Aland, the UBS' own, admits that the true text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.[83]The majority, however, is not as extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.[84]Such a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5.This is hardly the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 498 are hostile to the Comma. This is substantially less than 5000.Of those 498 manuscripts, only 14 of them predate the ninth century.[85]The same scholars that reject the Comma criticize the Textus Receptus for following so-called "late manuscripts" when they use the same manuscripts as the bulk of their evidence against I John 5:7-8.In other words, 97 per cent of their evidence is late. Maynard asserts:

Opposers of 1 John v.7f are not admitting, that after four centuries (the 17th to 20th) of scholars searching for MSS they could not even muster 3% of all their evidence against 1 John v.7f as being significant, by their standards. Only 14 Greek MSS (2.8%) of the 482 hostile MSS [Maynard arrives at this number from the fact that Metzger considers 16 of the 498 manuscripts to be worthless and irrelevant] they would consider boasting about, were dated from the ninth century or earlier.[86]

Another "reason that the absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse."[87]God may have allowed I John 5:7-8 to fall out of 14 Greek manuscripts prior to the ninth century and many thereafter for the purpose of drawing our attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, for after all, the Comma is the most concise and clear statement regarding this subject throughout all of Scripture. Such a scenario is at least plausible and worthy of consideration.

==Lexical Analysis==

The Johannine Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard to the issue at hand—logoV. This is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine Christology. The second person of the Trinity is referred to as the "Word." Such a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in [[John 1:1]], 14; I John 1:1; and [[Revelation 19:13]].This fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse, for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."[88]LogoV, being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to use when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as is the case in the Comma. On the other hand, if the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove the trinity, the forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19).This issue of tradition, however, will be discussed more in depth under the traditional analysis.

==Syntactical Analysis==

Of significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue of syntax. Plainly speaking, if the Comma is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with respect to the general rules of the Greek language. The masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness[89]) are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood[90]).As Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty."[91]John most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure and syntax are altogether simple and understandable. In attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender."[92]However, the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless the Comma is present. It is true that the Spirit (pneuma), a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides, Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.

If the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with the two masculines (Father & Word[93]) and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit[94]), and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected to them. Such is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament and John's writings in particular. As previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca. 385).[95]

==Structural Analysis==

From the above structural analysis, a contrast of two groups of three becomes apparent. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of two, three, or four. Examples of this include Proverbs 30; [[Amos 1:3]], 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

The Comma is also structurally important with reference to verse 9. I John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness of men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.

==Rhetorical Analysis==

In the realm of rhetorical criticism, the Johannine Comma seems to conform to the Apostle John's literary style. As far as tone is concerned, "there reigns throughout the Epistle a firm and manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm" (e.g. 1:6-10; 2:19; 3:6-10; 4:1-2; etc.).[96]This tone is likewise prevalent in the Comma which tersely presents the truth of an important doctrine, leaving the reader with no room to question.

John's writings are also characterized by contrasts. According to Tidwell, "the ordinary contrasts cover almost the same words and ideas of the Gospel such as life and death, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness with several others and with the addition of Christ and anti-Christ." The Comma, in particular, feeds the contrast which John creates between Jesus Christ and Antichrist (cf. 2:18-23).Jesus Christ is God (cf. 5:7-8).Antichrist, on the other hand, is the one who denies this fact (cf. 2:22).

One final aspect of John's style that is worthy of consideration with respect to the Comma, is parallelism. I John is filled with both positive and negative parallelism. For example, the Apostle writes in 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all," and in 1:9, "Forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 5:7-8, the Comma included, also contains parallelism, a synthetic type to be exact. The three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, and Holy Ghost) and the three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood) are actually the same three witnesses. As Oliver Greene argues, "Therefore, since the Trinity - the Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost - bear record in heaven, it is these three who also bear record in earth."[97]In other words, the promulgation of the three earthly witnesses serves to expand or elaborate on the role of the three heavenly witnesses. The earthly witnesses are sourced in the heavenly witnesses. The "blood" refers to the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28) while the "water" is a reference to Jesus Christ at his baptism. The "Spirit," of course, is the third member of the Godhead. This particular type of parallelism is very common with John and could conceivably be called a chiasmus in this particular instance.

A. Father

B. Word <------------------------------Heavenly Witnesses

C. Holy Ghost

A'.Blood

If the Comma is omitted, the chiasmic structure falls apart.

Altogether, the Johannine Comma reflects John's rhetorical style. Fuller points out, "The connexion of the passage is altogether in its favor. The phraseology is that of the Apostle John; so that if the words are not his, it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined."[98]

==Tradition Analysis==

With regard to tradition criticism, it is the tradition that the Comma does reflect that is significant. Had a redactor added the passage to argue for the Trinity, he would have almost certainly utilized the common Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This formula "became part of a very early tradition in the church."[99]It was employed in the Didache (7.1-4) as well as Justin's Apology (1.61).The strength of forgery is similarity not uniqueness. Ruckman argues, "What would have possibly been gained by inventing a different formula than the one given in Matthew 28, which every Christian knew by heart?"[100]Also, Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" numerous times in I John. A true forger would have no doubt utilized "Son" instead of "Word" so as to further disguise his redactional efforts.

==Theological Analysis==

The theological significance of the Johannine Comma goes without saying. As noted, it is the only clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in all of Scripture. Thus, when James White argues that "the reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures," he is wrong.[101]When John Ankerberg concludes that textual differences only apply to 1% of the text, and none of them are doctrinally important, he is incorrect.[102]The Trinity is a doctrine that sets Christianity apart from all other religions—one God in three persons. It is interesting to note Erickson's argument for the Trinity in his Christian Theology. He begins by stating, "One text which has traditionally been appealed to as documenting the Trinity is I John 5:7 . . .unfortunately, the textual basis is so weak . . . If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere."[103]He then proceeds over the next five pages to exegete and systematize numerous passages that imply this doctrine. He concludes, "Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated, the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing."[104]It seems rather strange to base a fundamental Christian doctrine upon suggestion. Perhaps this is why so many cults ([[Jehovah's Witnesses]]) are able to manipulate the Bible so as to assert that Jesus was not God. After all, the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses rejects the Comma.

A matter of theological significance that transcends the text of I John 5:7-8 concerns the issue of final authority. Is the Bible we hold in our hands the Word of God or not? If it contains errors, it can only be said that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. This is Neo-orthodoxy. When critical scholars boastfully claim that the Comma is not a legitimate part of Scripture, they are questioning the authority of the Book and disregarding the traditional text that brought about the Reformation. Questioning, when it comes to the text of Scripture, is the starting point of all kinds of apostasy. Is the final authority in the Book, or is it in what man says about the Book? In other words, should one reject the Comma because man says it doesn't belong, or should it be accepted by faith because it has been preserved in a Bible that God has blessed for 450 years."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" ([[Psalm 118:8]]).The King James Bible has unquestionably produced more spiritual fruit than all of modern English versions put together. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).Whatever may have be wrong with modern English versions, "There is one thing that is certain, they produced an ignorance of the CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING."[105]

The accusations against I John 5:7-8 that are hurled by modern scholars are typical of attacks that rain down on numerous other places in the text of the Bible ("I know your King James Bible says this, but it really should say this . . .").Such assaults sound too strikingly familiar to Satan's discourse in the Garden of Eden. The "Father of Lies" did not argue with Eve about whether or not there was a God, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity was true, or even whether God's Word was inspired. No, apostasy began when Satan questioned God's words and placed doubt in Eve's heart. "Eve, I know that God said you would die if you eat the fruit, but he really meant that you would be just like him, a god" (author's paraphrase). Jesus warns in Mark 4:15, "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." When doubt is given a beachhead, all other defenses soon fall. Hasty dismissals of I John 5:7-8 have served to do nothing but cast doubt upon the sovereignly preserved Word of God. According to Moorman, the entire matter boils down to one question: "Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture."[106] A heretic has never been able to construct an argument without altering the words of the King James Bible. Interesting?

Any proper approach to the text of Scripture, including I John 5:7-8, must take into account the doctrine of preservation. In Psalm 12:6-7, God promised to preserve His words for every generation. The same God who inspired the original Greek autographs is most certainly powerful enough to preserve them in the copying process as Greek manuscripts multiplied. If this is not true, what would have been the purpose in inspiring the Scriptures if men were just going to mutilate and corrupt them? Preservation does not just extend to the general message of the Bible, but to the very words themselves (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35).This being true, the perfectly preserved Word of God existed down through the ages and will be in existence until Christ returns. It is true that not even two out of the five thousand extant Greek manuscripts agree with each other 100% of the time. However, this body of manuscripts most definitely does not represent all of the manuscripts that ever existed. Many have since rotted away. Therefore, in light of God's promise of preservation, it is not illogical to think that manuscripts once existed that completely agreed with the traditional text of the Textus Receptus and consequently, contained the Johannine Comma. Maybe Erasmus, Luther, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir Brothers, and the King James translators did not have such manuscripts, but why couldn't Almighty God have guided them into selecting the right words from the body of manuscripts they did possess? After, all God is in control of His words. Towns writes, "If an all-powerful God cannot control the vehicle of His self-revelation, then His power and nature can be questioned."[107]

A common assertion among conservative evangelicals is that the inspiration of Scripture only applies to the original autographs. This, however, cannot be true in light of God's promise of preservation.[108] The word "Scripture" is never used in the Bible to refer to the originals (cf. Acts 8:32; 17:11).Besides, in II Timothy 3:16, when Paul discusses the inspiration of Scripture, he does so in a context in which he says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures as a child (cf. 3:15).Paul is not referring to the original autographs of the Old Testament, for they had passed out of existence long before the Apostle was even born. Paul was saying that the Scripture Timothy had read as a child were inspired.They were not the original autographs, but they were inspired in the sense that they had been perfectly preserved by God Almighty. Some might argue that this interpretation is faulty because it calls for the fusing together of two verses.The "scholar" may see it that way, but the Bible was written for the common man (cf. Psalm 119:99-100).A simple reading (minus grammatical analysis, verb parsings, theological presuppositions, etc.) of this passage clearly shows that Paul is not limiting inspiration to the originals. Such a faulty interpretation is based on theological presupposition.[109] Towns writes, "The Bible . . . is as perfect as God, and its perfection extends to every word."[110] Most evangelicals will accept this statement as truth, but such a statement is meaningless if there is not immediate access to these perfect words. Immediate access is available by way of divine preservation. Not only is God's Word perfectly preserved after the Original Autographs, but according to Psalm 119:89; John 12:49-50; 17:8, it precedes them.

The doctrine of inspiration does not only apply to the original autographs nor does it apply exclusively to the original languages of the autographs. IfGod preserved his Word as He promised, then inspiration can apply to translations.[111] When is the last time that Greek and Hebrew was used by God to reach someone with the Gospel? If the original languages were the only source of inspired Scripture, then the ancient Hebrews must have been a extremely ignorant, for the Pentateuch could not have originally been written in Hebrew. After all, "Moses was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), and someone had to translate what Moses said in Egyptian to Pharaoh back into Hebrew. Yet, the Jews believed their Hebrew Scriptures were inspired and still do today. Moorman makes a point worthy of consideration: "as so few can read the original languages, God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations. . . If a translation cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek before they can be saved, or built up in the faith."[112]

Another principle to keep in mind with reference to "questionable passages" (e.g. I John 5:7-8) is that they must be approached with an attitude of faith. As Hebrews 11:6 asserts, "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Dean Burgon once wrote, "There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, immediately abdicated His office and took no further care of His work; that He abandoned those precious writings."[113] The whole crux of the matter boils down to faith, plain and simple. Unfortunately, most modern critics (Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, the UBS, et. al,) approach the sacred science of textual criticism with presuppositions against inerrancy. They treat the Bible as if it were just another book. Such an attitude cannot be founded upon faith, and consequently, is not pleasing to God.

Much more could be said about the relationship between inspiration and preservation, but the question must come back to the Johannine Comma. In this excursus, the author has shown that a case can be constructed for the genuineness of the text of the three heavenly witnesses. As to how strong a case, the author will leave it up to the reader's individual judgment. The author does not say that his case is all conclusive, but on the other hand, by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should not be included. In the case of the accusation against the King James Bible, the burden of proof, as has been noted several times, LIES WITH THE ACCUSER. The accuser cannot prove his case; therefore, the author accepts the Comma's authenticity by faith., a faith that is backed up with plenty of evidence. God, in His sovereignty, saw to it that the text was preserved in the Bible's of the Reformation and the best-selling book of all time—The Authorized King James Version. As to why the passage fell out of so many Greek mss, only the Almighty knows. It is at least possible that the text was excised from the Greek tradition by heretics who didn't want to believe that Jesus was God. Nonetheless, it was preserved in the Latin text through the use of the Latin speaking church.

The whole matter can be concluded with a question? Who would be honored more by the presence of the Comma in Holy Scripture—Jesus Christ or the Devil? The answer goes without saying. In the words of Gail Riplinger, "Guesses or God, fear or faith, haughty or humble. These are the perpetual options for the Christian."[114]

==Homiletical Analysis==

It is the author's opinion that the Johannine Comma is authentic Holy Scripture. Therefore, it can and should be preached from. Two approaches can be taken—an exegetical and a topical. An exegetical approach might utilize the surrounding context. A possible outline might look something like this:
Proposition: In I John 5:4-10, John promulgates two facts about biblical faith.
I. THE FIRST FACT: Biblical faith overcomes the world - 5:4-5

A. The inevitability of overcoming – 5:4

1.Stated – "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."

2.Elaborated – "and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

B. The identity of the overcomer – 5:5

1.What he does – "Who is he that overcometh the world"

2.What he believes – "but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."

II. THE SECOND FACT: Biblical faith is sanctioned.

A. Sanctioned by truth – 5:6

B. Sanctioned by three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Holy Ghost) – 5:7

C. Sanctioned by three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, blood) – 5:8

D. A Parenthetical Explanation – 5:9

1.The supremacy of the witness of God – "If we receive the witness of men,

witness of God is greater."

2.The clarification of the witness of God – "for this is the witness of God which he

hath testified of his Son."

E. Sanctioned by the believer's spiritual consciousness – 5:10

1.Stated positively – "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in

himself"

2.Stated negatively – "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he

believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

A topical approach to I John 5:7-8 might focus upon the nature of the Trinity. A possible outline could resemble the following.

Proposition: In I John 5:7-8, the Apostle explicates the triune nature of God from two

perspectives.

I. THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE: A Heavenly Perspective – 5:7

A. Delineated – "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost."

1.The first person of the Trinity – "Father"

2.The second person of the Trinity – "Word"

3.The third person of the Trinity – "Holy Ghost"

B. Described – "and these three are one"

II. THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE: An Earthly Perspective – 5:8

A. Delineated – "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the

water, and the blood."

1.The third person of the Trinity – "Spirit"

2.The second person of the Trinity—Jesus at his baptism—"water"

3.The first person of the Trinity—the blood of God shed on the cross—"blood"

B. Described – "and these three agree in one"

==APPENDIX A==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA—EARLY EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST===
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts = 5,000 +
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence
* 30 mss. – 10th century
* 80 mss. – 11th century
* 79 mss. – 12th century
* 98 mss. – 13th century
* 119 mss. – 14th century
* 55 mss. – 15th century
* 15 mss. –16th century
* 6 mss. – 17th century
* 1 mss. – 18th century

Historical Breakdown of Favorable Evidence
A.D. (ca.)
* 200 – Tertullian
* 250 – Cyprian
* 318 – Athanasius
* 350 – Idacius Clarus
* 380 – Priscillian
* 385 – Gregory of Nazanzius
* 390 – Jerome
* 450 – Contra Varimadum
* 450 – Latin mss. m
* 485 – Council of Carthage
* 485 – Victor of Vitensis
* 500 – Latin mss. r
* 527 – Fulgentius
* 570 – Cassiodorus
* 636 – Isidore of Seville
* 650 – Codex Pal Legionensus
* 700 – Jaqub of Edessa
* 735 – mss. used by Venerable Bede
* 850 – Codex Ulmensis

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century. Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day. It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation. The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

RESULT: The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence
predating the ninth century; hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence. The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe. In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be.

==APPENDIX B==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA AND THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH===

Having refuted the customary arguments against the Johannine Comma, it becomes appropriate to evaluate the textual evidence. This is best done perhaps by applying Dean Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth." Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, believed that the science of textual criticism should be approached with an attitude of faith, for the Bible is an inspired Book; it should not be treated and evaluated like any other book. "The Bible is different because it is divine." Therefore, Burgon set forth seven tests of truth that he believed would best help a person evaluate the evidence for any given passage. Concerning these tests, he comments:
. . . although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength lies in their cooperation.

For this cause, the author shall apply the "Seven Notes" to the Johannine Comma on a pass or fail basis. By their cooperation, it will be seen that a case can be constructed for the inclusion of this important passage within the text of Holy Scripture.

==The Test of Antiquity==

"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony." A word of caution, however, is in order. The "oldest is best" philosophy is sound only on the surface, for there is much more to judging the age of a reading than simply determining the age of any given manuscript. After all, the oldest reading is not necessarily found in the oldest manuscript. For example, although Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century) is far older than the few Greek mss that do contain the Comma, the passage is quoted by Cyprian, as noted, in the third century. In that respect, the reading of Comma is actually older than the oldest Greek manuscript which attests to I John 5.

When considering this test, one must not forget that the worst corruption to which the New Testament has perhaps ever been subjected originated within a hundred years or so after the originals were penned. According to Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150. Moreover, an ancient Western (Rome) Church Father by the name of Caius (2nd century) once wrote:

For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them . . . their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them . . . For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs [emphasis is mine]? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed.

The point of drawing attention to this fact is that it is not the oldest document for which one must search, but the oldest reading. Does the Johannine Comma represent an early reading? Tertullian and Cyprian cite the passage in the third century; it is utilized at the Council of Carthage in 485; and it can be traced back through the Old Latin of the Waldensian Church (The Old Itala was translated in the second century). In addition to this, one must consider that all extant Greek papyrii are silent to the issue. However, Tertullian, Cyprian, the African Bishops at Carthage, and the Waldenses had to get the reading from somewhere. Therefore, the Comma passes the test of antiquity.

==The Test of Consent of Witnessss==

By this, Burgon means number. Unfortunately, most modern textual critics argue that manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted. Burgon asserted that this maxim "may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy." The traditional text of the Textus Receptus, for the most part, is based upon the readings of the majority of manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are generally late (8th-11th centuries) and consequently discarded by modern critics such as the UBS editors. The question that such critics refuse to ask is where did this great number of manuscripts come from? They must have been copies of earlier uncials and/or papyri that were perhaps lost or destroyed. If ten students were asked to copy a paragraph off the chalkboard, and nine of the ten copies agreed, which best represents the true text? Logic is in favor of the nine copies as opposed to the one disparate copy. The same holds true for New Testament manuscripts. Logic is in favor of the great majority of witnesses. As convincing as this argument is, it must not be utilized as the sole test of truth, for there are several passages in the Textus Receptus that are not found in the great majority of witnesses (e.g. I John 5:7-8). Therefore, as James Borland argues, "Number must be considered as an important factor, but only as one of the tests of truth." Nonetheless, the Comma enjoys at least 19 witnesses prior to the ninth century and numerous witnesses thereafter. Granted, the number is a minority. Were there only two or three witnesses, the Comma could legitimately be said to have failed this test. However, 19 witnesses prior to the 9th century does not bespeak failure. I John 5:7-8 passes the test of consent of witnesses.

==The Test of Variety==

"The greater the variety of witnesses there are, the less chance there is for collusion or deceit to spring from the few." This, of course, can apply to both geographical location and kinds of witnesses. Burgon argues that this is the strongest ally that any reading can have. The Johannine Comma definitely has variety on its side, despite a weak attestation in extant Greek manuscripts. It is found in eight Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, various Waldensian Bibles, numerous German manuscripts, and a few Armenian and Slavonic copies. Moreover, it enjoys early patristic evidence (i.e. Cyprian, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cassiodorus, et. al.). These witnesses represent a wide geographical spread—North Africa, Italy, Asia Minor; Syria; the Caucasus; Russia; Germany; and even England (i.e. the work of Venerable Bede in the 8th century). The Comma passes the test of variety.

==The Test of Continuity==

A fourth test of truth considers the continuity or unbroken testimony of witnesses in favor of a particular reading. As Burgon argued, "this principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the cursives and the later uncials," not the so-called "oldest and best" readings of the modern Greek editions. For the most part, the readings contained in the Textus Receptus have continuity on their side. I John 5:7-8, for example, appears consistently throughout history from A.D. 200 to A.D. 1500 just prior to Erasmus' compiling of the first printed Greek edition. On that basis, the Comma again passes the test.

==The Test of Respectability of Witnesses==

Another test of truth involves weight or respectability. In other words, "if a manuscript proves itself to be erroneous on a frequent basis by a number of acceptable standards, then it loses its respectability." It is safe to say that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not satisfy this category, for their differences from the majority of manuscripts as well as from each other are horrific. Therefore, they should be overlooked. Maybe modern critics should take a lesson from Erasmus when he was approached with readings from Vaticanus; he rejected them. With specific regard to the Comma, witnesses such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, orthodox African writers, the [[Vulgate]], and the Waldensian Bibles certainly stand out as respectable witnesses. Again, the text passes.

==The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage==

This test is concerned with the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. In other words, if a manuscript can be shown to be faulty in several instances in the context of a particular reading, then it is logical that "mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or other shapes." With regard to the Comma, all of the above state witnesses exhibit unsullied integrity in the first few verses of I John 5.

==The Test of Internal Considerations==

This final test of truth focuses upon internal evidence, particularly of a grammatical and scientific nature. "If a particular reading is grammatically, geographically, scientifically, and historically impossible, then it must not be accepted if other readings do not present such problems." For example, the UBS4 accepts a variant reading in Luke 23:45 that is a scientific impossibility. Each of the synoptic Gospels contains the phrase "skotoV egeneto" (there was darkness) (cf. Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). However, Luke adds an additional phrase regarding the sun. The Textus Receptus reads "kai eskotisqh o hlioV" (and the sun was darkened) while the UBS4 reads "tou hliou eklipontoV" (The sun was eclipsed). Like the UBS's faulty readings in Matthew 1:7,10, this reading implies an error in Luke's original autograph: "A solar eclipse is impossible astronomically during the full moon of the Passover when sun and moon are 180 degrees apart in relation to the earth." Luke, being an astute physician, would not have made such a blundering mistake. This reading fails the test of reasonableness because it is scientifically impossible. Therefore, it needs to be added to the long list of corrupt readings found in the UBS4 that should be discarded.

The Johannine Comma, on the other hand, has much on its side in the area of internal considerations. It not only fits the structure, style, and immediate context of I John, but its omission presents a bald grammatical difficulty—three neuter nouns governed by a masculine participle. Let the Comma stand, and "the power of attraction" goes into effect. The Comma thus passes the seventh and final test.

==APPENDIX C==
===A NOTE ON BAPTIST HERITAGE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT===

The inseparable relationship that exists between the inspiration and preservation of Holy Scripture has been an important issue particularly in Baptist heritage. For example, the London Confession of 1644, a creed of the English Baptists reads:
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures . . . In this written Word God hath plainly revealed whatsoever he hath though needful for us to know . . .

It was clear to the English Baptists that God had plainly revealed to them His words in the Holy Scriptures which had been inspired and passed down through the ages as the absolute "Rule of Faith." Only through perfect preservation could this possibly have been true.

In 1833, the American Baptists drew up the New Hampshire Confession. Concerning the Scriptures, it reads,
We believe [that] the Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter . . . and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

This could only be true if God's words had been inspired and perfectly preserved.
For Baptists to deny the perfect providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures is to defy their Baptist heritage as well as the general consensus of the Christian Church for most of history prior to the modern era. Unfortunately, this has occurred all to often as Baptist schools and seminaries are rejecting the doctrine of preservation in favor of naturalistic textual criticism. Michael Maynard, while speaking of Baptist scholars such as A.T. Robertson, J.A. Broadus, J.P. Boyce and D.A. Carson, all of whom regarded the Received Text as an inferior Greek text, argues that they "betrayed their Baptist heritage when they adopted the textual theories of the Anglican scholar F.J.A. Hort, the Presbyterian B.B. Warfield, and the Lutheran K. Tischendorf."

With regard to the Johannine Comma, Baptist views in favor of the passage have long been in print. John Gill (1748) and Andrew Fuller (1815), two Baptist scholars, argued for the authenticity of the Comma long before A.T. Robertson came along. When Robertson, however, did show up on the scene, he was completely oblivious to the views of his Baptist predecessors; he did not even acknowledge them in his works on textual criticism. All in all, Baptist heritage and the Johannine Comma goes all the way back to the Swiss Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Waldensians et. al. All of these groups have their place in the lineage of modern-day Baptists, and all of them held to the Received Text of Scripture which included I John 5:7-8 as it stands in an Authorized King James Bible. Therefore, to deny the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is in a sense to deny Baptist heritage.

==WORKS CONSULTED==
Aland, Barbara and [[Kurt Aland|Aland, Kurt]]. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [[1987 AD|1987]].

Ankerberg, John and Weldon, John. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996.

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Borger, Rykle. "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta." In Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3
(1987). 280-284.

Borland, James. A General Introduction to the New Testament. Lynchburg: VA: University
Book House, 1995.

. "Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate
Inerrancy." In Journal of the Evangelical Thelogical Society (December 4, 1982): 499-506.

Brown, R.E. The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Burgon, John W. "The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels." In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed. by Jay P. Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

Butler, Charles. "To Rev. Herbert Marsh." Horae Biblicae. London: W. Clarke & Sons, 1817.

Clarke, Adam. The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.

Combs, William. "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus." In Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1
(Spring 1996): 35-53.

Custer, Stewart, The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. Greenville, SC: BJU
University Press, 1981.

Dabney, Robert. The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek. Edinburgh:
Banner of Trust, 1967.

Dobbin, Orlando T. The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation. London: Bagster, 1854.

Ebrard, John. Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860.

Elliot, J.K. "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions." In A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of
the Greek New Testament. New York: E.J. Brill, 1987.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lee. (LB IX
199-284) [May, 1520]. Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980]: 381-389).

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Forster, C. A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1867.

Gill, John. An Exposition on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1980 [rep].

Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984.

The Greek New Testament (4th Edition). Ed. by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Greene, Oliver. The Epistles of John. Greenville. SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966.

Hayes, D.A. John and His Writings. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1917.

Jaqub of Edessa. On The Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries. Translated by R.E. Brown in The
Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Jerome. The Canonical Epistles. Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate
Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

Jonge, Henk J. Personal Lettter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).

"Letter IX." In The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1988.

Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

McGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1911.

[[Bruce Metzger|Metzger, Bruce]]. The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition). Germany: United
Bible Societies, 1993.

[[Jack Moorman|Moorman, Jack]]. Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, NJ: Bible for
Today, n.d.

."Principles of Bible Preservation." O Timothy Magazine. Vol. 9, Issue 8. Ed. by David
W. Cloud. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1992: 1-13.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolan, Frederick. Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. n.p., 1815.

Puckett, David. Class Notes—General Church History I. Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern
Seminary, 1998.

[[Gail Riplinger|Riplinger, Gail]]. New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

. Which Bible is God's Word? Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1933.

[[Peter Ruckman|Ruckman, Peter]]. Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1998.

."James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible - Errors 6&7." In Bible Believer's
Bulletin (March, 1996): 1-5

Scott, Ernest. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press,
1963.

Scrivener, F. H. A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th Edition.
London: G. Bell, 1984 (rep).

Tidwell, Josiah. John and His Five Books. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today (2nd Edition). Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994.

Vedder, Henry. The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Griffith
and Rowland Press, n.d.

Victor of Vitensis. Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov. 2.82 in CSEL 7, 60. Translated by
Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995. 43.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

[[James White|White, James]]. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

[[Benjamin Wilkinson|Wilkinson, Benjamin]]. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." In Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

==Footnotes==

* 1. The author recognizes that much of the evidence presented is based upon internal considerations which are subjective by their very nature.What one may see as support for a given reading, another might view as an indictment against that very same reading.Nevertheless, the fact that support can be gleaned for the Comma from internal evidence shows that the issue is not a foregone conclusion.The internal evidence, which greatly supports the passage, serves to supplement what critics term a weak attestation in the realm of external evidence.
* 2. A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1933),6: 199.
* 3. Josiah Tidwell, John and His Five Books(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937),90-92.
* 4. John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1860),5.
* 5. The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
* 6. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.
* 7. Robertson,6:200.
* 8. David Puckett, Class Notes—General Church History I (Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Seminary, 1998),10.Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge (gnwsiV) and so were called Gnostics (Gnwstikoi).
* 9. I John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2.
* 10. Robertson,6:201
* 11. Ibid.
* 12. Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984), 167.
* 13. D. A. Hayes, John and His Writings(New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1917),161.
* 14. John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860),3.
* 15. Henry Vedder, The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Rowland Press),99.
* 16. Ibid.,101.
* 17. Ernest Scott, The Literature of the New Testament(New York: Columbia University Press, 1963),260.
* 18. Vedder, 103-132
* 19. Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994),649.
* 20. Robert Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek(Edinburgh: Banner of Trust, 1967),306.
* 21. In the Greek, the phrase reads, "oi treiV eiV to en eisin" which literally translates "and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One."
* 22. Dabney,307
* 23. The spelling of the word "Saviour" as retained in the Authorized Version is preferred by the author.The modern English translations remove the "u" from this title.As a result, a seven-letter word (7= the number of God) becomes a six-letter word (6=the number of man).
* 24. Dabney,307
* 25. Because the foundation of all accusations against I John 5:7-8 rests upon textual evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, this analysis will be more lengthy and complex than the others.
* 26. Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger (4th Edition), The Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994).
* 27. Ibid.,819; Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647-648.
* 28. Ibid.
* 29. Robertson,6:241.
* 30. Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647.
* 31. Oftentimes, the marginal readings are hastily dismissed.However, what are they doing in the margins?It makes more sense that someone would put them there because they recognized the passage to be missing.
* 32. The reading of the Comma found in Codex Britannicus is given byOrlando T. Dobbin in The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation (London: Bagster, 1854) on page 10.His source is Erasmus' Apologia ad Jacobum Stunicam (1522), reprinted in the Basle edition (1540) of Erasmus' works, pp. 238-296.Codex Britannicus reads: "7oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to pna 8kai outoi oi treiV en eisi, kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pna, to udwr, kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisi ei thn marturian twn anwn lambanomen."The underlined phrase is not found in Codex Monfortianus, so the two manuscripts cannot be the same.Furthermore, Erasmus could not have gotten the Comma from the Monfort Codex.
* 33. William Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996), 49.
* 34. Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),76.
* 35. Desiderius Erasmus,Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lei (LB IX 199-284) [May, 1520. . Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980. , 381-389).
* 36. Henk J. de Jonge, Personal Letter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).
* 37. The reading of the Comma found in the Monfort Codex could not have come from the Compultensian Polygot.Although this edition was first printed in 1514, Cardinal Ximenes did not get permission from Pope Leo X to publish the work until 1520.It was not until 1522 that this edition actually began to circulate and eventually come into Erasmus' hands.
* 38. Erasmus first included the Comma in his third edition which did not appear until 1522.The reading of the Comma as found in the Codex Monfort does not match Erasmus' reading in his third edition in several places.For example, the last clause (and these three agree in one) is not in the Monfort, but included in Erasmus' third edition.Furthermore, the six articles are omitted and agoin and pneuma are transposed.Erasmus included the articles and did not swap agion pneuma.
* 39. Peter Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"Bible Believer's Bulletin (March 1996),3.
* 40. Adam Clarke, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.), 6: 928-929.
* 41. Charles Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1867), 126.
* 42. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978),7: 323-324.
* 43. Maynard,41.A more thorough discussion of the syntactical problem that arises if the Comma is omitted can be found under the Syntactical Analysis.
* 44. Metzger, Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament,648.
* 45. Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11. ; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.
* 46. Charles Butler, "To Rev. Herbert Marsh," in Horae Biblicae (London: W. Clarke and Sons, 1817), 403-406.
* 47. Metzger, Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,648.
* 48. F.H.A. Scrivener,A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th Edition
(London: G. Bell, 1984 [rep. ), 403.
* 49. Maynard,15-16.For a specific identification of these five Syriac editions, one should consult page 51* of the UBS4.
* 50. Jaqub of Edessa, On the Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries, translated by R.E. Brown in The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),778.
* 51. Maynard,96.
* 52. Tremellius' words were provided and translated by Rykle Borger into German in "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta," in Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3 (1987) 280-284.Michael Maynard, in turn, translated Borger's German into English (A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 , 95).
* 53. Maynard,96.
* 54. Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"3.
* 55. Maynard,334-339
* 56. Tertullian, Against Praxeas, II-- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),3: 598.
* 57. John Gill,An Exposition on the Old and New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 [rep.. ),907-908.
* 58. R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),782.
* 59. Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926),5:423.
* 60. Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),285.
* 61. Maynard,62.
* 62. Metzger, Early Versions, 304.
* 63. Maynard,62.
* 64. J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," in A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament(New York: E. J. Brill, 1987),280.
* 65. Maynard,62.
* 66. Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version.(Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, n.d.),29.
* 67. Gail Riplinger, Which Bible is God's Word (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995),53.
* 68. Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," in Which Bible?Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975),212.
* 69. Ibid.,210.
* 70. Ibid.
* 71. Ibid.,211.
* 72. Ibid. [emphasis mine. .
* 73. Ibid.
* 74. Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (n.p., 1815), xvii-xviii.
* 75. For a complete listing of Old Latin manuscripts which contain the Comma, one should consult Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (332-348).
* 76. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions,482.
* 77. Maynard,343-348.
* 78. Metzger, Textual Commentary of the New Testament, 648.
* 79. Jerome, The Canonical Epistles.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),41.
* 80. Scrivener,650.
* 81. Maynard,343.
* 82. Besides what has been mentioned in this brief textual analysis, there is a lot more evidence for the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 as retained in the Textus Receptus of the AV 1611 King James Bible.For more information, one should consult Michael Maynard's astounding work, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
* 83. Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 281.
* 84. Stewart Custer made such claim in The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. (Greenville, SC: BJU University Press, 1981). He, however, argued that only 2 manuscripts contained the Comma out of 5000.Similar claims have been made in the classrooms of many colleges and universities across the country.
* 85. There are only 14 Greek manuscripts hostile to the Johannine Comma that predate the ninth century.They are as follows: a, A, B, Y, K, L, P, 048, 049, 0296, 1424, 1841, 1862, 1895.Maynard lists these in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (pp. 333-335).
* 86. Maynard,286 [emphasis mine. .
* 87. Ibid.
* 88. Robertson,5:4.
* 89. oi treiV marturounteV
* 90. pneuma, udwr, aima
* 91. Dabney, 306.
* 92. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 332.
* 93. Pater, LogoV92Agion Pneuma
* 95. The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 7: 233-234.
* 96. Ebrard, 41.
* 97. Oliver Greene, The Epistles of John(Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966), 191.
* 98. "Letter IX" in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller(Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, [[1988 AD|1988. . ), 1: 708-709.
* 99. Millard Erickson,Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House,1983), 329.
* 100. [[Peter Ruckman]]. . , [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]. . , Why We Retain It In The Authorized Version (Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d.), 4.
* 101. [[James White]]. . , [[The King James Only Controversy]](Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers,1995[[), 40.
* 102. [[John Ankerberg]] and[[ John Weldon]], The Facts on the King James Only Debate]] (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996), 8.
* 103. Erickson, 327.
* 104. Ibid.[emphasis mine. .
* 105. [[Peter Ruckman]], Biblical Scholarship(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988), 105.
* 106. [[Jack Moorman]], "Principles of Bible Preservation,"O Timothy Magazine(Vol. 9, Issue 8, 1992), 2.
* 107. Elmer Towns, Theology for Today , 2nd Edition (Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994), 49.
* 108. Some might criticize this perspective, claiming that inspiration cannot be equated with preservation. However, the two are inseparable. Preservation reflects inspiration.In other words, the words contained in the [[Received Text]] are inspired in the sense that they are preserved.
* 109. The "scholar" might go on to argue that no copies are perfect, so they cannot be inspired.Therefore, it is concluded that God's words are preserved in manuscript copies only as far as these copies agree with the original manuscripts.Such an argument is nonsense. When is the last time that anyone saw the original manuscripts? They passed out of existence almost 1900 years ago. Such a viewpoint essentially says that we cannot know God's very words because we do not have the inspired originals with which to compare manuscript copies to. This clearly goes against God's promise in [[Psalm 12:6]]-[[[[Psalm 12:7|7]] and downplays the absolute authority of Scripture.
* 110. Towns, 49.
* 111. Of course, inspiration can only apply to translations that represent the pure line of Scripture. Modern versions represent a corrupt line of Scripture that was born in Egypt (a), moved to Rome (B), and eventually came to England ([[RSV]]) and America ([[ASV]], [[NASV]], [[NIV]], [[NEB]], [[LB]], etc.).The pure line of text, on the other hand, originated in Antioch, is represented by the Old Latin, Old Syriac, German Bibles, the [[Textus Receptus]], and the [[AV]] [[1611 AD|1611]] [[King James Version|King James Bible]].
* 112. [[Jack Moorman|Moorman]], Principles of Biblical Preservation, 4.
* 113. [[John Burgon]], "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by [[Jay P. Green]] (Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990), A-7.
* 114. [[Gail Riplinger|Riplinger]], [[New Age Bible Versions]], 511.

Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd

2011-01-19T21:14:27Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Historical Analysis */

"And These Three Are One"

A Case For the Authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]]
Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

BY

JESSE M. BOYD

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

22 APRIL [[1999 AD|1999]]

This exegesis is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written word--perfectly preserved down through the ages and given to me in a language I can understand. Recognizing that, as [[Martin Luther]] once said, "The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself," I hereby construct this defense out of genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word of God as contained in the Authorized King James Bible. Without a perfectly preserved Written Word, I would know nothing of a personal relationship with the Living Word.

Secondly, it is dedicated to the many men, women, and children who gave their lives that I might have the Bible in English, a privilege which I do not take for granted. Thank-you for your sacrifice and may the Lord reward you richly in His kingdom.

Last, but not least, I dedicate this exegesis to my seminary professor, Dr. David Black, whose books have had a profound effect on my acquisition of a working knowledge of the Greek language. No biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students. The reasons for differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] are to be laid out in this paper. Despite disagreement, however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God. I pray, Dr. Black, that you would consider my presentation, acknowledging that this passage does not deserve the hasty dismissal it so often receives.

"And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory."
-II Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M. Boyd

==AND THESE THREE ARE ONE==
[[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], commonly referred to as the [[Johannine Comma]], has been one of the most hotly debated passages with regard to its authenticity for over a century.

Because it is one of those few passages included in the [[Textus Receptus]] which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts, many a student has paced his study for hours struggling with the question as to whether or not the Comma is a legitimate part of the Holy Scriptures. The hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern versions of the Bible is largely due to the fact that it is only found in eight of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth chapter of [[1 John|I John]]. Consequently, it is almost unanimously regarded among modern textual critics as a later scribal emendation.

The primary English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is the Authorized [[King James Bible]] which is based upon the Greek [[Textus Receptus]]. The passage reads:
* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Most modern translations ([[NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

* [[1 John 5:7|7]] For there are three that testify:
* [[1 John 5:8|8]] the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse [[1 John 5:7|7]], as found in the [[AV]]; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse [[1 John 5:8|8]] (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse [[1 John 5:7|7]].Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.

Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such [[Exegesis|exegesis]] is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The [[Exegesis|exegesis]] that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.[1] May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. [2]

==Historical Analysis==

The epistle of [[First Epistle of John|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD|85]]-[[90 AD|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,

:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[First Epistle of John|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel of John."[2]

This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. [[First Epistle of John|I John]] was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

:It [[First Epistle of John|I John]] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]

The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].[5]Cyprian writes around [[250 AD|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

==Literary Analysis==

In addition to the matter of historical context, the literary context of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] demands our attention. All three levels of literary analysis—canonical, remote, and immediate contexts—are important. With regard to the text's place in the New Testament canon, the Johannine Comma is the only clear affirmation of the [[Trinity]] throughout the entire [[New Testament]]. Apart from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together (e.g. [[Matthew 28:18]] + [[John 10:30]] + [[John 1:1]] + [[Acts 5:3]]-[[Acts 5:4|4).If a later scribe interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness. For example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in [[Matthew 28:19]].
The Johannine Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John. This can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre. I John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to simply edify other believers in the faith. However, it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament epistles. I John contains no formal greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or specified. Hayes argues, "There is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John. It might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and under almost any conditions. Its contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."[13]These facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in favor of the theological treatise such as is found in the Book of Hebrews. However, this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feelings."[14]

Perhaps the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle and treatise. Vedder argues that the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature. He writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."[15]In other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer. "A brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has written."[16]One, however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation. I John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a definite class of readers. "The writer is concerned throughout with a given situation. He takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph, to which the clue has now been lost."[17]With all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit I John. The Book contains numerous brief discourses dealing with a wide range of subjects. At the same time, however, while the Apostle chooses not to use the set epistolary forms, he approaches the readers as a community, briefly addressing them in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore, the theological discussions contained therein are laced with personal emotion and feeling which is common in New Testament epistles.

How does the genre of I John relate to the Comma? If the book is properly recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological teaching contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly. Such a statement, in fact, would be expected. The Epistle of I John can be broken down in the following manner:

I. Prologue (1:1-4)

II. Our Advocate (1:8-2:2)

III. Obedience (2:3-6)

IV. Purpose (2:12-14)

V. Love of the World (2:15-17)

VI. Antichrist (2:18-28)

VII. Character of God's Children (2:29-3:12)

IX. Love (3:13-24)

X. Test of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)

XI. God is Love (4:7-21)

XII. Victory of Faith (5:1-5)

XIII. Three Witnesses (5:6-13)

XIV. Prayer (5:14-17)

XV. Epilogue[18]

Each aforementioned section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes a brief discourse on a different theological topic. While no particular order is apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the readers understanding of Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of I John.

The Comma is found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses. This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials. The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth. It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God. In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty. If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down. The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses. They most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse (Victory of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).

Finally, I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. [[Bruce Metzger|Metzger]], in his [[Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament]], argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [[[The Johannine Comma]]] makes an awkward break in the sense."[19]Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true. For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."[20]Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.[21]What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree? In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage. "Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[22]The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted. The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

In a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and his consequent victory over the world. Such faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5, 11, 12, 20).This warrant is first presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy Ghost speaking by way of inspired men. In 5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father. Thirdly, the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning work of the Saviour.[23]Finally, as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge. "How harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."[24]

==FAITH'S SOLID WARRANT==
Textual Analysis[25]
The brunt of the argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma lies within the realm of textual criticism. Unfortunately, as mentioned, it is one of the few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from the Greek manuscript tradition. As a result, most modern critics toss it into the wastebasket. An example of such hasty dismissal can be seen in the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of The Greek New Testament.[26]In the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.[27]One is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers; and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.[28]Though such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad generalizations that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence. Perhaps the best approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's arguments, for they bespeak the opinions of most critical scholars. As noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of the Comma, such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the preserved Word of God. Nonetheless, the external evidence in favor of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us to believe by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."[29]

Metzger's presentation of the manuscript evidence is misleading.

The first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are as follows . . ."[30]Next, he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, 2318).Where is the eighth manuscript? The critical apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it. One is forced to wonder about this initial contradiction. Four of these eight manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636), while the other four include it as part of the text.[31]

It is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list the [[Codex Britannicus]] as evidence for the Comma.[32]Their reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators. The well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first and second editions. He argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript with the passage. Only then, would he include it in his edition.[33]Codex Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received it. Nevertheless he is said to have inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed to be the Codex Monfort).[34] First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely unsound. A careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius quod respondet . . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:

Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.[35]

Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript. Rather, he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk J. de Jonge states, "Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access."[36]In light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince Erasmus. If there had been, Erasmus would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.

Although [[Codex Monfortanius]] is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century (ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from. It did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.[37]It did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores of places.[38]Rather, the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which was not known in Europe until after 1552.[39]Besides, this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.[40]

As far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it cannot be equated with the Monfort, because the respective renderings of I John 5:7-8 are quite different.On the one hand, the Monfort omits the articles in verse seven (o, o, to) and transposes "agion pneuma."In verse 8, the articles (to, to, to), a conjunction (kai), and the last phrase (kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin) are missing.Britannicus, on the other hand, includes the articles and the final phrase but omits the adjective "agion" in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire the last clause for his third edition?He surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex Monfort, but from Britannicus. This is why Monfortanius "cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."[41]At this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.

After promulgating his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma, Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers." Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage). Gregory writes:

What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?[42]

In this brief excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle with three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the case if the Comma is omitted. In other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."[43]

Metzger's presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is misleading.

Metzger goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma, they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)."[44]There is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea). There is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in these major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves nothing. Nonetheless, Metzger completely ignores the fact that the verse was employed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by doing so, he would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used as proof of the Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates that arose and plagued the Church concerning these issues. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians (led byKing Huneric the Vandal) and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

In spite of this example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous testimony of the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was in all of their copies. Secondly, they assert that as no dispute took place, but the conference was broken up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept the passage. Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized.

Charles Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God's Word as their first line of defense.[46]The African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in their manuscripts. As a result, they were able to successfully employ the passage as they defended their faith before the Arian accusers.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.

Metzger follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary. He claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin . . ."[47]This allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."[48]F. H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect, agrees with Metzger. However, he does admit that it appears in a few copies of the Armenian and Slavonic, both being ancient version. Metzger's blanket statement overlooks this fact.

As far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma appeared in its early manuscripts. First of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920), syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."[49] Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies. In fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary. For example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."[50]Here, Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in conjunction with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8 with the Comma inserted. It must have been in some Syriac copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate allusion to it.

Tremellius' Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version. Tremellius translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.[51]Modern scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this. If Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he take the time to translate it? Better yet, why did he place it in the margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering, and leave a blank space for it? Tremellius must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac tradition. He himself wrote:

But because it was omitted not only in the printed version, but only in the manuscript Heidelberg codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I did not dare to insert it into the text.So in order that there might not be a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers may correspond to the numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed from the sixth to the eighth verse.[52]

As Maynard correctly concludes:

How often is a blank space provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek edition? The four questions together could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts. His actions are not in accord with his words. Perhaps, with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this spot. (Modern editors do not hesitate over a 'disturbance of the verses.' They merely split verse six in half.)[53]

Another Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern scholars. Also, of notable importance, is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.[54]It is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well. After all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the sixth century. Unfortunately, these have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain the Comma.[55]Therefore, Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the Old Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all the evidence. Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius, and Gutbier had to get the Comma from somewhere.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.

Metzger also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine). This too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage. If they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However, less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:

. . .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[56]

This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma. On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus. However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]

The [[Old Latin]] translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for [[Latin]] was the major language up through the Middle Ages. The [[Old Latin]] is not the same as the [[Latin]] of Jerome's [[Vulgate]], which by the way, does include the Comma. The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages. Did the [[Old Latin]] consistently contain the [[Johannine Comma]]? For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in [[Middle High German]]. This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus. As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century. This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63] According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value. But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w). The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]The Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the [[Textus Receptus]], but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English versions.

The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the [[Waldensians]]. History teaches that the [[Waldensians]] were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century. The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries. As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe."[67]

The translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the Comma because it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.[68]All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus Receptus. The first of these was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center of the Swiss Reformation. The basis for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin. This fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."[69]Secondly, the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. With Calvin's help, Beza brought out a later edition of the Textus Receptus. Wilkinson argues:

This later edition of the [[Received Text]] is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles [emphasis mine].[70]

The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati. Diodati, an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated the received text into Italian. "This version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."[71]The fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned, was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German. "This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."[72]In addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.[73]

In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick Nolan. In Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan. Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. All of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly Apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."[74]Therefore, claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.

The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard to I John 5:7-8.The passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.[75]Studies show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the minority text of a and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.[76]It is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remain unexamined. It is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.[77]Dogmatic conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all the evidence.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.

The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.[78]True, it does not appear in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome?In fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.[79]If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts, what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus (988).Scrivener said that the passage "is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps 49 out of every 50 of its manuscripts."[80]Moreover, against Metzger's claim of lateness, the Comma is claimed by others to be found in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts.[81]

As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger's external evidence for the omission of I John 5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive at almost every point. Thus, he fails to prove that the passage is an interpolation. The textual evidence supporting the Comma is much greater than most critics would have us to believe; an honest evaluation of the evidence yields a case for inclusion that is at least as plausible as one for exclusion.[82]Once again, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Metzger falls short.

If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John 5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14).Even Aland, the UBS' own, admits that the true text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.[83]The majority, however, is not as extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.[84]Such a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5.This is hardly the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 498 are hostile to the Comma. This is substantially less than 5000.Of those 498 manuscripts, only 14 of them predate the ninth century.[85]The same scholars that reject the Comma criticize the Textus Receptus for following so-called "late manuscripts" when they use the same manuscripts as the bulk of their evidence against I John 5:7-8.In other words, 97 per cent of their evidence is late. Maynard asserts:

Opposers of 1 John v.7f are not admitting, that after four centuries (the 17th to 20th) of scholars searching for MSS they could not even muster 3% of all their evidence against 1 John v.7f as being significant, by their standards. Only 14 Greek MSS (2.8%) of the 482 hostile MSS [Maynard arrives at this number from the fact that Metzger considers 16 of the 498 manuscripts to be worthless and irrelevant] they would consider boasting about, were dated from the ninth century or earlier.[86]

Another "reason that the absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse."[87]God may have allowed I John 5:7-8 to fall out of 14 Greek manuscripts prior to the ninth century and many thereafter for the purpose of drawing our attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, for after all, the Comma is the most concise and clear statement regarding this subject throughout all of Scripture. Such a scenario is at least plausible and worthy of consideration.

==Lexical Analysis==

The Johannine Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard to the issue at hand—logoV. This is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine Christology. The second person of the Trinity is referred to as the "Word." Such a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in [[John 1:1]], 14; I John 1:1; and [[Revelation 19:13]].This fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse, for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."[88]LogoV, being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to use when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as is the case in the Comma. On the other hand, if the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove the trinity, the forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19).This issue of tradition, however, will be discussed more in depth under the traditional analysis.

==Syntactical Analysis==

Of significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue of syntax. Plainly speaking, if the Comma is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with respect to the general rules of the Greek language. The masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness[89]) are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood[90]).As Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty."[91]John most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure and syntax are altogether simple and understandable. In attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender."[92]However, the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless the Comma is present. It is true that the Spirit (pneuma), a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides, Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.

If the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with the two masculines (Father & Word[93]) and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit[94]), and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected to them. Such is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament and John's writings in particular. As previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca. 385).[95]

==Structural Analysis==

From the above structural analysis, a contrast of two groups of three becomes apparent. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of two, three, or four. Examples of this include Proverbs 30; [[Amos 1:3]], 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

The Comma is also structurally important with reference to verse 9. I John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness of men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.

==Rhetorical Analysis==

In the realm of rhetorical criticism, the Johannine Comma seems to conform to the Apostle John's literary style. As far as tone is concerned, "there reigns throughout the Epistle a firm and manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm" (e.g. 1:6-10; 2:19; 3:6-10; 4:1-2; etc.).[96]This tone is likewise prevalent in the Comma which tersely presents the truth of an important doctrine, leaving the reader with no room to question.

John's writings are also characterized by contrasts. According to Tidwell, "the ordinary contrasts cover almost the same words and ideas of the Gospel such as life and death, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness with several others and with the addition of Christ and anti-Christ." The Comma, in particular, feeds the contrast which John creates between Jesus Christ and Antichrist (cf. 2:18-23).Jesus Christ is God (cf. 5:7-8).Antichrist, on the other hand, is the one who denies this fact (cf. 2:22).

One final aspect of John's style that is worthy of consideration with respect to the Comma, is parallelism. I John is filled with both positive and negative parallelism. For example, the Apostle writes in 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all," and in 1:9, "Forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 5:7-8, the Comma included, also contains parallelism, a synthetic type to be exact. The three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, and Holy Ghost) and the three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood) are actually the same three witnesses. As Oliver Greene argues, "Therefore, since the Trinity - the Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost - bear record in heaven, it is these three who also bear record in earth."[97]In other words, the promulgation of the three earthly witnesses serves to expand or elaborate on the role of the three heavenly witnesses. The earthly witnesses are sourced in the heavenly witnesses. The "blood" refers to the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28) while the "water" is a reference to Jesus Christ at his baptism. The "Spirit," of course, is the third member of the Godhead. This particular type of parallelism is very common with John and could conceivably be called a chiasmus in this particular instance.

A. Father

B. Word <------------------------------Heavenly Witnesses

C. Holy Ghost

A'.Blood

If the Comma is omitted, the chiasmic structure falls apart.

Altogether, the Johannine Comma reflects John's rhetorical style. Fuller points out, "The connexion of the passage is altogether in its favor. The phraseology is that of the Apostle John; so that if the words are not his, it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined."[98]

==Tradition Analysis==

With regard to tradition criticism, it is the tradition that the Comma does reflect that is significant. Had a redactor added the passage to argue for the Trinity, he would have almost certainly utilized the common Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This formula "became part of a very early tradition in the church."[99]It was employed in the Didache (7.1-4) as well as Justin's Apology (1.61).The strength of forgery is similarity not uniqueness. Ruckman argues, "What would have possibly been gained by inventing a different formula than the one given in Matthew 28, which every Christian knew by heart?"[100]Also, Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" numerous times in I John. A true forger would have no doubt utilized "Son" instead of "Word" so as to further disguise his redactional efforts.

==Theological Analysis==

The theological significance of the Johannine Comma goes without saying. As noted, it is the only clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in all of Scripture. Thus, when James White argues that "the reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures," he is wrong.[101]When John Ankerberg concludes that textual differences only apply to 1% of the text, and none of them are doctrinally important, he is incorrect.[102]The Trinity is a doctrine that sets Christianity apart from all other religions—one God in three persons. It is interesting to note Erickson's argument for the Trinity in his Christian Theology. He begins by stating, "One text which has traditionally been appealed to as documenting the Trinity is I John 5:7 . . .unfortunately, the textual basis is so weak . . . If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere."[103]He then proceeds over the next five pages to exegete and systematize numerous passages that imply this doctrine. He concludes, "Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated, the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing."[104]It seems rather strange to base a fundamental Christian doctrine upon suggestion. Perhaps this is why so many cults ([[Jehovah's Witnesses]]) are able to manipulate the Bible so as to assert that Jesus was not God. After all, the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses rejects the Comma.

A matter of theological significance that transcends the text of I John 5:7-8 concerns the issue of final authority. Is the Bible we hold in our hands the Word of God or not? If it contains errors, it can only be said that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. This is Neo-orthodoxy. When critical scholars boastfully claim that the Comma is not a legitimate part of Scripture, they are questioning the authority of the Book and disregarding the traditional text that brought about the Reformation. Questioning, when it comes to the text of Scripture, is the starting point of all kinds of apostasy. Is the final authority in the Book, or is it in what man says about the Book? In other words, should one reject the Comma because man says it doesn't belong, or should it be accepted by faith because it has been preserved in a Bible that God has blessed for 450 years."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" ([[Psalm 118:8]]).The King James Bible has unquestionably produced more spiritual fruit than all of modern English versions put together. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).Whatever may have be wrong with modern English versions, "There is one thing that is certain, they produced an ignorance of the CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING."[105]

The accusations against I John 5:7-8 that are hurled by modern scholars are typical of attacks that rain down on numerous other places in the text of the Bible ("I know your King James Bible says this, but it really should say this . . .").Such assaults sound too strikingly familiar to Satan's discourse in the Garden of Eden. The "Father of Lies" did not argue with Eve about whether or not there was a God, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity was true, or even whether God's Word was inspired. No, apostasy began when Satan questioned God's words and placed doubt in Eve's heart. "Eve, I know that God said you would die if you eat the fruit, but he really meant that you would be just like him, a god" (author's paraphrase). Jesus warns in Mark 4:15, "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." When doubt is given a beachhead, all other defenses soon fall. Hasty dismissals of I John 5:7-8 have served to do nothing but cast doubt upon the sovereignly preserved Word of God. According to Moorman, the entire matter boils down to one question: "Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture."[106] A heretic has never been able to construct an argument without altering the words of the King James Bible. Interesting?

Any proper approach to the text of Scripture, including I John 5:7-8, must take into account the doctrine of preservation. In Psalm 12:6-7, God promised to preserve His words for every generation. The same God who inspired the original Greek autographs is most certainly powerful enough to preserve them in the copying process as Greek manuscripts multiplied. If this is not true, what would have been the purpose in inspiring the Scriptures if men were just going to mutilate and corrupt them? Preservation does not just extend to the general message of the Bible, but to the very words themselves (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35).This being true, the perfectly preserved Word of God existed down through the ages and will be in existence until Christ returns. It is true that not even two out of the five thousand extant Greek manuscripts agree with each other 100% of the time. However, this body of manuscripts most definitely does not represent all of the manuscripts that ever existed. Many have since rotted away. Therefore, in light of God's promise of preservation, it is not illogical to think that manuscripts once existed that completely agreed with the traditional text of the Textus Receptus and consequently, contained the Johannine Comma. Maybe Erasmus, Luther, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir Brothers, and the King James translators did not have such manuscripts, but why couldn't Almighty God have guided them into selecting the right words from the body of manuscripts they did possess? After, all God is in control of His words. Towns writes, "If an all-powerful God cannot control the vehicle of His self-revelation, then His power and nature can be questioned."[107]

A common assertion among conservative evangelicals is that the inspiration of Scripture only applies to the original autographs. This, however, cannot be true in light of God's promise of preservation.[108] The word "Scripture" is never used in the Bible to refer to the originals (cf. Acts 8:32; 17:11).Besides, in II Timothy 3:16, when Paul discusses the inspiration of Scripture, he does so in a context in which he says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures as a child (cf. 3:15).Paul is not referring to the original autographs of the Old Testament, for they had passed out of existence long before the Apostle was even born. Paul was saying that the Scripture Timothy had read as a child were inspired.They were not the original autographs, but they were inspired in the sense that they had been perfectly preserved by God Almighty. Some might argue that this interpretation is faulty because it calls for the fusing together of two verses.The "scholar" may see it that way, but the Bible was written for the common man (cf. Psalm 119:99-100).A simple reading (minus grammatical analysis, verb parsings, theological presuppositions, etc.) of this passage clearly shows that Paul is not limiting inspiration to the originals. Such a faulty interpretation is based on theological presupposition.[109] Towns writes, "The Bible . . . is as perfect as God, and its perfection extends to every word."[110] Most evangelicals will accept this statement as truth, but such a statement is meaningless if there is not immediate access to these perfect words. Immediate access is available by way of divine preservation. Not only is God's Word perfectly preserved after the Original Autographs, but according to Psalm 119:89; John 12:49-50; 17:8, it precedes them.

The doctrine of inspiration does not only apply to the original autographs nor does it apply exclusively to the original languages of the autographs. IfGod preserved his Word as He promised, then inspiration can apply to translations.[111] When is the last time that Greek and Hebrew was used by God to reach someone with the Gospel? If the original languages were the only source of inspired Scripture, then the ancient Hebrews must have been a extremely ignorant, for the Pentateuch could not have originally been written in Hebrew. After all, "Moses was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), and someone had to translate what Moses said in Egyptian to Pharaoh back into Hebrew. Yet, the Jews believed their Hebrew Scriptures were inspired and still do today. Moorman makes a point worthy of consideration: "as so few can read the original languages, God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations. . . If a translation cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek before they can be saved, or built up in the faith."[112]

Another principle to keep in mind with reference to "questionable passages" (e.g. I John 5:7-8) is that they must be approached with an attitude of faith. As Hebrews 11:6 asserts, "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Dean Burgon once wrote, "There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, immediately abdicated His office and took no further care of His work; that He abandoned those precious writings."[113] The whole crux of the matter boils down to faith, plain and simple. Unfortunately, most modern critics (Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, the UBS, et. al,) approach the sacred science of textual criticism with presuppositions against inerrancy. They treat the Bible as if it were just another book. Such an attitude cannot be founded upon faith, and consequently, is not pleasing to God.

Much more could be said about the relationship between inspiration and preservation, but the question must come back to the Johannine Comma. In this excursus, the author has shown that a case can be constructed for the genuineness of the text of the three heavenly witnesses. As to how strong a case, the author will leave it up to the reader's individual judgment. The author does not say that his case is all conclusive, but on the other hand, by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should not be included. In the case of the accusation against the King James Bible, the burden of proof, as has been noted several times, LIES WITH THE ACCUSER. The accuser cannot prove his case; therefore, the author accepts the Comma's authenticity by faith., a faith that is backed up with plenty of evidence. God, in His sovereignty, saw to it that the text was preserved in the Bible's of the Reformation and the best-selling book of all time—The Authorized King James Version. As to why the passage fell out of so many Greek mss, only the Almighty knows. It is at least possible that the text was excised from the Greek tradition by heretics who didn't want to believe that Jesus was God. Nonetheless, it was preserved in the Latin text through the use of the Latin speaking church.

The whole matter can be concluded with a question? Who would be honored more by the presence of the Comma in Holy Scripture—Jesus Christ or the Devil? The answer goes without saying. In the words of Gail Riplinger, "Guesses or God, fear or faith, haughty or humble. These are the perpetual options for the Christian."[114]

==Homiletical Analysis==

It is the author's opinion that the Johannine Comma is authentic Holy Scripture. Therefore, it can and should be preached from. Two approaches can be taken—an exegetical and a topical. An exegetical approach might utilize the surrounding context. A possible outline might look something like this:
Proposition: In I John 5:4-10, John promulgates two facts about biblical faith.
I. THE FIRST FACT: Biblical faith overcomes the world - 5:4-5

A. The inevitability of overcoming – 5:4

1.Stated – "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."

2.Elaborated – "and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

B. The identity of the overcomer – 5:5

1.What he does – "Who is he that overcometh the world"

2.What he believes – "but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."

II. THE SECOND FACT: Biblical faith is sanctioned.

A. Sanctioned by truth – 5:6

B. Sanctioned by three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Holy Ghost) – 5:7

C. Sanctioned by three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, blood) – 5:8

D. A Parenthetical Explanation – 5:9

1.The supremacy of the witness of God – "If we receive the witness of men,

witness of God is greater."

2.The clarification of the witness of God – "for this is the witness of God which he

hath testified of his Son."

E. Sanctioned by the believer's spiritual consciousness – 5:10

1.Stated positively – "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in

himself"

2.Stated negatively – "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he

believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

A topical approach to I John 5:7-8 might focus upon the nature of the Trinity. A possible outline could resemble the following.

Proposition: In I John 5:7-8, the Apostle explicates the triune nature of God from two

perspectives.

I. THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE: A Heavenly Perspective – 5:7

A. Delineated – "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost."

1.The first person of the Trinity – "Father"

2.The second person of the Trinity – "Word"

3.The third person of the Trinity – "Holy Ghost"

B. Described – "and these three are one"

II. THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE: An Earthly Perspective – 5:8

A. Delineated – "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the

water, and the blood."

1.The third person of the Trinity – "Spirit"

2.The second person of the Trinity—Jesus at his baptism—"water"

3.The first person of the Trinity—the blood of God shed on the cross—"blood"

B. Described – "and these three agree in one"

==APPENDIX A==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA—EARLY EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST===
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts = 5,000 +
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence
* 30 mss. – 10th century
* 80 mss. – 11th century
* 79 mss. – 12th century
* 98 mss. – 13th century
* 119 mss. – 14th century
* 55 mss. – 15th century
* 15 mss. –16th century
* 6 mss. – 17th century
* 1 mss. – 18th century

Historical Breakdown of Favorable Evidence
A.D. (ca.)
* 200 – Tertullian
* 250 – Cyprian
* 318 – Athanasius
* 350 – Idacius Clarus
* 380 – Priscillian
* 385 – Gregory of Nazanzius
* 390 – Jerome
* 450 – Contra Varimadum
* 450 – Latin mss. m
* 485 – Council of Carthage
* 485 – Victor of Vitensis
* 500 – Latin mss. r
* 527 – Fulgentius
* 570 – Cassiodorus
* 636 – Isidore of Seville
* 650 – Codex Pal Legionensus
* 700 – Jaqub of Edessa
* 735 – mss. used by Venerable Bede
* 850 – Codex Ulmensis

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century. Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day. It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation. The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

RESULT: The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence
predating the ninth century; hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence. The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe. In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be.

==APPENDIX B==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA AND THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH===

Having refuted the customary arguments against the Johannine Comma, it becomes appropriate to evaluate the textual evidence. This is best done perhaps by applying Dean Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth." Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, believed that the science of textual criticism should be approached with an attitude of faith, for the Bible is an inspired Book; it should not be treated and evaluated like any other book. "The Bible is different because it is divine." Therefore, Burgon set forth seven tests of truth that he believed would best help a person evaluate the evidence for any given passage. Concerning these tests, he comments:
. . . although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength lies in their cooperation.

For this cause, the author shall apply the "Seven Notes" to the Johannine Comma on a pass or fail basis. By their cooperation, it will be seen that a case can be constructed for the inclusion of this important passage within the text of Holy Scripture.

==The Test of Antiquity==

"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony." A word of caution, however, is in order. The "oldest is best" philosophy is sound only on the surface, for there is much more to judging the age of a reading than simply determining the age of any given manuscript. After all, the oldest reading is not necessarily found in the oldest manuscript. For example, although Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century) is far older than the few Greek mss that do contain the Comma, the passage is quoted by Cyprian, as noted, in the third century. In that respect, the reading of Comma is actually older than the oldest Greek manuscript which attests to I John 5.

When considering this test, one must not forget that the worst corruption to which the New Testament has perhaps ever been subjected originated within a hundred years or so after the originals were penned. According to Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150. Moreover, an ancient Western (Rome) Church Father by the name of Caius (2nd century) once wrote:

For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them . . . their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them . . . For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs [emphasis is mine]? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed.

The point of drawing attention to this fact is that it is not the oldest document for which one must search, but the oldest reading. Does the Johannine Comma represent an early reading? Tertullian and Cyprian cite the passage in the third century; it is utilized at the Council of Carthage in 485; and it can be traced back through the Old Latin of the Waldensian Church (The Old Itala was translated in the second century). In addition to this, one must consider that all extant Greek papyrii are silent to the issue. However, Tertullian, Cyprian, the African Bishops at Carthage, and the Waldenses had to get the reading from somewhere. Therefore, the Comma passes the test of antiquity.

==The Test of Consent of Witnessss==

By this, Burgon means number. Unfortunately, most modern textual critics argue that manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted. Burgon asserted that this maxim "may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy." The traditional text of the Textus Receptus, for the most part, is based upon the readings of the majority of manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are generally late (8th-11th centuries) and consequently discarded by modern critics such as the UBS editors. The question that such critics refuse to ask is where did this great number of manuscripts come from? They must have been copies of earlier uncials and/or papyri that were perhaps lost or destroyed. If ten students were asked to copy a paragraph off the chalkboard, and nine of the ten copies agreed, which best represents the true text? Logic is in favor of the nine copies as opposed to the one disparate copy. The same holds true for New Testament manuscripts. Logic is in favor of the great majority of witnesses. As convincing as this argument is, it must not be utilized as the sole test of truth, for there are several passages in the Textus Receptus that are not found in the great majority of witnesses (e.g. I John 5:7-8). Therefore, as James Borland argues, "Number must be considered as an important factor, but only as one of the tests of truth." Nonetheless, the Comma enjoys at least 19 witnesses prior to the ninth century and numerous witnesses thereafter. Granted, the number is a minority. Were there only two or three witnesses, the Comma could legitimately be said to have failed this test. However, 19 witnesses prior to the 9th century does not bespeak failure. I John 5:7-8 passes the test of consent of witnesses.

==The Test of Variety==

"The greater the variety of witnesses there are, the less chance there is for collusion or deceit to spring from the few." This, of course, can apply to both geographical location and kinds of witnesses. Burgon argues that this is the strongest ally that any reading can have. The Johannine Comma definitely has variety on its side, despite a weak attestation in extant Greek manuscripts. It is found in eight Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, various Waldensian Bibles, numerous German manuscripts, and a few Armenian and Slavonic copies. Moreover, it enjoys early patristic evidence (i.e. Cyprian, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cassiodorus, et. al.). These witnesses represent a wide geographical spread—North Africa, Italy, Asia Minor; Syria; the Caucasus; Russia; Germany; and even England (i.e. the work of Venerable Bede in the 8th century). The Comma passes the test of variety.

==The Test of Continuity==

A fourth test of truth considers the continuity or unbroken testimony of witnesses in favor of a particular reading. As Burgon argued, "this principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the cursives and the later uncials," not the so-called "oldest and best" readings of the modern Greek editions. For the most part, the readings contained in the Textus Receptus have continuity on their side. I John 5:7-8, for example, appears consistently throughout history from A.D. 200 to A.D. 1500 just prior to Erasmus' compiling of the first printed Greek edition. On that basis, the Comma again passes the test.

==The Test of Respectability of Witnesses==

Another test of truth involves weight or respectability. In other words, "if a manuscript proves itself to be erroneous on a frequent basis by a number of acceptable standards, then it loses its respectability." It is safe to say that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not satisfy this category, for their differences from the majority of manuscripts as well as from each other are horrific. Therefore, they should be overlooked. Maybe modern critics should take a lesson from Erasmus when he was approached with readings from Vaticanus; he rejected them. With specific regard to the Comma, witnesses such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, orthodox African writers, the [[Vulgate]], and the Waldensian Bibles certainly stand out as respectable witnesses. Again, the text passes.

==The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage==

This test is concerned with the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. In other words, if a manuscript can be shown to be faulty in several instances in the context of a particular reading, then it is logical that "mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or other shapes." With regard to the Comma, all of the above state witnesses exhibit unsullied integrity in the first few verses of I John 5.

==The Test of Internal Considerations==

This final test of truth focuses upon internal evidence, particularly of a grammatical and scientific nature. "If a particular reading is grammatically, geographically, scientifically, and historically impossible, then it must not be accepted if other readings do not present such problems." For example, the UBS4 accepts a variant reading in Luke 23:45 that is a scientific impossibility. Each of the synoptic Gospels contains the phrase "skotoV egeneto" (there was darkness) (cf. Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). However, Luke adds an additional phrase regarding the sun. The Textus Receptus reads "kai eskotisqh o hlioV" (and the sun was darkened) while the UBS4 reads "tou hliou eklipontoV" (The sun was eclipsed). Like the UBS's faulty readings in Matthew 1:7,10, this reading implies an error in Luke's original autograph: "A solar eclipse is impossible astronomically during the full moon of the Passover when sun and moon are 180 degrees apart in relation to the earth." Luke, being an astute physician, would not have made such a blundering mistake. This reading fails the test of reasonableness because it is scientifically impossible. Therefore, it needs to be added to the long list of corrupt readings found in the UBS4 that should be discarded.

The Johannine Comma, on the other hand, has much on its side in the area of internal considerations. It not only fits the structure, style, and immediate context of I John, but its omission presents a bald grammatical difficulty—three neuter nouns governed by a masculine participle. Let the Comma stand, and "the power of attraction" goes into effect. The Comma thus passes the seventh and final test.

==APPENDIX C==
===A NOTE ON BAPTIST HERITAGE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT===

The inseparable relationship that exists between the inspiration and preservation of Holy Scripture has been an important issue particularly in Baptist heritage. For example, the London Confession of 1644, a creed of the English Baptists reads:
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures . . . In this written Word God hath plainly revealed whatsoever he hath though needful for us to know . . .

It was clear to the English Baptists that God had plainly revealed to them His words in the Holy Scriptures which had been inspired and passed down through the ages as the absolute "Rule of Faith." Only through perfect preservation could this possibly have been true.

In 1833, the American Baptists drew up the New Hampshire Confession. Concerning the Scriptures, it reads,
We believe [that] the Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter . . . and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

This could only be true if God's words had been inspired and perfectly preserved.
For Baptists to deny the perfect providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures is to defy their Baptist heritage as well as the general consensus of the Christian Church for most of history prior to the modern era. Unfortunately, this has occurred all to often as Baptist schools and seminaries are rejecting the doctrine of preservation in favor of naturalistic textual criticism. Michael Maynard, while speaking of Baptist scholars such as A.T. Robertson, J.A. Broadus, J.P. Boyce and D.A. Carson, all of whom regarded the Received Text as an inferior Greek text, argues that they "betrayed their Baptist heritage when they adopted the textual theories of the Anglican scholar F.J.A. Hort, the Presbyterian B.B. Warfield, and the Lutheran K. Tischendorf."

With regard to the Johannine Comma, Baptist views in favor of the passage have long been in print. John Gill (1748) and Andrew Fuller (1815), two Baptist scholars, argued for the authenticity of the Comma long before A.T. Robertson came along. When Robertson, however, did show up on the scene, he was completely oblivious to the views of his Baptist predecessors; he did not even acknowledge them in his works on textual criticism. All in all, Baptist heritage and the Johannine Comma goes all the way back to the Swiss Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Waldensians et. al. All of these groups have their place in the lineage of modern-day Baptists, and all of them held to the Received Text of Scripture which included I John 5:7-8 as it stands in an Authorized King James Bible. Therefore, to deny the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is in a sense to deny Baptist heritage.

==WORKS CONSULTED==
Aland, Barbara and [[Kurt Aland|Aland, Kurt]]. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [[1987 AD|1987]].

Ankerberg, John and Weldon, John. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996.

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Borger, Rykle. "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta." In Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3
(1987). 280-284.

Borland, James. A General Introduction to the New Testament. Lynchburg: VA: University
Book House, 1995.

. "Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate
Inerrancy." In Journal of the Evangelical Thelogical Society (December 4, 1982): 499-506.

Brown, R.E. The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Burgon, John W. "The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels." In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed. by Jay P. Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

Butler, Charles. "To Rev. Herbert Marsh." Horae Biblicae. London: W. Clarke & Sons, 1817.

Clarke, Adam. The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.

Combs, William. "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus." In Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1
(Spring 1996): 35-53.

Custer, Stewart, The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. Greenville, SC: BJU
University Press, 1981.

Dabney, Robert. The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek. Edinburgh:
Banner of Trust, 1967.

Dobbin, Orlando T. The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation. London: Bagster, 1854.

Ebrard, John. Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860.

Elliot, J.K. "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions." In A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of
the Greek New Testament. New York: E.J. Brill, 1987.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lee. (LB IX
199-284) [May, 1520]. Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980]: 381-389).

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Forster, C. A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1867.

Gill, John. An Exposition on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1980 [rep].

Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984.

The Greek New Testament (4th Edition). Ed. by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Greene, Oliver. The Epistles of John. Greenville. SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966.

Hayes, D.A. John and His Writings. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1917.

Jaqub of Edessa. On The Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries. Translated by R.E. Brown in The
Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Jerome. The Canonical Epistles. Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate
Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

Jonge, Henk J. Personal Lettter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).

"Letter IX." In The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1988.

Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

McGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1911.

[[Bruce Metzger|Metzger, Bruce]]. The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition). Germany: United
Bible Societies, 1993.

[[Jack Moorman|Moorman, Jack]]. Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, NJ: Bible for
Today, n.d.

."Principles of Bible Preservation." O Timothy Magazine. Vol. 9, Issue 8. Ed. by David
W. Cloud. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1992: 1-13.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolan, Frederick. Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. n.p., 1815.

Puckett, David. Class Notes—General Church History I. Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern
Seminary, 1998.

[[Gail Riplinger|Riplinger, Gail]]. New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

. Which Bible is God's Word? Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1933.

[[Peter Ruckman|Ruckman, Peter]]. Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1998.

."James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible - Errors 6&7." In Bible Believer's
Bulletin (March, 1996): 1-5

Scott, Ernest. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press,
1963.

Scrivener, F. H. A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th Edition.
London: G. Bell, 1984 (rep).

Tidwell, Josiah. John and His Five Books. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today (2nd Edition). Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994.

Vedder, Henry. The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Griffith
and Rowland Press, n.d.

Victor of Vitensis. Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov. 2.82 in CSEL 7, 60. Translated by
Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995. 43.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

[[James White|White, James]]. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

[[Benjamin Wilkinson|Wilkinson, Benjamin]]. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." In Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

==Footnotes==

* [1] The author recognizes that much of the evidence presented is based upon internal considerations which are subjective by their very nature.What one may see as support for a given reading, another might view as an indictment against that very same reading.Nevertheless, the fact that support can be gleaned for the Comma from internal evidence shows that the issue is not a foregone conclusion.The internal evidence, which greatly supports the passage, serves to supplement what critics term a weak attestation in the realm of external evidence.
* [2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1933),6: 199.
* [3] Josiah Tidwell, John and His Five Books(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937),90-92.
* [4] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1860),5.
* [5] The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
* [6] The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.
* [7] Robertson,6:200.
* [8] David Puckett, Class Notes—General Church History I (Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Seminary, 1998),10.Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge (gnwsiV) and so were called Gnostics (Gnwstikoi).
* [9] I John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2.
* [10] Robertson,6:201
* [11] Ibid.
* [12] Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984), 167.
* [13] D. A. Hayes, John and His Writings(New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1917),161.
* [14] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860),3.
* [15] Henry Vedder, The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Rowland Press),99.
* [16] Ibid.,101.
* [17] Ernest Scott, The Literature of the New Testament(New York: Columbia University Press, 1963),260.
* [18] Vedder, 103-132
* [19] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994),649.
* [20] Robert Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek(Edinburgh: Banner of Trust, 1967),306.
* [21] In the Greek, the phrase reads, "oi treiV eiV to en eisin" which literally translates "and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One."
* [22] Dabney,307
* [23] The spelling of the word "Saviour" as retained in the Authorized Version is preferred by the author.The modern English translations remove the "u" from this title.As a result, a seven-letter word (7= the number of God) becomes a six-letter word (6=the number of man).
* [24] Dabney,307
* [25] Because the foundation of all accusations against I John 5:7-8 rests upon textual evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, this analysis will be more lengthy and complex than the others.
* [26] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger (4th Edition), The Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994).
* [27] Ibid.,819; Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647-648.
* [28] Ibid.
* [29] Robertson,6:241.
* [30] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647.
* [31] Oftentimes, the marginal readings are hastily dismissed.However, what are they doing in the margins?It makes more sense that someone would put them there because they recognized the passage to be missing.
* [32] The reading of the Comma found in Codex Britannicus is given byOrlando T. Dobbin in The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation (London: Bagster, 1854) on page 10.His source is Erasmus' Apologia ad Jacobum Stunicam (1522), reprinted in the Basle edition (1540) of Erasmus' works, pp. 238-296.Codex Britannicus reads: "7oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to pna 8kai outoi oi treiV en eisi, kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pna, to udwr, kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisi ei thn marturian twn anwn lambanomen."The underlined phrase is not found in Codex Monfortianus, so the two manuscripts cannot be the same.Furthermore, Erasmus could not have gotten the Comma from the Monfort Codex.
* [33] William Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996), 49.
* [34] Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),76.
* [35] Desiderius Erasmus,Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lei (LB IX 199-284) [May, 1520] . Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980] , 381-389).
* [36] Henk J. de Jonge, Personal Letter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).
* [37] The reading of the Comma found in the Monfort Codex could not have come from the Compultensian Polygot.Although this edition was first printed in 1514, Cardinal Ximenes did not get permission from Pope Leo X to publish the work until 1520.It was not until 1522 that this edition actually began to circulate and eventually come into Erasmus' hands.
* [38] Erasmus first included the Comma in his third edition which did not appear until 1522.The reading of the Comma as found in the Codex Monfort does not match Erasmus' reading in his third edition in several places.For example, the last clause (and these three agree in one) is not in the Monfort, but included in Erasmus' third edition.Furthermore, the six articles are omitted and agoin and pneuma are transposed.Erasmus included the articles and did not swap agion pneuma.
* [39] Peter Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"Bible Believer's Bulletin (March 1996),3.
* [40] Adam Clarke, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.), 6: 928-929.
* [41] Charles Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1867), 126.
* [42] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978),7: 323-324.
* [43] Maynard,41.A more thorough discussion of the syntactical problem that arises if the Comma is omitted can be found under the Syntactical Analysis.
* [44] Metzger, Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament,648.
* [45] Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11] ; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.
* [46] Charles Butler, "To Rev. Herbert Marsh," in Horae Biblicae (London: W. Clarke and Sons, 1817), 403-406.
* [47] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,648.
* [48] F.H.A. Scrivener,A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th Edition
(London: G. Bell, 1984 [rep] ), 403.
* [49] Maynard,15-16.For a specific identification of these five Syriac editions, one should consult page 51* of the UBS4.
* [50] Jaqub of Edessa, On the Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries, translated by R.E. Brown in The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),778.
* [51] Maynard,96.
* [52] Tremellius' words were provided and translated by Rykle Borger into German in "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta," in Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3 (1987) 280-284.Michael Maynard, in turn, translated Borger's German into English (A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 , 95).
* [53] Maynard,96.
* [54] Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"3.
* [55] Maynard,334-339
* [56] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, II-- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),3: 598.
* [57] John Gill,An Exposition on the Old and New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 [rep.] ),907-908.
* [58] R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),782.
* [59] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926),5:423.
* [60] Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),285.
* [61] Maynard,62.
* [62] Metzger, Early Versions, 304.
* [63] Maynard,62.
* [64] J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," in A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament(New York: E. J. Brill, 1987),280.
* [65] Maynard,62.
* [66] Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version.(Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, n.d.),29.
* [67] Gail Riplinger, Which Bible is God's Word (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995),53.
* [68] Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," in Which Bible?Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975),212.
* [69] Ibid.,210.
* [70] Ibid.
* [71] Ibid.,211.
* [72] Ibid. [emphasis mine] .
* [73] Ibid.
* [74] Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (n.p., 1815), xvii-xviii.
* [75] For a complete listing of Old Latin manuscripts which contain the Comma, one should consult Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (332-348).
* [76] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions,482.
* [77] Maynard,343-348.
* [78] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the New Testament, 648.
* [79] Jerome, The Canonical Epistles.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),41.
* [80] Scrivener,650.
* [81] Maynard,343.
* [82] Besides what has been mentioned in this brief textual analysis, there is a lot more evidence for the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 as retained in the Textus Receptus of the AV 1611 King James Bible.For more information, one should consult Michael Maynard's astounding work, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
* [83] Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 281.
* [84] Stewart Custer made such claim in The Truth About the King James Version Controversy.(Greenville, SC: BJU University Press, 1981).He, however, argued that only 2 manuscripts contained the Comma out of 5000.Similar claims have been made in the classrooms of many colleges and universities across the country.
* [85] There are only 14 Greek manuscripts hostile to the Johannine Comma that predate the ninth century.They are as follows: a, A, B, Y, K, L, P, 048, 049, 0296, 1424, 1841, 1862, 1895.Maynard lists these in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (pp. 333-335).
* [86] Maynard,286 [emphasis mine] .
* [87] Ibid.
* [88] Robertson,5:4.
* [89] oi treiV marturounteV
* [90] pneuma, udwr, aima
* [91] Dabney,306.
* [92] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996),332.
* [93] Pater, LogoV92Agion Pneuma
* [95] The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 7: 233-234.
* [96] Ebrard,41.
* [97] Oliver Greene, The Epistles of John(Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966),191.
* [98] "Letter IX" in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller(Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, [[1988 AD|1988] ] ), 1: 708-709.
* [99] Millard Erickson,Christian Theology(Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House,1983),329.
* [100] [[Peter Ruckman] ] , [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7] ] , Why We Retain It In The Authorized Version(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d.),4.
* [101] [[James White] ] , The King James Only Controversy(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers,1995),40.
* [102] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996),8.
* [103] Erickson,327.
* [104] Ibid.[emphasis mine] .
* [105] Peter Ruckman, Biblical Scholarship(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988),105.
* [106] Jack Moorman, "Principles of Bible Preservation,"O Timothy Magazine(Vol. 9, Issue 8, 1992),2.
* [107] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today , 2nd Edition (Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994),49.
* [108] Some might criticize this perspective, claiming that inspiration cannot be equated with preservation.However, the two are inseparable.Preservation reflects inspiration.In other words, the words contained in the Received Text are inspired in the sense that they are preserved.
* [109] The "scholar" might go on to argue that no copies are perfect, so they cannot be inspired.Therefore, it is concluded that God's words are preserved in manuscript copies only as far as these copies agree with the original manuscripts.Such an argument is nonsense.When is the last time that anyone saw the original manuscripts?They passed out of existence almost 1900 years ago.Such a viewpoint essentially says that we cannot know God's very words because we do not have the inspired originals with which to compare manuscript copies to.This clearly goes against God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7 and downplays the absolute authority of Scripture.
* [110] Towns,49.
* [111] Of course, inspiration can only apply to translations that represent the pure line of Scripture.Modern versions represent a corrupt line of Scripture that was born in Egypt (a), moved to Rome (B), and eventually came to England (RSV) and America (ASV, NASV, NIV, NEB, LB, etc.).The pure line of text, on the other hand, originated in Antioch, is represented by the Old Latin, Old Syriac, German Bibles, the Textus Receptus, and the AV 1611 King James Bible.
* [112] Moorman, Principles of Biblical Preservation,4.
* [113] John Burgon, "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by Jay P. Green(Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990),A-7.
* [114] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 511.

Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd

2011-01-19T21:11:46Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Historical Analysis */

"And These Three Are One"

A Case For the Authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]]
Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

BY

JESSE M. BOYD

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

22 APRIL [[1999 AD|1999]]

This exegesis is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written word--perfectly preserved down through the ages and given to me in a language I can understand. Recognizing that, as [[Martin Luther]] once said, "The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself," I hereby construct this defense out of genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word of God as contained in the Authorized King James Bible. Without a perfectly preserved Written Word, I would know nothing of a personal relationship with the Living Word.

Secondly, it is dedicated to the many men, women, and children who gave their lives that I might have the Bible in English, a privilege which I do not take for granted. Thank-you for your sacrifice and may the Lord reward you richly in His kingdom.

Last, but not least, I dedicate this exegesis to my seminary professor, Dr. David Black, whose books have had a profound effect on my acquisition of a working knowledge of the Greek language. No biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students. The reasons for differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] are to be laid out in this paper. Despite disagreement, however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God. I pray, Dr. Black, that you would consider my presentation, acknowledging that this passage does not deserve the hasty dismissal it so often receives.

"And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory."
-II Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M. Boyd

==AND THESE THREE ARE ONE==
[[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], commonly referred to as the [[Johannine Comma]], has been one of the most hotly debated passages with regard to its authenticity for over a century.

Because it is one of those few passages included in the [[Textus Receptus]] which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts, many a student has paced his study for hours struggling with the question as to whether or not the Comma is a legitimate part of the Holy Scriptures. The hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern versions of the Bible is largely due to the fact that it is only found in eight of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth chapter of [[1 John|I John]]. Consequently, it is almost unanimously regarded among modern textual critics as a later scribal emendation.

The primary English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is the Authorized [[King James Bible]] which is based upon the Greek [[Textus Receptus]]. The passage reads:
* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Most modern translations ([[NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

* [[1 John 5:7|7]] For there are three that testify:
* [[1 John 5:8|8]] the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse [[1 John 5:7|7]], as found in the [[AV]]; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse [[1 John 5:8|8]] (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse [[1 John 5:7|7]].Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.

Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such [[Exegesis|exegesis]] is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The [[Exegesis|exegesis]] that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.[1] May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. [2]

==Historical Analysis==

The epistle of [[First Epistle of John|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD|85]]-[[90 AD|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,

:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[1 John|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]

This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

:It [[1 John|I John]] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]

The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].[5]Cyprian writes around [[250 AD|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

==Literary Analysis==

In addition to the matter of historical context, the literary context of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] demands our attention. All three levels of literary analysis—canonical, remote, and immediate contexts—are important. With regard to the text's place in the New Testament canon, the Johannine Comma is the only clear affirmation of the [[Trinity]] throughout the entire [[New Testament]]. Apart from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together (e.g. [[Matthew 28:18]] + [[John 10:30]] + [[John 1:1]] + [[Acts 5:3]]-[[Acts 5:4|4).If a later scribe interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness. For example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in [[Matthew 28:19]].
The Johannine Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John. This can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre. I John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to simply edify other believers in the faith. However, it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament epistles. I John contains no formal greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or specified. Hayes argues, "There is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John. It might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and under almost any conditions. Its contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."[13]These facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in favor of the theological treatise such as is found in the Book of Hebrews. However, this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feelings."[14]

Perhaps the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle and treatise. Vedder argues that the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature. He writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."[15]In other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer. "A brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has written."[16]One, however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation. I John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a definite class of readers. "The writer is concerned throughout with a given situation. He takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph, to which the clue has now been lost."[17]With all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit I John. The Book contains numerous brief discourses dealing with a wide range of subjects. At the same time, however, while the Apostle chooses not to use the set epistolary forms, he approaches the readers as a community, briefly addressing them in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore, the theological discussions contained therein are laced with personal emotion and feeling which is common in New Testament epistles.

How does the genre of I John relate to the Comma? If the book is properly recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological teaching contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly. Such a statement, in fact, would be expected. The Epistle of I John can be broken down in the following manner:

I. Prologue (1:1-4)

II. Our Advocate (1:8-2:2)

III. Obedience (2:3-6)

IV. Purpose (2:12-14)

V. Love of the World (2:15-17)

VI. Antichrist (2:18-28)

VII. Character of God's Children (2:29-3:12)

IX. Love (3:13-24)

X. Test of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)

XI. God is Love (4:7-21)

XII. Victory of Faith (5:1-5)

XIII. Three Witnesses (5:6-13)

XIV. Prayer (5:14-17)

XV. Epilogue[18]

Each aforementioned section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes a brief discourse on a different theological topic. While no particular order is apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the readers understanding of Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of I John.

The Comma is found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses. This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials. The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth. It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God. In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty. If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down. The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses. They most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse (Victory of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).

Finally, I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. [[Bruce Metzger|Metzger]], in his [[Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament]], argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [[[The Johannine Comma]]] makes an awkward break in the sense."[19]Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true. For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."[20]Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.[21]What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree? In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage. "Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[22]The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted. The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

In a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and his consequent victory over the world. Such faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5, 11, 12, 20).This warrant is first presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy Ghost speaking by way of inspired men. In 5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father. Thirdly, the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning work of the Saviour.[23]Finally, as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge. "How harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."[24]

==FAITH'S SOLID WARRANT==
Textual Analysis[25]
The brunt of the argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma lies within the realm of textual criticism. Unfortunately, as mentioned, it is one of the few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from the Greek manuscript tradition. As a result, most modern critics toss it into the wastebasket. An example of such hasty dismissal can be seen in the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of The Greek New Testament.[26]In the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.[27]One is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers; and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.[28]Though such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad generalizations that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence. Perhaps the best approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's arguments, for they bespeak the opinions of most critical scholars. As noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of the Comma, such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the preserved Word of God. Nonetheless, the external evidence in favor of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us to believe by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."[29]

Metzger's presentation of the manuscript evidence is misleading.

The first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are as follows . . ."[30]Next, he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, 2318).Where is the eighth manuscript? The critical apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it. One is forced to wonder about this initial contradiction. Four of these eight manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636), while the other four include it as part of the text.[31]

It is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list the [[Codex Britannicus]] as evidence for the Comma.[32]Their reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators. The well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first and second editions. He argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript with the passage. Only then, would he include it in his edition.[33]Codex Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received it. Nevertheless he is said to have inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed to be the Codex Monfort).[34] First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely unsound. A careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius quod respondet . . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:

Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.[35]

Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript. Rather, he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk J. de Jonge states, "Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access."[36]In light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince Erasmus. If there had been, Erasmus would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.

Although [[Codex Monfortanius]] is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century (ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from. It did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.[37]It did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores of places.[38]Rather, the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which was not known in Europe until after 1552.[39]Besides, this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.[40]

As far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it cannot be equated with the Monfort, because the respective renderings of I John 5:7-8 are quite different.On the one hand, the Monfort omits the articles in verse seven (o, o, to) and transposes "agion pneuma."In verse 8, the articles (to, to, to), a conjunction (kai), and the last phrase (kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin) are missing.Britannicus, on the other hand, includes the articles and the final phrase but omits the adjective "agion" in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire the last clause for his third edition?He surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex Monfort, but from Britannicus. This is why Monfortanius "cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."[41]At this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.

After promulgating his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma, Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers." Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage). Gregory writes:

What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?[42]

In this brief excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle with three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the case if the Comma is omitted. In other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."[43]

Metzger's presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is misleading.

Metzger goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma, they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)."[44]There is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea). There is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in these major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves nothing. Nonetheless, Metzger completely ignores the fact that the verse was employed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by doing so, he would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used as proof of the Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates that arose and plagued the Church concerning these issues. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians (led byKing Huneric the Vandal) and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

In spite of this example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous testimony of the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was in all of their copies. Secondly, they assert that as no dispute took place, but the conference was broken up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept the passage. Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized.

Charles Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God's Word as their first line of defense.[46]The African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in their manuscripts. As a result, they were able to successfully employ the passage as they defended their faith before the Arian accusers.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.

Metzger follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary. He claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin . . ."[47]This allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."[48]F. H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect, agrees with Metzger. However, he does admit that it appears in a few copies of the Armenian and Slavonic, both being ancient version. Metzger's blanket statement overlooks this fact.

As far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma appeared in its early manuscripts. First of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920), syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."[49] Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies. In fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary. For example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."[50]Here, Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in conjunction with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8 with the Comma inserted. It must have been in some Syriac copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate allusion to it.

Tremellius' Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version. Tremellius translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.[51]Modern scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this. If Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he take the time to translate it? Better yet, why did he place it in the margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering, and leave a blank space for it? Tremellius must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac tradition. He himself wrote:

But because it was omitted not only in the printed version, but only in the manuscript Heidelberg codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I did not dare to insert it into the text.So in order that there might not be a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers may correspond to the numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed from the sixth to the eighth verse.[52]

As Maynard correctly concludes:

How often is a blank space provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek edition? The four questions together could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts. His actions are not in accord with his words. Perhaps, with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this spot. (Modern editors do not hesitate over a 'disturbance of the verses.' They merely split verse six in half.)[53]

Another Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern scholars. Also, of notable importance, is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.[54]It is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well. After all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the sixth century. Unfortunately, these have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain the Comma.[55]Therefore, Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the Old Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all the evidence. Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius, and Gutbier had to get the Comma from somewhere.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.

Metzger also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine). This too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage. If they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However, less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:

. . .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[56]

This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma. On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus. However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]

The [[Old Latin]] translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for [[Latin]] was the major language up through the Middle Ages. The [[Old Latin]] is not the same as the [[Latin]] of Jerome's [[Vulgate]], which by the way, does include the Comma. The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages. Did the [[Old Latin]] consistently contain the [[Johannine Comma]]? For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in [[Middle High German]]. This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus. As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century. This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63] According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value. But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w). The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]The Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the [[Textus Receptus]], but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English versions.

The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the [[Waldensians]]. History teaches that the [[Waldensians]] were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century. The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries. As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe."[67]

The translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the Comma because it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.[68]All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus Receptus. The first of these was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center of the Swiss Reformation. The basis for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin. This fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."[69]Secondly, the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. With Calvin's help, Beza brought out a later edition of the Textus Receptus. Wilkinson argues:

This later edition of the [[Received Text]] is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles [emphasis mine].[70]

The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati. Diodati, an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated the received text into Italian. "This version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."[71]The fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned, was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German. "This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."[72]In addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.[73]

In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick Nolan. In Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan. Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. All of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly Apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."[74]Therefore, claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.

The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard to I John 5:7-8.The passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.[75]Studies show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the minority text of a and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.[76]It is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remain unexamined. It is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.[77]Dogmatic conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all the evidence.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.

The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.[78]True, it does not appear in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome?In fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.[79]If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts, what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus (988).Scrivener said that the passage "is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps 49 out of every 50 of its manuscripts."[80]Moreover, against Metzger's claim of lateness, the Comma is claimed by others to be found in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts.[81]

As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger's external evidence for the omission of I John 5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive at almost every point. Thus, he fails to prove that the passage is an interpolation. The textual evidence supporting the Comma is much greater than most critics would have us to believe; an honest evaluation of the evidence yields a case for inclusion that is at least as plausible as one for exclusion.[82]Once again, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Metzger falls short.

If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John 5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14).Even Aland, the UBS' own, admits that the true text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.[83]The majority, however, is not as extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.[84]Such a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5.This is hardly the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 498 are hostile to the Comma. This is substantially less than 5000.Of those 498 manuscripts, only 14 of them predate the ninth century.[85]The same scholars that reject the Comma criticize the Textus Receptus for following so-called "late manuscripts" when they use the same manuscripts as the bulk of their evidence against I John 5:7-8.In other words, 97 per cent of their evidence is late. Maynard asserts:

Opposers of 1 John v.7f are not admitting, that after four centuries (the 17th to 20th) of scholars searching for MSS they could not even muster 3% of all their evidence against 1 John v.7f as being significant, by their standards. Only 14 Greek MSS (2.8%) of the 482 hostile MSS [Maynard arrives at this number from the fact that Metzger considers 16 of the 498 manuscripts to be worthless and irrelevant] they would consider boasting about, were dated from the ninth century or earlier.[86]

Another "reason that the absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse."[87]God may have allowed I John 5:7-8 to fall out of 14 Greek manuscripts prior to the ninth century and many thereafter for the purpose of drawing our attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, for after all, the Comma is the most concise and clear statement regarding this subject throughout all of Scripture. Such a scenario is at least plausible and worthy of consideration.

==Lexical Analysis==

The Johannine Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard to the issue at hand—logoV. This is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine Christology. The second person of the Trinity is referred to as the "Word." Such a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in [[John 1:1]], 14; I John 1:1; and [[Revelation 19:13]].This fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse, for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."[88]LogoV, being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to use when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as is the case in the Comma. On the other hand, if the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove the trinity, the forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19).This issue of tradition, however, will be discussed more in depth under the traditional analysis.

==Syntactical Analysis==

Of significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue of syntax. Plainly speaking, if the Comma is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with respect to the general rules of the Greek language. The masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness[89]) are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood[90]).As Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty."[91]John most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure and syntax are altogether simple and understandable. In attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender."[92]However, the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless the Comma is present. It is true that the Spirit (pneuma), a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides, Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.

If the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with the two masculines (Father & Word[93]) and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit[94]), and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected to them. Such is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament and John's writings in particular. As previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca. 385).[95]

==Structural Analysis==

From the above structural analysis, a contrast of two groups of three becomes apparent. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of two, three, or four. Examples of this include Proverbs 30; [[Amos 1:3]], 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

The Comma is also structurally important with reference to verse 9. I John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness of men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.

==Rhetorical Analysis==

In the realm of rhetorical criticism, the Johannine Comma seems to conform to the Apostle John's literary style. As far as tone is concerned, "there reigns throughout the Epistle a firm and manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm" (e.g. 1:6-10; 2:19; 3:6-10; 4:1-2; etc.).[96]This tone is likewise prevalent in the Comma which tersely presents the truth of an important doctrine, leaving the reader with no room to question.

John's writings are also characterized by contrasts. According to Tidwell, "the ordinary contrasts cover almost the same words and ideas of the Gospel such as life and death, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness with several others and with the addition of Christ and anti-Christ." The Comma, in particular, feeds the contrast which John creates between Jesus Christ and Antichrist (cf. 2:18-23).Jesus Christ is God (cf. 5:7-8).Antichrist, on the other hand, is the one who denies this fact (cf. 2:22).

One final aspect of John's style that is worthy of consideration with respect to the Comma, is parallelism. I John is filled with both positive and negative parallelism. For example, the Apostle writes in 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all," and in 1:9, "Forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 5:7-8, the Comma included, also contains parallelism, a synthetic type to be exact. The three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, and Holy Ghost) and the three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood) are actually the same three witnesses. As Oliver Greene argues, "Therefore, since the Trinity - the Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost - bear record in heaven, it is these three who also bear record in earth."[97]In other words, the promulgation of the three earthly witnesses serves to expand or elaborate on the role of the three heavenly witnesses. The earthly witnesses are sourced in the heavenly witnesses. The "blood" refers to the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28) while the "water" is a reference to Jesus Christ at his baptism. The "Spirit," of course, is the third member of the Godhead. This particular type of parallelism is very common with John and could conceivably be called a chiasmus in this particular instance.

A. Father

B. Word <------------------------------Heavenly Witnesses

C. Holy Ghost

A'.Blood

If the Comma is omitted, the chiasmic structure falls apart.

Altogether, the Johannine Comma reflects John's rhetorical style. Fuller points out, "The connexion of the passage is altogether in its favor. The phraseology is that of the Apostle John; so that if the words are not his, it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined."[98]

==Tradition Analysis==

With regard to tradition criticism, it is the tradition that the Comma does reflect that is significant. Had a redactor added the passage to argue for the Trinity, he would have almost certainly utilized the common Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This formula "became part of a very early tradition in the church."[99]It was employed in the Didache (7.1-4) as well as Justin's Apology (1.61).The strength of forgery is similarity not uniqueness. Ruckman argues, "What would have possibly been gained by inventing a different formula than the one given in Matthew 28, which every Christian knew by heart?"[100]Also, Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" numerous times in I John. A true forger would have no doubt utilized "Son" instead of "Word" so as to further disguise his redactional efforts.

==Theological Analysis==

The theological significance of the Johannine Comma goes without saying. As noted, it is the only clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in all of Scripture. Thus, when James White argues that "the reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures," he is wrong.[101]When John Ankerberg concludes that textual differences only apply to 1% of the text, and none of them are doctrinally important, he is incorrect.[102]The Trinity is a doctrine that sets Christianity apart from all other religions—one God in three persons. It is interesting to note Erickson's argument for the Trinity in his Christian Theology. He begins by stating, "One text which has traditionally been appealed to as documenting the Trinity is I John 5:7 . . .unfortunately, the textual basis is so weak . . . If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere."[103]He then proceeds over the next five pages to exegete and systematize numerous passages that imply this doctrine. He concludes, "Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated, the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing."[104]It seems rather strange to base a fundamental Christian doctrine upon suggestion. Perhaps this is why so many cults ([[Jehovah's Witnesses]]) are able to manipulate the Bible so as to assert that Jesus was not God. After all, the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses rejects the Comma.

A matter of theological significance that transcends the text of I John 5:7-8 concerns the issue of final authority. Is the Bible we hold in our hands the Word of God or not? If it contains errors, it can only be said that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. This is Neo-orthodoxy. When critical scholars boastfully claim that the Comma is not a legitimate part of Scripture, they are questioning the authority of the Book and disregarding the traditional text that brought about the Reformation. Questioning, when it comes to the text of Scripture, is the starting point of all kinds of apostasy. Is the final authority in the Book, or is it in what man says about the Book? In other words, should one reject the Comma because man says it doesn't belong, or should it be accepted by faith because it has been preserved in a Bible that God has blessed for 450 years."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" ([[Psalm 118:8]]).The King James Bible has unquestionably produced more spiritual fruit than all of modern English versions put together. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).Whatever may have be wrong with modern English versions, "There is one thing that is certain, they produced an ignorance of the CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING."[105]

The accusations against I John 5:7-8 that are hurled by modern scholars are typical of attacks that rain down on numerous other places in the text of the Bible ("I know your King James Bible says this, but it really should say this . . .").Such assaults sound too strikingly familiar to Satan's discourse in the Garden of Eden. The "Father of Lies" did not argue with Eve about whether or not there was a God, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity was true, or even whether God's Word was inspired. No, apostasy began when Satan questioned God's words and placed doubt in Eve's heart. "Eve, I know that God said you would die if you eat the fruit, but he really meant that you would be just like him, a god" (author's paraphrase). Jesus warns in Mark 4:15, "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." When doubt is given a beachhead, all other defenses soon fall. Hasty dismissals of I John 5:7-8 have served to do nothing but cast doubt upon the sovereignly preserved Word of God. According to Moorman, the entire matter boils down to one question: "Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture."[106] A heretic has never been able to construct an argument without altering the words of the King James Bible. Interesting?

Any proper approach to the text of Scripture, including I John 5:7-8, must take into account the doctrine of preservation. In Psalm 12:6-7, God promised to preserve His words for every generation. The same God who inspired the original Greek autographs is most certainly powerful enough to preserve them in the copying process as Greek manuscripts multiplied. If this is not true, what would have been the purpose in inspiring the Scriptures if men were just going to mutilate and corrupt them? Preservation does not just extend to the general message of the Bible, but to the very words themselves (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35).This being true, the perfectly preserved Word of God existed down through the ages and will be in existence until Christ returns. It is true that not even two out of the five thousand extant Greek manuscripts agree with each other 100% of the time. However, this body of manuscripts most definitely does not represent all of the manuscripts that ever existed. Many have since rotted away. Therefore, in light of God's promise of preservation, it is not illogical to think that manuscripts once existed that completely agreed with the traditional text of the Textus Receptus and consequently, contained the Johannine Comma. Maybe Erasmus, Luther, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir Brothers, and the King James translators did not have such manuscripts, but why couldn't Almighty God have guided them into selecting the right words from the body of manuscripts they did possess? After, all God is in control of His words. Towns writes, "If an all-powerful God cannot control the vehicle of His self-revelation, then His power and nature can be questioned."[107]

A common assertion among conservative evangelicals is that the inspiration of Scripture only applies to the original autographs. This, however, cannot be true in light of God's promise of preservation.[108] The word "Scripture" is never used in the Bible to refer to the originals (cf. Acts 8:32; 17:11).Besides, in II Timothy 3:16, when Paul discusses the inspiration of Scripture, he does so in a context in which he says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures as a child (cf. 3:15).Paul is not referring to the original autographs of the Old Testament, for they had passed out of existence long before the Apostle was even born. Paul was saying that the Scripture Timothy had read as a child were inspired.They were not the original autographs, but they were inspired in the sense that they had been perfectly preserved by God Almighty. Some might argue that this interpretation is faulty because it calls for the fusing together of two verses.The "scholar" may see it that way, but the Bible was written for the common man (cf. Psalm 119:99-100).A simple reading (minus grammatical analysis, verb parsings, theological presuppositions, etc.) of this passage clearly shows that Paul is not limiting inspiration to the originals. Such a faulty interpretation is based on theological presupposition.[109] Towns writes, "The Bible . . . is as perfect as God, and its perfection extends to every word."[110] Most evangelicals will accept this statement as truth, but such a statement is meaningless if there is not immediate access to these perfect words. Immediate access is available by way of divine preservation. Not only is God's Word perfectly preserved after the Original Autographs, but according to Psalm 119:89; John 12:49-50; 17:8, it precedes them.

The doctrine of inspiration does not only apply to the original autographs nor does it apply exclusively to the original languages of the autographs. IfGod preserved his Word as He promised, then inspiration can apply to translations.[111] When is the last time that Greek and Hebrew was used by God to reach someone with the Gospel? If the original languages were the only source of inspired Scripture, then the ancient Hebrews must have been a extremely ignorant, for the Pentateuch could not have originally been written in Hebrew. After all, "Moses was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), and someone had to translate what Moses said in Egyptian to Pharaoh back into Hebrew. Yet, the Jews believed their Hebrew Scriptures were inspired and still do today. Moorman makes a point worthy of consideration: "as so few can read the original languages, God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations. . . If a translation cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek before they can be saved, or built up in the faith."[112]

Another principle to keep in mind with reference to "questionable passages" (e.g. I John 5:7-8) is that they must be approached with an attitude of faith. As Hebrews 11:6 asserts, "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Dean Burgon once wrote, "There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, immediately abdicated His office and took no further care of His work; that He abandoned those precious writings."[113] The whole crux of the matter boils down to faith, plain and simple. Unfortunately, most modern critics (Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, the UBS, et. al,) approach the sacred science of textual criticism with presuppositions against inerrancy. They treat the Bible as if it were just another book. Such an attitude cannot be founded upon faith, and consequently, is not pleasing to God.

Much more could be said about the relationship between inspiration and preservation, but the question must come back to the Johannine Comma. In this excursus, the author has shown that a case can be constructed for the genuineness of the text of the three heavenly witnesses. As to how strong a case, the author will leave it up to the reader's individual judgment. The author does not say that his case is all conclusive, but on the other hand, by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should not be included. In the case of the accusation against the King James Bible, the burden of proof, as has been noted several times, LIES WITH THE ACCUSER. The accuser cannot prove his case; therefore, the author accepts the Comma's authenticity by faith., a faith that is backed up with plenty of evidence. God, in His sovereignty, saw to it that the text was preserved in the Bible's of the Reformation and the best-selling book of all time—The Authorized King James Version. As to why the passage fell out of so many Greek mss, only the Almighty knows. It is at least possible that the text was excised from the Greek tradition by heretics who didn't want to believe that Jesus was God. Nonetheless, it was preserved in the Latin text through the use of the Latin speaking church.

The whole matter can be concluded with a question? Who would be honored more by the presence of the Comma in Holy Scripture—Jesus Christ or the Devil? The answer goes without saying. In the words of Gail Riplinger, "Guesses or God, fear or faith, haughty or humble. These are the perpetual options for the Christian."[114]

==Homiletical Analysis==

It is the author's opinion that the Johannine Comma is authentic Holy Scripture. Therefore, it can and should be preached from. Two approaches can be taken—an exegetical and a topical. An exegetical approach might utilize the surrounding context. A possible outline might look something like this:
Proposition: In I John 5:4-10, John promulgates two facts about biblical faith.
I. THE FIRST FACT: Biblical faith overcomes the world - 5:4-5

A. The inevitability of overcoming – 5:4

1.Stated – "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."

2.Elaborated – "and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

B. The identity of the overcomer – 5:5

1.What he does – "Who is he that overcometh the world"

2.What he believes – "but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."

II. THE SECOND FACT: Biblical faith is sanctioned.

A. Sanctioned by truth – 5:6

B. Sanctioned by three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Holy Ghost) – 5:7

C. Sanctioned by three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, blood) – 5:8

D. A Parenthetical Explanation – 5:9

1.The supremacy of the witness of God – "If we receive the witness of men,

witness of God is greater."

2.The clarification of the witness of God – "for this is the witness of God which he

hath testified of his Son."

E. Sanctioned by the believer's spiritual consciousness – 5:10

1.Stated positively – "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in

himself"

2.Stated negatively – "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he

believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

A topical approach to I John 5:7-8 might focus upon the nature of the Trinity. A possible outline could resemble the following.

Proposition: In I John 5:7-8, the Apostle explicates the triune nature of God from two

perspectives.

I. THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE: A Heavenly Perspective – 5:7

A. Delineated – "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost."

1.The first person of the Trinity – "Father"

2.The second person of the Trinity – "Word"

3.The third person of the Trinity – "Holy Ghost"

B. Described – "and these three are one"

II. THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE: An Earthly Perspective – 5:8

A. Delineated – "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the

water, and the blood."

1.The third person of the Trinity – "Spirit"

2.The second person of the Trinity—Jesus at his baptism—"water"

3.The first person of the Trinity—the blood of God shed on the cross—"blood"

B. Described – "and these three agree in one"

==APPENDIX A==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA—EARLY EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST===
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts = 5,000 +
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence
* 30 mss. – 10th century
* 80 mss. – 11th century
* 79 mss. – 12th century
* 98 mss. – 13th century
* 119 mss. – 14th century
* 55 mss. – 15th century
* 15 mss. –16th century
* 6 mss. – 17th century
* 1 mss. – 18th century

Historical Breakdown of Favorable Evidence
A.D. (ca.)
* 200 – Tertullian
* 250 – Cyprian
* 318 – Athanasius
* 350 – Idacius Clarus
* 380 – Priscillian
* 385 – Gregory of Nazanzius
* 390 – Jerome
* 450 – Contra Varimadum
* 450 – Latin mss. m
* 485 – Council of Carthage
* 485 – Victor of Vitensis
* 500 – Latin mss. r
* 527 – Fulgentius
* 570 – Cassiodorus
* 636 – Isidore of Seville
* 650 – Codex Pal Legionensus
* 700 – Jaqub of Edessa
* 735 – mss. used by Venerable Bede
* 850 – Codex Ulmensis

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century. Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day. It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation. The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

RESULT: The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence
predating the ninth century; hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence. The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe. In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be.

==APPENDIX B==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA AND THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH===

Having refuted the customary arguments against the Johannine Comma, it becomes appropriate to evaluate the textual evidence. This is best done perhaps by applying Dean Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth." Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, believed that the science of textual criticism should be approached with an attitude of faith, for the Bible is an inspired Book; it should not be treated and evaluated like any other book. "The Bible is different because it is divine." Therefore, Burgon set forth seven tests of truth that he believed would best help a person evaluate the evidence for any given passage. Concerning these tests, he comments:
. . . although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength lies in their cooperation.

For this cause, the author shall apply the "Seven Notes" to the Johannine Comma on a pass or fail basis. By their cooperation, it will be seen that a case can be constructed for the inclusion of this important passage within the text of Holy Scripture.

==The Test of Antiquity==

"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony." A word of caution, however, is in order. The "oldest is best" philosophy is sound only on the surface, for there is much more to judging the age of a reading than simply determining the age of any given manuscript. After all, the oldest reading is not necessarily found in the oldest manuscript. For example, although Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century) is far older than the few Greek mss that do contain the Comma, the passage is quoted by Cyprian, as noted, in the third century. In that respect, the reading of Comma is actually older than the oldest Greek manuscript which attests to I John 5.

When considering this test, one must not forget that the worst corruption to which the New Testament has perhaps ever been subjected originated within a hundred years or so after the originals were penned. According to Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150. Moreover, an ancient Western (Rome) Church Father by the name of Caius (2nd century) once wrote:

For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them . . . their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them . . . For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs [emphasis is mine]? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed.

The point of drawing attention to this fact is that it is not the oldest document for which one must search, but the oldest reading. Does the Johannine Comma represent an early reading? Tertullian and Cyprian cite the passage in the third century; it is utilized at the Council of Carthage in 485; and it can be traced back through the Old Latin of the Waldensian Church (The Old Itala was translated in the second century). In addition to this, one must consider that all extant Greek papyrii are silent to the issue. However, Tertullian, Cyprian, the African Bishops at Carthage, and the Waldenses had to get the reading from somewhere. Therefore, the Comma passes the test of antiquity.

==The Test of Consent of Witnessss==

By this, Burgon means number. Unfortunately, most modern textual critics argue that manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted. Burgon asserted that this maxim "may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy." The traditional text of the Textus Receptus, for the most part, is based upon the readings of the majority of manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are generally late (8th-11th centuries) and consequently discarded by modern critics such as the UBS editors. The question that such critics refuse to ask is where did this great number of manuscripts come from? They must have been copies of earlier uncials and/or papyri that were perhaps lost or destroyed. If ten students were asked to copy a paragraph off the chalkboard, and nine of the ten copies agreed, which best represents the true text? Logic is in favor of the nine copies as opposed to the one disparate copy. The same holds true for New Testament manuscripts. Logic is in favor of the great majority of witnesses. As convincing as this argument is, it must not be utilized as the sole test of truth, for there are several passages in the Textus Receptus that are not found in the great majority of witnesses (e.g. I John 5:7-8). Therefore, as James Borland argues, "Number must be considered as an important factor, but only as one of the tests of truth." Nonetheless, the Comma enjoys at least 19 witnesses prior to the ninth century and numerous witnesses thereafter. Granted, the number is a minority. Were there only two or three witnesses, the Comma could legitimately be said to have failed this test. However, 19 witnesses prior to the 9th century does not bespeak failure. I John 5:7-8 passes the test of consent of witnesses.

==The Test of Variety==

"The greater the variety of witnesses there are, the less chance there is for collusion or deceit to spring from the few." This, of course, can apply to both geographical location and kinds of witnesses. Burgon argues that this is the strongest ally that any reading can have. The Johannine Comma definitely has variety on its side, despite a weak attestation in extant Greek manuscripts. It is found in eight Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, various Waldensian Bibles, numerous German manuscripts, and a few Armenian and Slavonic copies. Moreover, it enjoys early patristic evidence (i.e. Cyprian, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cassiodorus, et. al.). These witnesses represent a wide geographical spread—North Africa, Italy, Asia Minor; Syria; the Caucasus; Russia; Germany; and even England (i.e. the work of Venerable Bede in the 8th century). The Comma passes the test of variety.

==The Test of Continuity==

A fourth test of truth considers the continuity or unbroken testimony of witnesses in favor of a particular reading. As Burgon argued, "this principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the cursives and the later uncials," not the so-called "oldest and best" readings of the modern Greek editions. For the most part, the readings contained in the Textus Receptus have continuity on their side. I John 5:7-8, for example, appears consistently throughout history from A.D. 200 to A.D. 1500 just prior to Erasmus' compiling of the first printed Greek edition. On that basis, the Comma again passes the test.

==The Test of Respectability of Witnesses==

Another test of truth involves weight or respectability. In other words, "if a manuscript proves itself to be erroneous on a frequent basis by a number of acceptable standards, then it loses its respectability." It is safe to say that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not satisfy this category, for their differences from the majority of manuscripts as well as from each other are horrific. Therefore, they should be overlooked. Maybe modern critics should take a lesson from Erasmus when he was approached with readings from Vaticanus; he rejected them. With specific regard to the Comma, witnesses such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, orthodox African writers, the [[Vulgate]], and the Waldensian Bibles certainly stand out as respectable witnesses. Again, the text passes.

==The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage==

This test is concerned with the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. In other words, if a manuscript can be shown to be faulty in several instances in the context of a particular reading, then it is logical that "mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or other shapes." With regard to the Comma, all of the above state witnesses exhibit unsullied integrity in the first few verses of I John 5.

==The Test of Internal Considerations==

This final test of truth focuses upon internal evidence, particularly of a grammatical and scientific nature. "If a particular reading is grammatically, geographically, scientifically, and historically impossible, then it must not be accepted if other readings do not present such problems." For example, the UBS4 accepts a variant reading in Luke 23:45 that is a scientific impossibility. Each of the synoptic Gospels contains the phrase "skotoV egeneto" (there was darkness) (cf. Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). However, Luke adds an additional phrase regarding the sun. The Textus Receptus reads "kai eskotisqh o hlioV" (and the sun was darkened) while the UBS4 reads "tou hliou eklipontoV" (The sun was eclipsed). Like the UBS's faulty readings in Matthew 1:7,10, this reading implies an error in Luke's original autograph: "A solar eclipse is impossible astronomically during the full moon of the Passover when sun and moon are 180 degrees apart in relation to the earth." Luke, being an astute physician, would not have made such a blundering mistake. This reading fails the test of reasonableness because it is scientifically impossible. Therefore, it needs to be added to the long list of corrupt readings found in the UBS4 that should be discarded.

The Johannine Comma, on the other hand, has much on its side in the area of internal considerations. It not only fits the structure, style, and immediate context of I John, but its omission presents a bald grammatical difficulty—three neuter nouns governed by a masculine participle. Let the Comma stand, and "the power of attraction" goes into effect. The Comma thus passes the seventh and final test.

==APPENDIX C==
===A NOTE ON BAPTIST HERITAGE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT===

The inseparable relationship that exists between the inspiration and preservation of Holy Scripture has been an important issue particularly in Baptist heritage. For example, the London Confession of 1644, a creed of the English Baptists reads:
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures . . . In this written Word God hath plainly revealed whatsoever he hath though needful for us to know . . .

It was clear to the English Baptists that God had plainly revealed to them His words in the Holy Scriptures which had been inspired and passed down through the ages as the absolute "Rule of Faith." Only through perfect preservation could this possibly have been true.

In 1833, the American Baptists drew up the New Hampshire Confession. Concerning the Scriptures, it reads,
We believe [that] the Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter . . . and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

This could only be true if God's words had been inspired and perfectly preserved.
For Baptists to deny the perfect providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures is to defy their Baptist heritage as well as the general consensus of the Christian Church for most of history prior to the modern era. Unfortunately, this has occurred all to often as Baptist schools and seminaries are rejecting the doctrine of preservation in favor of naturalistic textual criticism. Michael Maynard, while speaking of Baptist scholars such as A.T. Robertson, J.A. Broadus, J.P. Boyce and D.A. Carson, all of whom regarded the Received Text as an inferior Greek text, argues that they "betrayed their Baptist heritage when they adopted the textual theories of the Anglican scholar F.J.A. Hort, the Presbyterian B.B. Warfield, and the Lutheran K. Tischendorf."

With regard to the Johannine Comma, Baptist views in favor of the passage have long been in print. John Gill (1748) and Andrew Fuller (1815), two Baptist scholars, argued for the authenticity of the Comma long before A.T. Robertson came along. When Robertson, however, did show up on the scene, he was completely oblivious to the views of his Baptist predecessors; he did not even acknowledge them in his works on textual criticism. All in all, Baptist heritage and the Johannine Comma goes all the way back to the Swiss Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Waldensians et. al. All of these groups have their place in the lineage of modern-day Baptists, and all of them held to the Received Text of Scripture which included I John 5:7-8 as it stands in an Authorized King James Bible. Therefore, to deny the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is in a sense to deny Baptist heritage.

==WORKS CONSULTED==
Aland, Barbara and [[Kurt Aland|Aland, Kurt]]. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [[1987 AD|1987]].

Ankerberg, John and Weldon, John. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996.

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Borger, Rykle. "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta." In Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3
(1987). 280-284.

Borland, James. A General Introduction to the New Testament. Lynchburg: VA: University
Book House, 1995.

. "Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate
Inerrancy." In Journal of the Evangelical Thelogical Society (December 4, 1982): 499-506.

Brown, R.E. The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Burgon, John W. "The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels." In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed. by Jay P. Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

Butler, Charles. "To Rev. Herbert Marsh." Horae Biblicae. London: W. Clarke & Sons, 1817.

Clarke, Adam. The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.

Combs, William. "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus." In Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1
(Spring 1996): 35-53.

Custer, Stewart, The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. Greenville, SC: BJU
University Press, 1981.

Dabney, Robert. The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek. Edinburgh:
Banner of Trust, 1967.

Dobbin, Orlando T. The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation. London: Bagster, 1854.

Ebrard, John. Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860.

Elliot, J.K. "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions." In A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of
the Greek New Testament. New York: E.J. Brill, 1987.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lee. (LB IX
199-284) [May, 1520]. Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980]: 381-389).

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Forster, C. A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1867.

Gill, John. An Exposition on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1980 [rep].

Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984.

The Greek New Testament (4th Edition). Ed. by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Greene, Oliver. The Epistles of John. Greenville. SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966.

Hayes, D.A. John and His Writings. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1917.

Jaqub of Edessa. On The Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries. Translated by R.E. Brown in The
Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Jerome. The Canonical Epistles. Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate
Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

Jonge, Henk J. Personal Lettter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).

"Letter IX." In The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1988.

Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

McGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1911.

[[Bruce Metzger|Metzger, Bruce]]. The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition). Germany: United
Bible Societies, 1993.

[[Jack Moorman|Moorman, Jack]]. Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, NJ: Bible for
Today, n.d.

."Principles of Bible Preservation." O Timothy Magazine. Vol. 9, Issue 8. Ed. by David
W. Cloud. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1992: 1-13.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolan, Frederick. Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. n.p., 1815.

Puckett, David. Class Notes—General Church History I. Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern
Seminary, 1998.

[[Gail Riplinger|Riplinger, Gail]]. New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

. Which Bible is God's Word? Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1933.

[[Peter Ruckman|Ruckman, Peter]]. Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1998.

."James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible - Errors 6&7." In Bible Believer's
Bulletin (March, 1996): 1-5

Scott, Ernest. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press,
1963.

Scrivener, F. H. A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th Edition.
London: G. Bell, 1984 (rep).

Tidwell, Josiah. John and His Five Books. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today (2nd Edition). Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994.

Vedder, Henry. The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Griffith
and Rowland Press, n.d.

Victor of Vitensis. Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov. 2.82 in CSEL 7, 60. Translated by
Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995. 43.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

[[James White|White, James]]. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

[[Benjamin Wilkinson|Wilkinson, Benjamin]]. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." In Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

==Footnotes==

* [1] The author recognizes that much of the evidence presented is based upon internal considerations which are subjective by their very nature.What one may see as support for a given reading, another might view as an indictment against that very same reading.Nevertheless, the fact that support can be gleaned for the Comma from internal evidence shows that the issue is not a foregone conclusion.The internal evidence, which greatly supports the passage, serves to supplement what critics term a weak attestation in the realm of external evidence.
* [2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1933),6: 199.
* [3] Josiah Tidwell, John and His Five Books(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937),90-92.
* [4] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1860),5.
* [5] The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
* [6] The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.
* [7] Robertson,6:200.
* [8] David Puckett, Class Notes—General Church History I (Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Seminary, 1998),10.Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge (gnwsiV) and so were called Gnostics (Gnwstikoi).
* [9] I John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2.
* [10] Robertson,6:201
* [11] Ibid.
* [12] Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984), 167.
* [13] D. A. Hayes, John and His Writings(New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1917),161.
* [14] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860),3.
* [15] Henry Vedder, The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Rowland Press),99.
* [16] Ibid.,101.
* [17] Ernest Scott, The Literature of the New Testament(New York: Columbia University Press, 1963),260.
* [18] Vedder, 103-132
* [19] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994),649.
* [20] Robert Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek(Edinburgh: Banner of Trust, 1967),306.
* [21] In the Greek, the phrase reads, "oi treiV eiV to en eisin" which literally translates "and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One."
* [22] Dabney,307
* [23] The spelling of the word "Saviour" as retained in the Authorized Version is preferred by the author.The modern English translations remove the "u" from this title.As a result, a seven-letter word (7= the number of God) becomes a six-letter word (6=the number of man).
* [24] Dabney,307
* [25] Because the foundation of all accusations against I John 5:7-8 rests upon textual evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, this analysis will be more lengthy and complex than the others.
* [26] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger (4th Edition), The Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994).
* [27] Ibid.,819; Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647-648.
* [28] Ibid.
* [29] Robertson,6:241.
* [30] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647.
* [31] Oftentimes, the marginal readings are hastily dismissed.However, what are they doing in the margins?It makes more sense that someone would put them there because they recognized the passage to be missing.
* [32] The reading of the Comma found in Codex Britannicus is given byOrlando T. Dobbin in The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation (London: Bagster, 1854) on page 10.His source is Erasmus' Apologia ad Jacobum Stunicam (1522), reprinted in the Basle edition (1540) of Erasmus' works, pp. 238-296.Codex Britannicus reads: "7oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to pna 8kai outoi oi treiV en eisi, kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pna, to udwr, kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisi ei thn marturian twn anwn lambanomen."The underlined phrase is not found in Codex Monfortianus, so the two manuscripts cannot be the same.Furthermore, Erasmus could not have gotten the Comma from the Monfort Codex.
* [33] William Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996), 49.
* [34] Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),76.
* [35] Desiderius Erasmus,Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lei (LB IX 199-284) [May, 1520] . Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980] , 381-389).
* [36] Henk J. de Jonge, Personal Letter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).
* [37] The reading of the Comma found in the Monfort Codex could not have come from the Compultensian Polygot.Although this edition was first printed in 1514, Cardinal Ximenes did not get permission from Pope Leo X to publish the work until 1520.It was not until 1522 that this edition actually began to circulate and eventually come into Erasmus' hands.
* [38] Erasmus first included the Comma in his third edition which did not appear until 1522.The reading of the Comma as found in the Codex Monfort does not match Erasmus' reading in his third edition in several places.For example, the last clause (and these three agree in one) is not in the Monfort, but included in Erasmus' third edition.Furthermore, the six articles are omitted and agoin and pneuma are transposed.Erasmus included the articles and did not swap agion pneuma.
* [39] Peter Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"Bible Believer's Bulletin (March 1996),3.
* [40] Adam Clarke, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.), 6: 928-929.
* [41] Charles Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1867), 126.
* [42] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978),7: 323-324.
* [43] Maynard,41.A more thorough discussion of the syntactical problem that arises if the Comma is omitted can be found under the Syntactical Analysis.
* [44] Metzger, Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament,648.
* [45] Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11] ; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.
* [46] Charles Butler, "To Rev. Herbert Marsh," in Horae Biblicae (London: W. Clarke and Sons, 1817), 403-406.
* [47] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,648.
* [48] F.H.A. Scrivener,A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th Edition
(London: G. Bell, 1984 [rep] ), 403.
* [49] Maynard,15-16.For a specific identification of these five Syriac editions, one should consult page 51* of the UBS4.
* [50] Jaqub of Edessa, On the Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries, translated by R.E. Brown in The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),778.
* [51] Maynard,96.
* [52] Tremellius' words were provided and translated by Rykle Borger into German in "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta," in Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3 (1987) 280-284.Michael Maynard, in turn, translated Borger's German into English (A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 , 95).
* [53] Maynard,96.
* [54] Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"3.
* [55] Maynard,334-339
* [56] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, II-- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),3: 598.
* [57] John Gill,An Exposition on the Old and New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 [rep.] ),907-908.
* [58] R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),782.
* [59] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926),5:423.
* [60] Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),285.
* [61] Maynard,62.
* [62] Metzger, Early Versions, 304.
* [63] Maynard,62.
* [64] J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," in A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament(New York: E. J. Brill, 1987),280.
* [65] Maynard,62.
* [66] Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version.(Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, n.d.),29.
* [67] Gail Riplinger, Which Bible is God's Word (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995),53.
* [68] Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," in Which Bible?Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975),212.
* [69] Ibid.,210.
* [70] Ibid.
* [71] Ibid.,211.
* [72] Ibid. [emphasis mine] .
* [73] Ibid.
* [74] Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (n.p., 1815), xvii-xviii.
* [75] For a complete listing of Old Latin manuscripts which contain the Comma, one should consult Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (332-348).
* [76] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions,482.
* [77] Maynard,343-348.
* [78] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the New Testament, 648.
* [79] Jerome, The Canonical Epistles.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),41.
* [80] Scrivener,650.
* [81] Maynard,343.
* [82] Besides what has been mentioned in this brief textual analysis, there is a lot more evidence for the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 as retained in the Textus Receptus of the AV 1611 King James Bible.For more information, one should consult Michael Maynard's astounding work, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
* [83] Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 281.
* [84] Stewart Custer made such claim in The Truth About the King James Version Controversy.(Greenville, SC: BJU University Press, 1981).He, however, argued that only 2 manuscripts contained the Comma out of 5000.Similar claims have been made in the classrooms of many colleges and universities across the country.
* [85] There are only 14 Greek manuscripts hostile to the Johannine Comma that predate the ninth century.They are as follows: a, A, B, Y, K, L, P, 048, 049, 0296, 1424, 1841, 1862, 1895.Maynard lists these in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (pp. 333-335).
* [86] Maynard,286 [emphasis mine] .
* [87] Ibid.
* [88] Robertson,5:4.
* [89] oi treiV marturounteV
* [90] pneuma, udwr, aima
* [91] Dabney,306.
* [92] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996),332.
* [93] Pater, LogoV92Agion Pneuma
* [95] The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 7: 233-234.
* [96] Ebrard,41.
* [97] Oliver Greene, The Epistles of John(Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966),191.
* [98] "Letter IX" in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller(Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, [[1988 AD|1988] ] ), 1: 708-709.
* [99] Millard Erickson,Christian Theology(Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House,1983),329.
* [100] [[Peter Ruckman] ] , [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7] ] , Why We Retain It In The Authorized Version(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d.),4.
* [101] [[James White] ] , The King James Only Controversy(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers,1995),40.
* [102] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996),8.
* [103] Erickson,327.
* [104] Ibid.[emphasis mine] .
* [105] Peter Ruckman, Biblical Scholarship(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988),105.
* [106] Jack Moorman, "Principles of Bible Preservation,"O Timothy Magazine(Vol. 9, Issue 8, 1992),2.
* [107] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today , 2nd Edition (Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994),49.
* [108] Some might criticize this perspective, claiming that inspiration cannot be equated with preservation.However, the two are inseparable.Preservation reflects inspiration.In other words, the words contained in the Received Text are inspired in the sense that they are preserved.
* [109] The "scholar" might go on to argue that no copies are perfect, so they cannot be inspired.Therefore, it is concluded that God's words are preserved in manuscript copies only as far as these copies agree with the original manuscripts.Such an argument is nonsense.When is the last time that anyone saw the original manuscripts?They passed out of existence almost 1900 years ago.Such a viewpoint essentially says that we cannot know God's very words because we do not have the inspired originals with which to compare manuscript copies to.This clearly goes against God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7 and downplays the absolute authority of Scripture.
* [110] Towns,49.
* [111] Of course, inspiration can only apply to translations that represent the pure line of Scripture.Modern versions represent a corrupt line of Scripture that was born in Egypt (a), moved to Rome (B), and eventually came to England (RSV) and America (ASV, NASV, NIV, NEB, LB, etc.).The pure line of text, on the other hand, originated in Antioch, is represented by the Old Latin, Old Syriac, German Bibles, the Textus Receptus, and the AV 1611 King James Bible.
* [112] Moorman, Principles of Biblical Preservation,4.
* [113] John Burgon, "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by Jay P. Green(Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990),A-7.
* [114] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 511.

Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd

2011-01-19T21:11:18Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Historical Analysis */

"And These Three Are One"

A Case For the Authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]]
Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

BY

JESSE M. BOYD

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

22 APRIL [[1999 AD|1999]]

This exegesis is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written word--perfectly preserved down through the ages and given to me in a language I can understand. Recognizing that, as [[Martin Luther]] once said, "The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself," I hereby construct this defense out of genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word of God as contained in the Authorized King James Bible. Without a perfectly preserved Written Word, I would know nothing of a personal relationship with the Living Word.

Secondly, it is dedicated to the many men, women, and children who gave their lives that I might have the Bible in English, a privilege which I do not take for granted. Thank-you for your sacrifice and may the Lord reward you richly in His kingdom.

Last, but not least, I dedicate this exegesis to my seminary professor, Dr. David Black, whose books have had a profound effect on my acquisition of a working knowledge of the Greek language. No biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students. The reasons for differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] are to be laid out in this paper. Despite disagreement, however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God. I pray, Dr. Black, that you would consider my presentation, acknowledging that this passage does not deserve the hasty dismissal it so often receives.

"And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory."
-II Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M. Boyd

==AND THESE THREE ARE ONE==
[[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], commonly referred to as the [[Johannine Comma]], has been one of the most hotly debated passages with regard to its authenticity for over a century.

Because it is one of those few passages included in the [[Textus Receptus]] which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts, many a student has paced his study for hours struggling with the question as to whether or not the Comma is a legitimate part of the Holy Scriptures. The hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern versions of the Bible is largely due to the fact that it is only found in eight of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth chapter of [[1 John|I John]]. Consequently, it is almost unanimously regarded among modern textual critics as a later scribal emendation.

The primary English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is the Authorized [[King James Bible]] which is based upon the Greek [[Textus Receptus]]. The passage reads:
* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Most modern translations ([[NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

* [[1 John 5:7|7]] For there are three that testify:
* [[1 John 5:8|8]] the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse [[1 John 5:7|7]], as found in the [[AV]]; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse [[1 John 5:8|8]] (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse [[1 John 5:7|7]].Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.

Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such [[Exegesis|exegesis]] is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The [[Exegesis|exegesis]] that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.[1] May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. [2]

==Historical Analysis==

The epistle of [[1 John|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD|85]]-[[90 AD|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,

:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[1 John|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]

This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

:It [[1 John|I John]] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]

The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].[5]Cyprian writes around [[250 AD|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

==Literary Analysis==

In addition to the matter of historical context, the literary context of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] demands our attention. All three levels of literary analysis—canonical, remote, and immediate contexts—are important. With regard to the text's place in the New Testament canon, the Johannine Comma is the only clear affirmation of the [[Trinity]] throughout the entire [[New Testament]]. Apart from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together (e.g. [[Matthew 28:18]] + [[John 10:30]] + [[John 1:1]] + [[Acts 5:3]]-[[Acts 5:4|4).If a later scribe interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness. For example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in [[Matthew 28:19]].
The Johannine Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John. This can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre. I John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to simply edify other believers in the faith. However, it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament epistles. I John contains no formal greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or specified. Hayes argues, "There is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John. It might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and under almost any conditions. Its contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."[13]These facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in favor of the theological treatise such as is found in the Book of Hebrews. However, this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feelings."[14]

Perhaps the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle and treatise. Vedder argues that the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature. He writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."[15]In other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer. "A brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has written."[16]One, however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation. I John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a definite class of readers. "The writer is concerned throughout with a given situation. He takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph, to which the clue has now been lost."[17]With all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit I John. The Book contains numerous brief discourses dealing with a wide range of subjects. At the same time, however, while the Apostle chooses not to use the set epistolary forms, he approaches the readers as a community, briefly addressing them in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore, the theological discussions contained therein are laced with personal emotion and feeling which is common in New Testament epistles.

How does the genre of I John relate to the Comma? If the book is properly recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological teaching contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly. Such a statement, in fact, would be expected. The Epistle of I John can be broken down in the following manner:

I. Prologue (1:1-4)

II. Our Advocate (1:8-2:2)

III. Obedience (2:3-6)

IV. Purpose (2:12-14)

V. Love of the World (2:15-17)

VI. Antichrist (2:18-28)

VII. Character of God's Children (2:29-3:12)

IX. Love (3:13-24)

X. Test of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)

XI. God is Love (4:7-21)

XII. Victory of Faith (5:1-5)

XIII. Three Witnesses (5:6-13)

XIV. Prayer (5:14-17)

XV. Epilogue[18]

Each aforementioned section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes a brief discourse on a different theological topic. While no particular order is apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the readers understanding of Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of I John.

The Comma is found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses. This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials. The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth. It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God. In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty. If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down. The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses. They most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse (Victory of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).

Finally, I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. [[Bruce Metzger|Metzger]], in his [[Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament]], argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [[[The Johannine Comma]]] makes an awkward break in the sense."[19]Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true. For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."[20]Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.[21]What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree? In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage. "Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[22]The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted. The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

In a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and his consequent victory over the world. Such faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5, 11, 12, 20).This warrant is first presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy Ghost speaking by way of inspired men. In 5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father. Thirdly, the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning work of the Saviour.[23]Finally, as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge. "How harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."[24]

==FAITH'S SOLID WARRANT==
Textual Analysis[25]
The brunt of the argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma lies within the realm of textual criticism. Unfortunately, as mentioned, it is one of the few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from the Greek manuscript tradition. As a result, most modern critics toss it into the wastebasket. An example of such hasty dismissal can be seen in the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of The Greek New Testament.[26]In the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.[27]One is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers; and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.[28]Though such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad generalizations that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence. Perhaps the best approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's arguments, for they bespeak the opinions of most critical scholars. As noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of the Comma, such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the preserved Word of God. Nonetheless, the external evidence in favor of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us to believe by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."[29]

Metzger's presentation of the manuscript evidence is misleading.

The first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are as follows . . ."[30]Next, he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, 2318).Where is the eighth manuscript? The critical apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it. One is forced to wonder about this initial contradiction. Four of these eight manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636), while the other four include it as part of the text.[31]

It is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list the [[Codex Britannicus]] as evidence for the Comma.[32]Their reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators. The well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first and second editions. He argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript with the passage. Only then, would he include it in his edition.[33]Codex Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received it. Nevertheless he is said to have inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed to be the Codex Monfort).[34] First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely unsound. A careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius quod respondet . . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:

Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.[35]

Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript. Rather, he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk J. de Jonge states, "Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access."[36]In light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince Erasmus. If there had been, Erasmus would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.

Although [[Codex Monfortanius]] is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century (ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from. It did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.[37]It did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores of places.[38]Rather, the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which was not known in Europe until after 1552.[39]Besides, this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.[40]

As far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it cannot be equated with the Monfort, because the respective renderings of I John 5:7-8 are quite different.On the one hand, the Monfort omits the articles in verse seven (o, o, to) and transposes "agion pneuma."In verse 8, the articles (to, to, to), a conjunction (kai), and the last phrase (kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin) are missing.Britannicus, on the other hand, includes the articles and the final phrase but omits the adjective "agion" in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire the last clause for his third edition?He surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex Monfort, but from Britannicus. This is why Monfortanius "cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."[41]At this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.

After promulgating his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma, Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers." Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage). Gregory writes:

What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?[42]

In this brief excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle with three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the case if the Comma is omitted. In other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."[43]

Metzger's presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is misleading.

Metzger goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma, they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)."[44]There is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea). There is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in these major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves nothing. Nonetheless, Metzger completely ignores the fact that the verse was employed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by doing so, he would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used as proof of the Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates that arose and plagued the Church concerning these issues. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians (led byKing Huneric the Vandal) and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

In spite of this example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous testimony of the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was in all of their copies. Secondly, they assert that as no dispute took place, but the conference was broken up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept the passage. Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized.

Charles Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God's Word as their first line of defense.[46]The African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in their manuscripts. As a result, they were able to successfully employ the passage as they defended their faith before the Arian accusers.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.

Metzger follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary. He claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin . . ."[47]This allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."[48]F. H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect, agrees with Metzger. However, he does admit that it appears in a few copies of the Armenian and Slavonic, both being ancient version. Metzger's blanket statement overlooks this fact.

As far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma appeared in its early manuscripts. First of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920), syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."[49] Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies. In fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary. For example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."[50]Here, Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in conjunction with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8 with the Comma inserted. It must have been in some Syriac copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate allusion to it.

Tremellius' Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version. Tremellius translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.[51]Modern scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this. If Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he take the time to translate it? Better yet, why did he place it in the margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering, and leave a blank space for it? Tremellius must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac tradition. He himself wrote:

But because it was omitted not only in the printed version, but only in the manuscript Heidelberg codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I did not dare to insert it into the text.So in order that there might not be a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers may correspond to the numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed from the sixth to the eighth verse.[52]

As Maynard correctly concludes:

How often is a blank space provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek edition? The four questions together could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts. His actions are not in accord with his words. Perhaps, with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this spot. (Modern editors do not hesitate over a 'disturbance of the verses.' They merely split verse six in half.)[53]

Another Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern scholars. Also, of notable importance, is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.[54]It is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well. After all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the sixth century. Unfortunately, these have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain the Comma.[55]Therefore, Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the Old Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all the evidence. Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius, and Gutbier had to get the Comma from somewhere.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.

Metzger also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine). This too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage. If they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However, less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:

. . .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[56]

This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma. On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus. However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]

The [[Old Latin]] translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for [[Latin]] was the major language up through the Middle Ages. The [[Old Latin]] is not the same as the [[Latin]] of Jerome's [[Vulgate]], which by the way, does include the Comma. The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages. Did the [[Old Latin]] consistently contain the [[Johannine Comma]]? For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in [[Middle High German]]. This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus. As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century. This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63] According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value. But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w). The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]The Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the [[Textus Receptus]], but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English versions.

The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the [[Waldensians]]. History teaches that the [[Waldensians]] were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century. The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries. As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe."[67]

The translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the Comma because it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.[68]All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus Receptus. The first of these was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center of the Swiss Reformation. The basis for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin. This fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."[69]Secondly, the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. With Calvin's help, Beza brought out a later edition of the Textus Receptus. Wilkinson argues:

This later edition of the [[Received Text]] is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles [emphasis mine].[70]

The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati. Diodati, an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated the received text into Italian. "This version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."[71]The fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned, was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German. "This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."[72]In addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.[73]

In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick Nolan. In Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan. Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. All of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly Apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."[74]Therefore, claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.

The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard to I John 5:7-8.The passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.[75]Studies show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the minority text of a and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.[76]It is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remain unexamined. It is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.[77]Dogmatic conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all the evidence.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.

The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.[78]True, it does not appear in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome?In fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.[79]If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts, what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus (988).Scrivener said that the passage "is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps 49 out of every 50 of its manuscripts."[80]Moreover, against Metzger's claim of lateness, the Comma is claimed by others to be found in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts.[81]

As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger's external evidence for the omission of I John 5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive at almost every point. Thus, he fails to prove that the passage is an interpolation. The textual evidence supporting the Comma is much greater than most critics would have us to believe; an honest evaluation of the evidence yields a case for inclusion that is at least as plausible as one for exclusion.[82]Once again, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Metzger falls short.

If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John 5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14).Even Aland, the UBS' own, admits that the true text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.[83]The majority, however, is not as extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.[84]Such a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5.This is hardly the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 498 are hostile to the Comma. This is substantially less than 5000.Of those 498 manuscripts, only 14 of them predate the ninth century.[85]The same scholars that reject the Comma criticize the Textus Receptus for following so-called "late manuscripts" when they use the same manuscripts as the bulk of their evidence against I John 5:7-8.In other words, 97 per cent of their evidence is late. Maynard asserts:

Opposers of 1 John v.7f are not admitting, that after four centuries (the 17th to 20th) of scholars searching for MSS they could not even muster 3% of all their evidence against 1 John v.7f as being significant, by their standards. Only 14 Greek MSS (2.8%) of the 482 hostile MSS [Maynard arrives at this number from the fact that Metzger considers 16 of the 498 manuscripts to be worthless and irrelevant] they would consider boasting about, were dated from the ninth century or earlier.[86]

Another "reason that the absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse."[87]God may have allowed I John 5:7-8 to fall out of 14 Greek manuscripts prior to the ninth century and many thereafter for the purpose of drawing our attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, for after all, the Comma is the most concise and clear statement regarding this subject throughout all of Scripture. Such a scenario is at least plausible and worthy of consideration.

==Lexical Analysis==

The Johannine Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard to the issue at hand—logoV. This is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine Christology. The second person of the Trinity is referred to as the "Word." Such a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in [[John 1:1]], 14; I John 1:1; and [[Revelation 19:13]].This fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse, for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."[88]LogoV, being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to use when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as is the case in the Comma. On the other hand, if the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove the trinity, the forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19).This issue of tradition, however, will be discussed more in depth under the traditional analysis.

==Syntactical Analysis==

Of significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue of syntax. Plainly speaking, if the Comma is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with respect to the general rules of the Greek language. The masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness[89]) are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood[90]).As Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty."[91]John most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure and syntax are altogether simple and understandable. In attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender."[92]However, the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless the Comma is present. It is true that the Spirit (pneuma), a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides, Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.

If the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with the two masculines (Father & Word[93]) and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit[94]), and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected to them. Such is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament and John's writings in particular. As previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca. 385).[95]

==Structural Analysis==

From the above structural analysis, a contrast of two groups of three becomes apparent. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of two, three, or four. Examples of this include Proverbs 30; [[Amos 1:3]], 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

The Comma is also structurally important with reference to verse 9. I John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness of men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.

==Rhetorical Analysis==

In the realm of rhetorical criticism, the Johannine Comma seems to conform to the Apostle John's literary style. As far as tone is concerned, "there reigns throughout the Epistle a firm and manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm" (e.g. 1:6-10; 2:19; 3:6-10; 4:1-2; etc.).[96]This tone is likewise prevalent in the Comma which tersely presents the truth of an important doctrine, leaving the reader with no room to question.

John's writings are also characterized by contrasts. According to Tidwell, "the ordinary contrasts cover almost the same words and ideas of the Gospel such as life and death, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness with several others and with the addition of Christ and anti-Christ." The Comma, in particular, feeds the contrast which John creates between Jesus Christ and Antichrist (cf. 2:18-23).Jesus Christ is God (cf. 5:7-8).Antichrist, on the other hand, is the one who denies this fact (cf. 2:22).

One final aspect of John's style that is worthy of consideration with respect to the Comma, is parallelism. I John is filled with both positive and negative parallelism. For example, the Apostle writes in 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all," and in 1:9, "Forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 5:7-8, the Comma included, also contains parallelism, a synthetic type to be exact. The three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, and Holy Ghost) and the three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood) are actually the same three witnesses. As Oliver Greene argues, "Therefore, since the Trinity - the Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost - bear record in heaven, it is these three who also bear record in earth."[97]In other words, the promulgation of the three earthly witnesses serves to expand or elaborate on the role of the three heavenly witnesses. The earthly witnesses are sourced in the heavenly witnesses. The "blood" refers to the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28) while the "water" is a reference to Jesus Christ at his baptism. The "Spirit," of course, is the third member of the Godhead. This particular type of parallelism is very common with John and could conceivably be called a chiasmus in this particular instance.

A. Father

B. Word <------------------------------Heavenly Witnesses

C. Holy Ghost

A'.Blood

If the Comma is omitted, the chiasmic structure falls apart.

Altogether, the Johannine Comma reflects John's rhetorical style. Fuller points out, "The connexion of the passage is altogether in its favor. The phraseology is that of the Apostle John; so that if the words are not his, it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined."[98]

==Tradition Analysis==

With regard to tradition criticism, it is the tradition that the Comma does reflect that is significant. Had a redactor added the passage to argue for the Trinity, he would have almost certainly utilized the common Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This formula "became part of a very early tradition in the church."[99]It was employed in the Didache (7.1-4) as well as Justin's Apology (1.61).The strength of forgery is similarity not uniqueness. Ruckman argues, "What would have possibly been gained by inventing a different formula than the one given in Matthew 28, which every Christian knew by heart?"[100]Also, Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" numerous times in I John. A true forger would have no doubt utilized "Son" instead of "Word" so as to further disguise his redactional efforts.

==Theological Analysis==

The theological significance of the Johannine Comma goes without saying. As noted, it is the only clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in all of Scripture. Thus, when James White argues that "the reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures," he is wrong.[101]When John Ankerberg concludes that textual differences only apply to 1% of the text, and none of them are doctrinally important, he is incorrect.[102]The Trinity is a doctrine that sets Christianity apart from all other religions—one God in three persons. It is interesting to note Erickson's argument for the Trinity in his Christian Theology. He begins by stating, "One text which has traditionally been appealed to as documenting the Trinity is I John 5:7 . . .unfortunately, the textual basis is so weak . . . If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere."[103]He then proceeds over the next five pages to exegete and systematize numerous passages that imply this doctrine. He concludes, "Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated, the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing."[104]It seems rather strange to base a fundamental Christian doctrine upon suggestion. Perhaps this is why so many cults ([[Jehovah's Witnesses]]) are able to manipulate the Bible so as to assert that Jesus was not God. After all, the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses rejects the Comma.

A matter of theological significance that transcends the text of I John 5:7-8 concerns the issue of final authority. Is the Bible we hold in our hands the Word of God or not? If it contains errors, it can only be said that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. This is Neo-orthodoxy. When critical scholars boastfully claim that the Comma is not a legitimate part of Scripture, they are questioning the authority of the Book and disregarding the traditional text that brought about the Reformation. Questioning, when it comes to the text of Scripture, is the starting point of all kinds of apostasy. Is the final authority in the Book, or is it in what man says about the Book? In other words, should one reject the Comma because man says it doesn't belong, or should it be accepted by faith because it has been preserved in a Bible that God has blessed for 450 years."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" ([[Psalm 118:8]]).The King James Bible has unquestionably produced more spiritual fruit than all of modern English versions put together. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).Whatever may have be wrong with modern English versions, "There is one thing that is certain, they produced an ignorance of the CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING."[105]

The accusations against I John 5:7-8 that are hurled by modern scholars are typical of attacks that rain down on numerous other places in the text of the Bible ("I know your King James Bible says this, but it really should say this . . .").Such assaults sound too strikingly familiar to Satan's discourse in the Garden of Eden. The "Father of Lies" did not argue with Eve about whether or not there was a God, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity was true, or even whether God's Word was inspired. No, apostasy began when Satan questioned God's words and placed doubt in Eve's heart. "Eve, I know that God said you would die if you eat the fruit, but he really meant that you would be just like him, a god" (author's paraphrase). Jesus warns in Mark 4:15, "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." When doubt is given a beachhead, all other defenses soon fall. Hasty dismissals of I John 5:7-8 have served to do nothing but cast doubt upon the sovereignly preserved Word of God. According to Moorman, the entire matter boils down to one question: "Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture."[106] A heretic has never been able to construct an argument without altering the words of the King James Bible. Interesting?

Any proper approach to the text of Scripture, including I John 5:7-8, must take into account the doctrine of preservation. In Psalm 12:6-7, God promised to preserve His words for every generation. The same God who inspired the original Greek autographs is most certainly powerful enough to preserve them in the copying process as Greek manuscripts multiplied. If this is not true, what would have been the purpose in inspiring the Scriptures if men were just going to mutilate and corrupt them? Preservation does not just extend to the general message of the Bible, but to the very words themselves (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35).This being true, the perfectly preserved Word of God existed down through the ages and will be in existence until Christ returns. It is true that not even two out of the five thousand extant Greek manuscripts agree with each other 100% of the time. However, this body of manuscripts most definitely does not represent all of the manuscripts that ever existed. Many have since rotted away. Therefore, in light of God's promise of preservation, it is not illogical to think that manuscripts once existed that completely agreed with the traditional text of the Textus Receptus and consequently, contained the Johannine Comma. Maybe Erasmus, Luther, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir Brothers, and the King James translators did not have such manuscripts, but why couldn't Almighty God have guided them into selecting the right words from the body of manuscripts they did possess? After, all God is in control of His words. Towns writes, "If an all-powerful God cannot control the vehicle of His self-revelation, then His power and nature can be questioned."[107]

A common assertion among conservative evangelicals is that the inspiration of Scripture only applies to the original autographs. This, however, cannot be true in light of God's promise of preservation.[108] The word "Scripture" is never used in the Bible to refer to the originals (cf. Acts 8:32; 17:11).Besides, in II Timothy 3:16, when Paul discusses the inspiration of Scripture, he does so in a context in which he says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures as a child (cf. 3:15).Paul is not referring to the original autographs of the Old Testament, for they had passed out of existence long before the Apostle was even born. Paul was saying that the Scripture Timothy had read as a child were inspired.They were not the original autographs, but they were inspired in the sense that they had been perfectly preserved by God Almighty. Some might argue that this interpretation is faulty because it calls for the fusing together of two verses.The "scholar" may see it that way, but the Bible was written for the common man (cf. Psalm 119:99-100).A simple reading (minus grammatical analysis, verb parsings, theological presuppositions, etc.) of this passage clearly shows that Paul is not limiting inspiration to the originals. Such a faulty interpretation is based on theological presupposition.[109] Towns writes, "The Bible . . . is as perfect as God, and its perfection extends to every word."[110] Most evangelicals will accept this statement as truth, but such a statement is meaningless if there is not immediate access to these perfect words. Immediate access is available by way of divine preservation. Not only is God's Word perfectly preserved after the Original Autographs, but according to Psalm 119:89; John 12:49-50; 17:8, it precedes them.

The doctrine of inspiration does not only apply to the original autographs nor does it apply exclusively to the original languages of the autographs. IfGod preserved his Word as He promised, then inspiration can apply to translations.[111] When is the last time that Greek and Hebrew was used by God to reach someone with the Gospel? If the original languages were the only source of inspired Scripture, then the ancient Hebrews must have been a extremely ignorant, for the Pentateuch could not have originally been written in Hebrew. After all, "Moses was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), and someone had to translate what Moses said in Egyptian to Pharaoh back into Hebrew. Yet, the Jews believed their Hebrew Scriptures were inspired and still do today. Moorman makes a point worthy of consideration: "as so few can read the original languages, God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations. . . If a translation cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek before they can be saved, or built up in the faith."[112]

Another principle to keep in mind with reference to "questionable passages" (e.g. I John 5:7-8) is that they must be approached with an attitude of faith. As Hebrews 11:6 asserts, "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Dean Burgon once wrote, "There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, immediately abdicated His office and took no further care of His work; that He abandoned those precious writings."[113] The whole crux of the matter boils down to faith, plain and simple. Unfortunately, most modern critics (Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, the UBS, et. al,) approach the sacred science of textual criticism with presuppositions against inerrancy. They treat the Bible as if it were just another book. Such an attitude cannot be founded upon faith, and consequently, is not pleasing to God.

Much more could be said about the relationship between inspiration and preservation, but the question must come back to the Johannine Comma. In this excursus, the author has shown that a case can be constructed for the genuineness of the text of the three heavenly witnesses. As to how strong a case, the author will leave it up to the reader's individual judgment. The author does not say that his case is all conclusive, but on the other hand, by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should not be included. In the case of the accusation against the King James Bible, the burden of proof, as has been noted several times, LIES WITH THE ACCUSER. The accuser cannot prove his case; therefore, the author accepts the Comma's authenticity by faith., a faith that is backed up with plenty of evidence. God, in His sovereignty, saw to it that the text was preserved in the Bible's of the Reformation and the best-selling book of all time—The Authorized King James Version. As to why the passage fell out of so many Greek mss, only the Almighty knows. It is at least possible that the text was excised from the Greek tradition by heretics who didn't want to believe that Jesus was God. Nonetheless, it was preserved in the Latin text through the use of the Latin speaking church.

The whole matter can be concluded with a question? Who would be honored more by the presence of the Comma in Holy Scripture—Jesus Christ or the Devil? The answer goes without saying. In the words of Gail Riplinger, "Guesses or God, fear or faith, haughty or humble. These are the perpetual options for the Christian."[114]

==Homiletical Analysis==

It is the author's opinion that the Johannine Comma is authentic Holy Scripture. Therefore, it can and should be preached from. Two approaches can be taken—an exegetical and a topical. An exegetical approach might utilize the surrounding context. A possible outline might look something like this:
Proposition: In I John 5:4-10, John promulgates two facts about biblical faith.
I. THE FIRST FACT: Biblical faith overcomes the world - 5:4-5

A. The inevitability of overcoming – 5:4

1.Stated – "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."

2.Elaborated – "and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

B. The identity of the overcomer – 5:5

1.What he does – "Who is he that overcometh the world"

2.What he believes – "but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."

II. THE SECOND FACT: Biblical faith is sanctioned.

A. Sanctioned by truth – 5:6

B. Sanctioned by three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Holy Ghost) – 5:7

C. Sanctioned by three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, blood) – 5:8

D. A Parenthetical Explanation – 5:9

1.The supremacy of the witness of God – "If we receive the witness of men,

witness of God is greater."

2.The clarification of the witness of God – "for this is the witness of God which he

hath testified of his Son."

E. Sanctioned by the believer's spiritual consciousness – 5:10

1.Stated positively – "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in

himself"

2.Stated negatively – "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he

believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

A topical approach to I John 5:7-8 might focus upon the nature of the Trinity. A possible outline could resemble the following.

Proposition: In I John 5:7-8, the Apostle explicates the triune nature of God from two

perspectives.

I. THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE: A Heavenly Perspective – 5:7

A. Delineated – "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost."

1.The first person of the Trinity – "Father"

2.The second person of the Trinity – "Word"

3.The third person of the Trinity – "Holy Ghost"

B. Described – "and these three are one"

II. THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE: An Earthly Perspective – 5:8

A. Delineated – "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the

water, and the blood."

1.The third person of the Trinity – "Spirit"

2.The second person of the Trinity—Jesus at his baptism—"water"

3.The first person of the Trinity—the blood of God shed on the cross—"blood"

B. Described – "and these three agree in one"

==APPENDIX A==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA—EARLY EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST===
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts = 5,000 +
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence
* 30 mss. – 10th century
* 80 mss. – 11th century
* 79 mss. – 12th century
* 98 mss. – 13th century
* 119 mss. – 14th century
* 55 mss. – 15th century
* 15 mss. –16th century
* 6 mss. – 17th century
* 1 mss. – 18th century

Historical Breakdown of Favorable Evidence
A.D. (ca.)
* 200 – Tertullian
* 250 – Cyprian
* 318 – Athanasius
* 350 – Idacius Clarus
* 380 – Priscillian
* 385 – Gregory of Nazanzius
* 390 – Jerome
* 450 – Contra Varimadum
* 450 – Latin mss. m
* 485 – Council of Carthage
* 485 – Victor of Vitensis
* 500 – Latin mss. r
* 527 – Fulgentius
* 570 – Cassiodorus
* 636 – Isidore of Seville
* 650 – Codex Pal Legionensus
* 700 – Jaqub of Edessa
* 735 – mss. used by Venerable Bede
* 850 – Codex Ulmensis

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century. Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day. It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation. The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

RESULT: The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence
predating the ninth century; hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence. The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe. In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be.

==APPENDIX B==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA AND THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH===

Having refuted the customary arguments against the Johannine Comma, it becomes appropriate to evaluate the textual evidence. This is best done perhaps by applying Dean Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth." Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, believed that the science of textual criticism should be approached with an attitude of faith, for the Bible is an inspired Book; it should not be treated and evaluated like any other book. "The Bible is different because it is divine." Therefore, Burgon set forth seven tests of truth that he believed would best help a person evaluate the evidence for any given passage. Concerning these tests, he comments:
. . . although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength lies in their cooperation.

For this cause, the author shall apply the "Seven Notes" to the Johannine Comma on a pass or fail basis. By their cooperation, it will be seen that a case can be constructed for the inclusion of this important passage within the text of Holy Scripture.

==The Test of Antiquity==

"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony." A word of caution, however, is in order. The "oldest is best" philosophy is sound only on the surface, for there is much more to judging the age of a reading than simply determining the age of any given manuscript. After all, the oldest reading is not necessarily found in the oldest manuscript. For example, although Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century) is far older than the few Greek mss that do contain the Comma, the passage is quoted by Cyprian, as noted, in the third century. In that respect, the reading of Comma is actually older than the oldest Greek manuscript which attests to I John 5.

When considering this test, one must not forget that the worst corruption to which the New Testament has perhaps ever been subjected originated within a hundred years or so after the originals were penned. According to Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150. Moreover, an ancient Western (Rome) Church Father by the name of Caius (2nd century) once wrote:

For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them . . . their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them . . . For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs [emphasis is mine]? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed.

The point of drawing attention to this fact is that it is not the oldest document for which one must search, but the oldest reading. Does the Johannine Comma represent an early reading? Tertullian and Cyprian cite the passage in the third century; it is utilized at the Council of Carthage in 485; and it can be traced back through the Old Latin of the Waldensian Church (The Old Itala was translated in the second century). In addition to this, one must consider that all extant Greek papyrii are silent to the issue. However, Tertullian, Cyprian, the African Bishops at Carthage, and the Waldenses had to get the reading from somewhere. Therefore, the Comma passes the test of antiquity.

==The Test of Consent of Witnessss==

By this, Burgon means number. Unfortunately, most modern textual critics argue that manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted. Burgon asserted that this maxim "may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy." The traditional text of the Textus Receptus, for the most part, is based upon the readings of the majority of manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are generally late (8th-11th centuries) and consequently discarded by modern critics such as the UBS editors. The question that such critics refuse to ask is where did this great number of manuscripts come from? They must have been copies of earlier uncials and/or papyri that were perhaps lost or destroyed. If ten students were asked to copy a paragraph off the chalkboard, and nine of the ten copies agreed, which best represents the true text? Logic is in favor of the nine copies as opposed to the one disparate copy. The same holds true for New Testament manuscripts. Logic is in favor of the great majority of witnesses. As convincing as this argument is, it must not be utilized as the sole test of truth, for there are several passages in the Textus Receptus that are not found in the great majority of witnesses (e.g. I John 5:7-8). Therefore, as James Borland argues, "Number must be considered as an important factor, but only as one of the tests of truth." Nonetheless, the Comma enjoys at least 19 witnesses prior to the ninth century and numerous witnesses thereafter. Granted, the number is a minority. Were there only two or three witnesses, the Comma could legitimately be said to have failed this test. However, 19 witnesses prior to the 9th century does not bespeak failure. I John 5:7-8 passes the test of consent of witnesses.

==The Test of Variety==

"The greater the variety of witnesses there are, the less chance there is for collusion or deceit to spring from the few." This, of course, can apply to both geographical location and kinds of witnesses. Burgon argues that this is the strongest ally that any reading can have. The Johannine Comma definitely has variety on its side, despite a weak attestation in extant Greek manuscripts. It is found in eight Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, various Waldensian Bibles, numerous German manuscripts, and a few Armenian and Slavonic copies. Moreover, it enjoys early patristic evidence (i.e. Cyprian, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cassiodorus, et. al.). These witnesses represent a wide geographical spread—North Africa, Italy, Asia Minor; Syria; the Caucasus; Russia; Germany; and even England (i.e. the work of Venerable Bede in the 8th century). The Comma passes the test of variety.

==The Test of Continuity==

A fourth test of truth considers the continuity or unbroken testimony of witnesses in favor of a particular reading. As Burgon argued, "this principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the cursives and the later uncials," not the so-called "oldest and best" readings of the modern Greek editions. For the most part, the readings contained in the Textus Receptus have continuity on their side. I John 5:7-8, for example, appears consistently throughout history from A.D. 200 to A.D. 1500 just prior to Erasmus' compiling of the first printed Greek edition. On that basis, the Comma again passes the test.

==The Test of Respectability of Witnesses==

Another test of truth involves weight or respectability. In other words, "if a manuscript proves itself to be erroneous on a frequent basis by a number of acceptable standards, then it loses its respectability." It is safe to say that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not satisfy this category, for their differences from the majority of manuscripts as well as from each other are horrific. Therefore, they should be overlooked. Maybe modern critics should take a lesson from Erasmus when he was approached with readings from Vaticanus; he rejected them. With specific regard to the Comma, witnesses such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, orthodox African writers, the [[Vulgate]], and the Waldensian Bibles certainly stand out as respectable witnesses. Again, the text passes.

==The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage==

This test is concerned with the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. In other words, if a manuscript can be shown to be faulty in several instances in the context of a particular reading, then it is logical that "mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or other shapes." With regard to the Comma, all of the above state witnesses exhibit unsullied integrity in the first few verses of I John 5.

==The Test of Internal Considerations==

This final test of truth focuses upon internal evidence, particularly of a grammatical and scientific nature. "If a particular reading is grammatically, geographically, scientifically, and historically impossible, then it must not be accepted if other readings do not present such problems." For example, the UBS4 accepts a variant reading in Luke 23:45 that is a scientific impossibility. Each of the synoptic Gospels contains the phrase "skotoV egeneto" (there was darkness) (cf. Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). However, Luke adds an additional phrase regarding the sun. The Textus Receptus reads "kai eskotisqh o hlioV" (and the sun was darkened) while the UBS4 reads "tou hliou eklipontoV" (The sun was eclipsed). Like the UBS's faulty readings in Matthew 1:7,10, this reading implies an error in Luke's original autograph: "A solar eclipse is impossible astronomically during the full moon of the Passover when sun and moon are 180 degrees apart in relation to the earth." Luke, being an astute physician, would not have made such a blundering mistake. This reading fails the test of reasonableness because it is scientifically impossible. Therefore, it needs to be added to the long list of corrupt readings found in the UBS4 that should be discarded.

The Johannine Comma, on the other hand, has much on its side in the area of internal considerations. It not only fits the structure, style, and immediate context of I John, but its omission presents a bald grammatical difficulty—three neuter nouns governed by a masculine participle. Let the Comma stand, and "the power of attraction" goes into effect. The Comma thus passes the seventh and final test.

==APPENDIX C==
===A NOTE ON BAPTIST HERITAGE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT===

The inseparable relationship that exists between the inspiration and preservation of Holy Scripture has been an important issue particularly in Baptist heritage. For example, the London Confession of 1644, a creed of the English Baptists reads:
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures . . . In this written Word God hath plainly revealed whatsoever he hath though needful for us to know . . .

It was clear to the English Baptists that God had plainly revealed to them His words in the Holy Scriptures which had been inspired and passed down through the ages as the absolute "Rule of Faith." Only through perfect preservation could this possibly have been true.

In 1833, the American Baptists drew up the New Hampshire Confession. Concerning the Scriptures, it reads,
We believe [that] the Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter . . . and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

This could only be true if God's words had been inspired and perfectly preserved.
For Baptists to deny the perfect providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures is to defy their Baptist heritage as well as the general consensus of the Christian Church for most of history prior to the modern era. Unfortunately, this has occurred all to often as Baptist schools and seminaries are rejecting the doctrine of preservation in favor of naturalistic textual criticism. Michael Maynard, while speaking of Baptist scholars such as A.T. Robertson, J.A. Broadus, J.P. Boyce and D.A. Carson, all of whom regarded the Received Text as an inferior Greek text, argues that they "betrayed their Baptist heritage when they adopted the textual theories of the Anglican scholar F.J.A. Hort, the Presbyterian B.B. Warfield, and the Lutheran K. Tischendorf."

With regard to the Johannine Comma, Baptist views in favor of the passage have long been in print. John Gill (1748) and Andrew Fuller (1815), two Baptist scholars, argued for the authenticity of the Comma long before A.T. Robertson came along. When Robertson, however, did show up on the scene, he was completely oblivious to the views of his Baptist predecessors; he did not even acknowledge them in his works on textual criticism. All in all, Baptist heritage and the Johannine Comma goes all the way back to the Swiss Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Waldensians et. al. All of these groups have their place in the lineage of modern-day Baptists, and all of them held to the Received Text of Scripture which included I John 5:7-8 as it stands in an Authorized King James Bible. Therefore, to deny the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is in a sense to deny Baptist heritage.

==WORKS CONSULTED==
Aland, Barbara and [[Kurt Aland|Aland, Kurt]]. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [[1987 AD|1987]].

Ankerberg, John and Weldon, John. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996.

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Borger, Rykle. "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta." In Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3
(1987). 280-284.

Borland, James. A General Introduction to the New Testament. Lynchburg: VA: University
Book House, 1995.

. "Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate
Inerrancy." In Journal of the Evangelical Thelogical Society (December 4, 1982): 499-506.

Brown, R.E. The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Burgon, John W. "The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels." In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed. by Jay P. Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

Butler, Charles. "To Rev. Herbert Marsh." Horae Biblicae. London: W. Clarke & Sons, 1817.

Clarke, Adam. The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.

Combs, William. "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus." In Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1
(Spring 1996): 35-53.

Custer, Stewart, The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. Greenville, SC: BJU
University Press, 1981.

Dabney, Robert. The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek. Edinburgh:
Banner of Trust, 1967.

Dobbin, Orlando T. The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation. London: Bagster, 1854.

Ebrard, John. Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860.

Elliot, J.K. "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions." In A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of
the Greek New Testament. New York: E.J. Brill, 1987.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lee. (LB IX
199-284) [May, 1520]. Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980]: 381-389).

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Forster, C. A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1867.

Gill, John. An Exposition on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1980 [rep].

Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984.

The Greek New Testament (4th Edition). Ed. by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Greene, Oliver. The Epistles of John. Greenville. SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966.

Hayes, D.A. John and His Writings. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1917.

Jaqub of Edessa. On The Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries. Translated by R.E. Brown in The
Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Jerome. The Canonical Epistles. Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate
Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

Jonge, Henk J. Personal Lettter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).

"Letter IX." In The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1988.

Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

McGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1911.

[[Bruce Metzger|Metzger, Bruce]]. The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition). Germany: United
Bible Societies, 1993.

[[Jack Moorman|Moorman, Jack]]. Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, NJ: Bible for
Today, n.d.

."Principles of Bible Preservation." O Timothy Magazine. Vol. 9, Issue 8. Ed. by David
W. Cloud. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1992: 1-13.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolan, Frederick. Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. n.p., 1815.

Puckett, David. Class Notes—General Church History I. Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern
Seminary, 1998.

[[Gail Riplinger|Riplinger, Gail]]. New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

. Which Bible is God's Word? Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1933.

[[Peter Ruckman|Ruckman, Peter]]. Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1998.

."James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible - Errors 6&7." In Bible Believer's
Bulletin (March, 1996): 1-5

Scott, Ernest. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press,
1963.

Scrivener, F. H. A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th Edition.
London: G. Bell, 1984 (rep).

Tidwell, Josiah. John and His Five Books. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today (2nd Edition). Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994.

Vedder, Henry. The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Griffith
and Rowland Press, n.d.

Victor of Vitensis. Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov. 2.82 in CSEL 7, 60. Translated by
Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995. 43.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

[[James White|White, James]]. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

[[Benjamin Wilkinson|Wilkinson, Benjamin]]. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." In Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

==Footnotes==

* [1] The author recognizes that much of the evidence presented is based upon internal considerations which are subjective by their very nature.What one may see as support for a given reading, another might view as an indictment against that very same reading.Nevertheless, the fact that support can be gleaned for the Comma from internal evidence shows that the issue is not a foregone conclusion.The internal evidence, which greatly supports the passage, serves to supplement what critics term a weak attestation in the realm of external evidence.
* [2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1933),6: 199.
* [3] Josiah Tidwell, John and His Five Books(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937),90-92.
* [4] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1860),5.
* [5] The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
* [6] The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.
* [7] Robertson,6:200.
* [8] David Puckett, Class Notes—General Church History I (Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Seminary, 1998),10.Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge (gnwsiV) and so were called Gnostics (Gnwstikoi).
* [9] I John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2.
* [10] Robertson,6:201
* [11] Ibid.
* [12] Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984), 167.
* [13] D. A. Hayes, John and His Writings(New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1917),161.
* [14] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860),3.
* [15] Henry Vedder, The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Rowland Press),99.
* [16] Ibid.,101.
* [17] Ernest Scott, The Literature of the New Testament(New York: Columbia University Press, 1963),260.
* [18] Vedder, 103-132
* [19] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994),649.
* [20] Robert Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek(Edinburgh: Banner of Trust, 1967),306.
* [21] In the Greek, the phrase reads, "oi treiV eiV to en eisin" which literally translates "and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One."
* [22] Dabney,307
* [23] The spelling of the word "Saviour" as retained in the Authorized Version is preferred by the author.The modern English translations remove the "u" from this title.As a result, a seven-letter word (7= the number of God) becomes a six-letter word (6=the number of man).
* [24] Dabney,307
* [25] Because the foundation of all accusations against I John 5:7-8 rests upon textual evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, this analysis will be more lengthy and complex than the others.
* [26] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger (4th Edition), The Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994).
* [27] Ibid.,819; Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647-648.
* [28] Ibid.
* [29] Robertson,6:241.
* [30] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647.
* [31] Oftentimes, the marginal readings are hastily dismissed.However, what are they doing in the margins?It makes more sense that someone would put them there because they recognized the passage to be missing.
* [32] The reading of the Comma found in Codex Britannicus is given byOrlando T. Dobbin in The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation (London: Bagster, 1854) on page 10.His source is Erasmus' Apologia ad Jacobum Stunicam (1522), reprinted in the Basle edition (1540) of Erasmus' works, pp. 238-296.Codex Britannicus reads: "7oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to pna 8kai outoi oi treiV en eisi, kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pna, to udwr, kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisi ei thn marturian twn anwn lambanomen."The underlined phrase is not found in Codex Monfortianus, so the two manuscripts cannot be the same.Furthermore, Erasmus could not have gotten the Comma from the Monfort Codex.
* [33] William Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996), 49.
* [34] Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),76.
* [35] Desiderius Erasmus,Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lei (LB IX 199-284) [May, 1520] . Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980] , 381-389).
* [36] Henk J. de Jonge, Personal Letter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).
* [37] The reading of the Comma found in the Monfort Codex could not have come from the Compultensian Polygot.Although this edition was first printed in 1514, Cardinal Ximenes did not get permission from Pope Leo X to publish the work until 1520.It was not until 1522 that this edition actually began to circulate and eventually come into Erasmus' hands.
* [38] Erasmus first included the Comma in his third edition which did not appear until 1522.The reading of the Comma as found in the Codex Monfort does not match Erasmus' reading in his third edition in several places.For example, the last clause (and these three agree in one) is not in the Monfort, but included in Erasmus' third edition.Furthermore, the six articles are omitted and agoin and pneuma are transposed.Erasmus included the articles and did not swap agion pneuma.
* [39] Peter Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"Bible Believer's Bulletin (March 1996),3.
* [40] Adam Clarke, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.), 6: 928-929.
* [41] Charles Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1867), 126.
* [42] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978),7: 323-324.
* [43] Maynard,41.A more thorough discussion of the syntactical problem that arises if the Comma is omitted can be found under the Syntactical Analysis.
* [44] Metzger, Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament,648.
* [45] Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11] ; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.
* [46] Charles Butler, "To Rev. Herbert Marsh," in Horae Biblicae (London: W. Clarke and Sons, 1817), 403-406.
* [47] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,648.
* [48] F.H.A. Scrivener,A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th Edition
(London: G. Bell, 1984 [rep] ), 403.
* [49] Maynard,15-16.For a specific identification of these five Syriac editions, one should consult page 51* of the UBS4.
* [50] Jaqub of Edessa, On the Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries, translated by R.E. Brown in The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),778.
* [51] Maynard,96.
* [52] Tremellius' words were provided and translated by Rykle Borger into German in "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta," in Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3 (1987) 280-284.Michael Maynard, in turn, translated Borger's German into English (A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 , 95).
* [53] Maynard,96.
* [54] Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"3.
* [55] Maynard,334-339
* [56] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, II-- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),3: 598.
* [57] John Gill,An Exposition on the Old and New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 [rep.] ),907-908.
* [58] R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),782.
* [59] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926),5:423.
* [60] Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),285.
* [61] Maynard,62.
* [62] Metzger, Early Versions, 304.
* [63] Maynard,62.
* [64] J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," in A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament(New York: E. J. Brill, 1987),280.
* [65] Maynard,62.
* [66] Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version.(Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, n.d.),29.
* [67] Gail Riplinger, Which Bible is God's Word (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995),53.
* [68] Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," in Which Bible?Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975),212.
* [69] Ibid.,210.
* [70] Ibid.
* [71] Ibid.,211.
* [72] Ibid. [emphasis mine] .
* [73] Ibid.
* [74] Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (n.p., 1815), xvii-xviii.
* [75] For a complete listing of Old Latin manuscripts which contain the Comma, one should consult Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (332-348).
* [76] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions,482.
* [77] Maynard,343-348.
* [78] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the New Testament, 648.
* [79] Jerome, The Canonical Epistles.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),41.
* [80] Scrivener,650.
* [81] Maynard,343.
* [82] Besides what has been mentioned in this brief textual analysis, there is a lot more evidence for the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 as retained in the Textus Receptus of the AV 1611 King James Bible.For more information, one should consult Michael Maynard's astounding work, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
* [83] Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 281.
* [84] Stewart Custer made such claim in The Truth About the King James Version Controversy.(Greenville, SC: BJU University Press, 1981).He, however, argued that only 2 manuscripts contained the Comma out of 5000.Similar claims have been made in the classrooms of many colleges and universities across the country.
* [85] There are only 14 Greek manuscripts hostile to the Johannine Comma that predate the ninth century.They are as follows: a, A, B, Y, K, L, P, 048, 049, 0296, 1424, 1841, 1862, 1895.Maynard lists these in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (pp. 333-335).
* [86] Maynard,286 [emphasis mine] .
* [87] Ibid.
* [88] Robertson,5:4.
* [89] oi treiV marturounteV
* [90] pneuma, udwr, aima
* [91] Dabney,306.
* [92] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996),332.
* [93] Pater, LogoV92Agion Pneuma
* [95] The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 7: 233-234.
* [96] Ebrard,41.
* [97] Oliver Greene, The Epistles of John(Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966),191.
* [98] "Letter IX" in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller(Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, [[1988 AD|1988] ] ), 1: 708-709.
* [99] Millard Erickson,Christian Theology(Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House,1983),329.
* [100] [[Peter Ruckman] ] , [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7] ] , Why We Retain It In The Authorized Version(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d.),4.
* [101] [[James White] ] , The King James Only Controversy(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers,1995),40.
* [102] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996),8.
* [103] Erickson,327.
* [104] Ibid.[emphasis mine] .
* [105] Peter Ruckman, Biblical Scholarship(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988),105.
* [106] Jack Moorman, "Principles of Bible Preservation,"O Timothy Magazine(Vol. 9, Issue 8, 1992),2.
* [107] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today , 2nd Edition (Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994),49.
* [108] Some might criticize this perspective, claiming that inspiration cannot be equated with preservation.However, the two are inseparable.Preservation reflects inspiration.In other words, the words contained in the Received Text are inspired in the sense that they are preserved.
* [109] The "scholar" might go on to argue that no copies are perfect, so they cannot be inspired.Therefore, it is concluded that God's words are preserved in manuscript copies only as far as these copies agree with the original manuscripts.Such an argument is nonsense.When is the last time that anyone saw the original manuscripts?They passed out of existence almost 1900 years ago.Such a viewpoint essentially says that we cannot know God's very words because we do not have the inspired originals with which to compare manuscript copies to.This clearly goes against God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7 and downplays the absolute authority of Scripture.
* [110] Towns,49.
* [111] Of course, inspiration can only apply to translations that represent the pure line of Scripture.Modern versions represent a corrupt line of Scripture that was born in Egypt (a), moved to Rome (B), and eventually came to England (RSV) and America (ASV, NASV, NIV, NEB, LB, etc.).The pure line of text, on the other hand, originated in Antioch, is represented by the Old Latin, Old Syriac, German Bibles, the Textus Receptus, and the AV 1611 King James Bible.
* [112] Moorman, Principles of Biblical Preservation,4.
* [113] John Burgon, "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by Jay P. Green(Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990),A-7.
* [114] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 511.

Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd

2011-01-19T21:11:02Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* Historical Analysis */

"And These Three Are One"

A Case For the Authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]]
Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

BY

JESSE M. BOYD

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

22 APRIL [[1999 AD|1999]]

This exegesis is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written word--perfectly preserved down through the ages and given to me in a language I can understand. Recognizing that, as [[Martin Luther]] once said, "The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself," I hereby construct this defense out of genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word of God as contained in the Authorized King James Bible. Without a perfectly preserved Written Word, I would know nothing of a personal relationship with the Living Word.

Secondly, it is dedicated to the many men, women, and children who gave their lives that I might have the Bible in English, a privilege which I do not take for granted. Thank-you for your sacrifice and may the Lord reward you richly in His kingdom.

Last, but not least, I dedicate this exegesis to my seminary professor, Dr. David Black, whose books have had a profound effect on my acquisition of a working knowledge of the Greek language. No biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students. The reasons for differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] are to be laid out in this paper. Despite disagreement, however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God. I pray, Dr. Black, that you would consider my presentation, acknowledging that this passage does not deserve the hasty dismissal it so often receives.

"And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory."
-II Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M. Boyd

==AND THESE THREE ARE ONE==
[[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], commonly referred to as the [[Johannine Comma]], has been one of the most hotly debated passages with regard to its authenticity for over a century.

Because it is one of those few passages included in the [[Textus Receptus]] which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts, many a student has paced his study for hours struggling with the question as to whether or not the Comma is a legitimate part of the Holy Scriptures. The hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern versions of the Bible is largely due to the fact that it is only found in eight of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth chapter of [[1 John|I John]]. Consequently, it is almost unanimously regarded among modern textual critics as a later scribal emendation.

The primary English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is the Authorized [[King James Bible]] which is based upon the Greek [[Textus Receptus]]. The passage reads:
* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Most modern translations ([[NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

* [[1 John 5:7|7]] For there are three that testify:
* [[1 John 5:8|8]] the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse [[1 John 5:7|7]], as found in the [[AV]]; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse [[1 John 5:8|8]] (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse [[1 John 5:7|7]].Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.

Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such [[Exegesis|exegesis]] is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The [[Exegesis|exegesis]] that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.[1] May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. [2]

==Historical Analysis==

The epistle of [[1 John|I John]] was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the [[St. John the Apostle|Apostle John]]. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for [[Gospel of John|John's Gospel]] which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. [[85 AD|85]]-[[90 AD|90]]).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate [[New Testament]] writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote,

:"in the whole of the First Epistle [[1 John|I John]] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]

This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

:It [1 John|I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]

The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].[5]Cyprian writes around [[250 AD|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

==Literary Analysis==

In addition to the matter of historical context, the literary context of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] demands our attention. All three levels of literary analysis—canonical, remote, and immediate contexts—are important. With regard to the text's place in the New Testament canon, the Johannine Comma is the only clear affirmation of the [[Trinity]] throughout the entire [[New Testament]]. Apart from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together (e.g. [[Matthew 28:18]] + [[John 10:30]] + [[John 1:1]] + [[Acts 5:3]]-[[Acts 5:4|4).If a later scribe interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness. For example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in [[Matthew 28:19]].
The Johannine Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John. This can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre. I John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to simply edify other believers in the faith. However, it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament epistles. I John contains no formal greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or specified. Hayes argues, "There is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John. It might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and under almost any conditions. Its contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."[13]These facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in favor of the theological treatise such as is found in the Book of Hebrews. However, this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feelings."[14]

Perhaps the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle and treatise. Vedder argues that the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature. He writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."[15]In other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer. "A brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has written."[16]One, however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation. I John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a definite class of readers. "The writer is concerned throughout with a given situation. He takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph, to which the clue has now been lost."[17]With all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit I John. The Book contains numerous brief discourses dealing with a wide range of subjects. At the same time, however, while the Apostle chooses not to use the set epistolary forms, he approaches the readers as a community, briefly addressing them in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore, the theological discussions contained therein are laced with personal emotion and feeling which is common in New Testament epistles.

How does the genre of I John relate to the Comma? If the book is properly recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological teaching contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly. Such a statement, in fact, would be expected. The Epistle of I John can be broken down in the following manner:

I. Prologue (1:1-4)

II. Our Advocate (1:8-2:2)

III. Obedience (2:3-6)

IV. Purpose (2:12-14)

V. Love of the World (2:15-17)

VI. Antichrist (2:18-28)

VII. Character of God's Children (2:29-3:12)

IX. Love (3:13-24)

X. Test of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)

XI. God is Love (4:7-21)

XII. Victory of Faith (5:1-5)

XIII. Three Witnesses (5:6-13)

XIV. Prayer (5:14-17)

XV. Epilogue[18]

Each aforementioned section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes a brief discourse on a different theological topic. While no particular order is apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the readers understanding of Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of I John.

The Comma is found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses. This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials. The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth. It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God. In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty. If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down. The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses. They most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse (Victory of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).

Finally, I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. [[Bruce Metzger|Metzger]], in his [[Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament]], argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [[[The Johannine Comma]]] makes an awkward break in the sense."[19]Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true. For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."[20]Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.[21]What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree? In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage. "Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[22]The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted. The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

In a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and his consequent victory over the world. Such faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5, 11, 12, 20).This warrant is first presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy Ghost speaking by way of inspired men. In 5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father. Thirdly, the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning work of the Saviour.[23]Finally, as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge. "How harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."[24]

==FAITH'S SOLID WARRANT==
Textual Analysis[25]
The brunt of the argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma lies within the realm of textual criticism. Unfortunately, as mentioned, it is one of the few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from the Greek manuscript tradition. As a result, most modern critics toss it into the wastebasket. An example of such hasty dismissal can be seen in the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of The Greek New Testament.[26]In the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.[27]One is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers; and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.[28]Though such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad generalizations that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence. Perhaps the best approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's arguments, for they bespeak the opinions of most critical scholars. As noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of the Comma, such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the preserved Word of God. Nonetheless, the external evidence in favor of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us to believe by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."[29]

Metzger's presentation of the manuscript evidence is misleading.

The first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are as follows . . ."[30]Next, he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, 2318).Where is the eighth manuscript? The critical apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it. One is forced to wonder about this initial contradiction. Four of these eight manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636), while the other four include it as part of the text.[31]

It is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list the [[Codex Britannicus]] as evidence for the Comma.[32]Their reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators. The well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first and second editions. He argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript with the passage. Only then, would he include it in his edition.[33]Codex Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received it. Nevertheless he is said to have inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed to be the Codex Monfort).[34] First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely unsound. A careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius quod respondet . . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:

Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.[35]

Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript. Rather, he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk J. de Jonge states, "Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access."[36]In light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince Erasmus. If there had been, Erasmus would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.

Although [[Codex Monfortanius]] is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century (ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from. It did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.[37]It did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores of places.[38]Rather, the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which was not known in Europe until after 1552.[39]Besides, this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.[40]

As far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it cannot be equated with the Monfort, because the respective renderings of I John 5:7-8 are quite different.On the one hand, the Monfort omits the articles in verse seven (o, o, to) and transposes "agion pneuma."In verse 8, the articles (to, to, to), a conjunction (kai), and the last phrase (kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin) are missing.Britannicus, on the other hand, includes the articles and the final phrase but omits the adjective "agion" in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire the last clause for his third edition?He surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex Monfort, but from Britannicus. This is why Monfortanius "cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."[41]At this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.

After promulgating his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma, Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers." Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage). Gregory writes:

What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?[42]

In this brief excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle with three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the case if the Comma is omitted. In other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."[43]

Metzger's presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is misleading.

Metzger goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma, they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)."[44]There is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea). There is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in these major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves nothing. Nonetheless, Metzger completely ignores the fact that the verse was employed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by doing so, he would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used as proof of the Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates that arose and plagued the Church concerning these issues. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians (led byKing Huneric the Vandal) and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

In spite of this example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous testimony of the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was in all of their copies. Secondly, they assert that as no dispute took place, but the conference was broken up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept the passage. Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized.

Charles Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God's Word as their first line of defense.[46]The African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in their manuscripts. As a result, they were able to successfully employ the passage as they defended their faith before the Arian accusers.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.

Metzger follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary. He claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin . . ."[47]This allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."[48]F. H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect, agrees with Metzger. However, he does admit that it appears in a few copies of the Armenian and Slavonic, both being ancient version. Metzger's blanket statement overlooks this fact.

As far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma appeared in its early manuscripts. First of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920), syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."[49] Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies. In fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary. For example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."[50]Here, Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in conjunction with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8 with the Comma inserted. It must have been in some Syriac copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate allusion to it.

Tremellius' Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version. Tremellius translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.[51]Modern scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this. If Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he take the time to translate it? Better yet, why did he place it in the margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering, and leave a blank space for it? Tremellius must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac tradition. He himself wrote:

But because it was omitted not only in the printed version, but only in the manuscript Heidelberg codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I did not dare to insert it into the text.So in order that there might not be a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers may correspond to the numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed from the sixth to the eighth verse.[52]

As Maynard correctly concludes:

How often is a blank space provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek edition? The four questions together could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts. His actions are not in accord with his words. Perhaps, with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this spot. (Modern editors do not hesitate over a 'disturbance of the verses.' They merely split verse six in half.)[53]

Another Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern scholars. Also, of notable importance, is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.[54]It is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well. After all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the sixth century. Unfortunately, these have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain the Comma.[55]Therefore, Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the Old Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all the evidence. Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius, and Gutbier had to get the Comma from somewhere.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.

Metzger also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine). This too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage. If they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However, less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:

. . .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[56]

This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma. On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus. However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]

The [[Old Latin]] translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for [[Latin]] was the major language up through the Middle Ages. The [[Old Latin]] is not the same as the [[Latin]] of Jerome's [[Vulgate]], which by the way, does include the Comma. The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages. Did the [[Old Latin]] consistently contain the [[Johannine Comma]]? For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in [[Middle High German]]. This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus. As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century. This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63] According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value. But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w). The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]The Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the [[Textus Receptus]], but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English versions.

The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the [[Waldensians]]. History teaches that the [[Waldensians]] were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century. The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries. As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe."[67]

The translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the Comma because it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.[68]All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus Receptus. The first of these was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center of the Swiss Reformation. The basis for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin. This fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."[69]Secondly, the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. With Calvin's help, Beza brought out a later edition of the Textus Receptus. Wilkinson argues:

This later edition of the [[Received Text]] is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles [emphasis mine].[70]

The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati. Diodati, an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated the received text into Italian. "This version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."[71]The fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned, was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German. "This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."[72]In addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.[73]

In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick Nolan. In Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan. Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. All of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly Apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."[74]Therefore, claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.

The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard to I John 5:7-8.The passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.[75]Studies show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the minority text of a and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.[76]It is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remain unexamined. It is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.[77]Dogmatic conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all the evidence.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.

The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.[78]True, it does not appear in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome?In fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.[79]If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts, what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus (988).Scrivener said that the passage "is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps 49 out of every 50 of its manuscripts."[80]Moreover, against Metzger's claim of lateness, the Comma is claimed by others to be found in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts.[81]

As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger's external evidence for the omission of I John 5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive at almost every point. Thus, he fails to prove that the passage is an interpolation. The textual evidence supporting the Comma is much greater than most critics would have us to believe; an honest evaluation of the evidence yields a case for inclusion that is at least as plausible as one for exclusion.[82]Once again, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Metzger falls short.

If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John 5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14).Even Aland, the UBS' own, admits that the true text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.[83]The majority, however, is not as extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.[84]Such a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5.This is hardly the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 498 are hostile to the Comma. This is substantially less than 5000.Of those 498 manuscripts, only 14 of them predate the ninth century.[85]The same scholars that reject the Comma criticize the Textus Receptus for following so-called "late manuscripts" when they use the same manuscripts as the bulk of their evidence against I John 5:7-8.In other words, 97 per cent of their evidence is late. Maynard asserts:

Opposers of 1 John v.7f are not admitting, that after four centuries (the 17th to 20th) of scholars searching for MSS they could not even muster 3% of all their evidence against 1 John v.7f as being significant, by their standards. Only 14 Greek MSS (2.8%) of the 482 hostile MSS [Maynard arrives at this number from the fact that Metzger considers 16 of the 498 manuscripts to be worthless and irrelevant] they would consider boasting about, were dated from the ninth century or earlier.[86]

Another "reason that the absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse."[87]God may have allowed I John 5:7-8 to fall out of 14 Greek manuscripts prior to the ninth century and many thereafter for the purpose of drawing our attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, for after all, the Comma is the most concise and clear statement regarding this subject throughout all of Scripture. Such a scenario is at least plausible and worthy of consideration.

==Lexical Analysis==

The Johannine Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard to the issue at hand—logoV. This is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine Christology. The second person of the Trinity is referred to as the "Word." Such a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in [[John 1:1]], 14; I John 1:1; and [[Revelation 19:13]].This fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse, for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."[88]LogoV, being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to use when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as is the case in the Comma. On the other hand, if the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove the trinity, the forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19).This issue of tradition, however, will be discussed more in depth under the traditional analysis.

==Syntactical Analysis==

Of significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue of syntax. Plainly speaking, if the Comma is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with respect to the general rules of the Greek language. The masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness[89]) are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood[90]).As Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty."[91]John most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure and syntax are altogether simple and understandable. In attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender."[92]However, the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless the Comma is present. It is true that the Spirit (pneuma), a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides, Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.

If the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with the two masculines (Father & Word[93]) and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit[94]), and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected to them. Such is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament and John's writings in particular. As previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca. 385).[95]

==Structural Analysis==

From the above structural analysis, a contrast of two groups of three becomes apparent. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of two, three, or four. Examples of this include Proverbs 30; [[Amos 1:3]], 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

The Comma is also structurally important with reference to verse 9. I John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness of men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.

==Rhetorical Analysis==

In the realm of rhetorical criticism, the Johannine Comma seems to conform to the Apostle John's literary style. As far as tone is concerned, "there reigns throughout the Epistle a firm and manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm" (e.g. 1:6-10; 2:19; 3:6-10; 4:1-2; etc.).[96]This tone is likewise prevalent in the Comma which tersely presents the truth of an important doctrine, leaving the reader with no room to question.

John's writings are also characterized by contrasts. According to Tidwell, "the ordinary contrasts cover almost the same words and ideas of the Gospel such as life and death, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness with several others and with the addition of Christ and anti-Christ." The Comma, in particular, feeds the contrast which John creates between Jesus Christ and Antichrist (cf. 2:18-23).Jesus Christ is God (cf. 5:7-8).Antichrist, on the other hand, is the one who denies this fact (cf. 2:22).

One final aspect of John's style that is worthy of consideration with respect to the Comma, is parallelism. I John is filled with both positive and negative parallelism. For example, the Apostle writes in 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all," and in 1:9, "Forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 5:7-8, the Comma included, also contains parallelism, a synthetic type to be exact. The three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, and Holy Ghost) and the three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood) are actually the same three witnesses. As Oliver Greene argues, "Therefore, since the Trinity - the Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost - bear record in heaven, it is these three who also bear record in earth."[97]In other words, the promulgation of the three earthly witnesses serves to expand or elaborate on the role of the three heavenly witnesses. The earthly witnesses are sourced in the heavenly witnesses. The "blood" refers to the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28) while the "water" is a reference to Jesus Christ at his baptism. The "Spirit," of course, is the third member of the Godhead. This particular type of parallelism is very common with John and could conceivably be called a chiasmus in this particular instance.

A. Father

B. Word <------------------------------Heavenly Witnesses

C. Holy Ghost

A'.Blood

If the Comma is omitted, the chiasmic structure falls apart.

Altogether, the Johannine Comma reflects John's rhetorical style. Fuller points out, "The connexion of the passage is altogether in its favor. The phraseology is that of the Apostle John; so that if the words are not his, it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined."[98]

==Tradition Analysis==

With regard to tradition criticism, it is the tradition that the Comma does reflect that is significant. Had a redactor added the passage to argue for the Trinity, he would have almost certainly utilized the common Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This formula "became part of a very early tradition in the church."[99]It was employed in the Didache (7.1-4) as well as Justin's Apology (1.61).The strength of forgery is similarity not uniqueness. Ruckman argues, "What would have possibly been gained by inventing a different formula than the one given in Matthew 28, which every Christian knew by heart?"[100]Also, Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" numerous times in I John. A true forger would have no doubt utilized "Son" instead of "Word" so as to further disguise his redactional efforts.

==Theological Analysis==

The theological significance of the Johannine Comma goes without saying. As noted, it is the only clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in all of Scripture. Thus, when James White argues that "the reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures," he is wrong.[101]When John Ankerberg concludes that textual differences only apply to 1% of the text, and none of them are doctrinally important, he is incorrect.[102]The Trinity is a doctrine that sets Christianity apart from all other religions—one God in three persons. It is interesting to note Erickson's argument for the Trinity in his Christian Theology. He begins by stating, "One text which has traditionally been appealed to as documenting the Trinity is I John 5:7 . . .unfortunately, the textual basis is so weak . . . If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere."[103]He then proceeds over the next five pages to exegete and systematize numerous passages that imply this doctrine. He concludes, "Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated, the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing."[104]It seems rather strange to base a fundamental Christian doctrine upon suggestion. Perhaps this is why so many cults ([[Jehovah's Witnesses]]) are able to manipulate the Bible so as to assert that Jesus was not God. After all, the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses rejects the Comma.

A matter of theological significance that transcends the text of I John 5:7-8 concerns the issue of final authority. Is the Bible we hold in our hands the Word of God or not? If it contains errors, it can only be said that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. This is Neo-orthodoxy. When critical scholars boastfully claim that the Comma is not a legitimate part of Scripture, they are questioning the authority of the Book and disregarding the traditional text that brought about the Reformation. Questioning, when it comes to the text of Scripture, is the starting point of all kinds of apostasy. Is the final authority in the Book, or is it in what man says about the Book? In other words, should one reject the Comma because man says it doesn't belong, or should it be accepted by faith because it has been preserved in a Bible that God has blessed for 450 years."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" ([[Psalm 118:8]]).The King James Bible has unquestionably produced more spiritual fruit than all of modern English versions put together. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).Whatever may have be wrong with modern English versions, "There is one thing that is certain, they produced an ignorance of the CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING."[105]

The accusations against I John 5:7-8 that are hurled by modern scholars are typical of attacks that rain down on numerous other places in the text of the Bible ("I know your King James Bible says this, but it really should say this . . .").Such assaults sound too strikingly familiar to Satan's discourse in the Garden of Eden. The "Father of Lies" did not argue with Eve about whether or not there was a God, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity was true, or even whether God's Word was inspired. No, apostasy began when Satan questioned God's words and placed doubt in Eve's heart. "Eve, I know that God said you would die if you eat the fruit, but he really meant that you would be just like him, a god" (author's paraphrase). Jesus warns in Mark 4:15, "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." When doubt is given a beachhead, all other defenses soon fall. Hasty dismissals of I John 5:7-8 have served to do nothing but cast doubt upon the sovereignly preserved Word of God. According to Moorman, the entire matter boils down to one question: "Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture."[106] A heretic has never been able to construct an argument without altering the words of the King James Bible. Interesting?

Any proper approach to the text of Scripture, including I John 5:7-8, must take into account the doctrine of preservation. In Psalm 12:6-7, God promised to preserve His words for every generation. The same God who inspired the original Greek autographs is most certainly powerful enough to preserve them in the copying process as Greek manuscripts multiplied. If this is not true, what would have been the purpose in inspiring the Scriptures if men were just going to mutilate and corrupt them? Preservation does not just extend to the general message of the Bible, but to the very words themselves (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35).This being true, the perfectly preserved Word of God existed down through the ages and will be in existence until Christ returns. It is true that not even two out of the five thousand extant Greek manuscripts agree with each other 100% of the time. However, this body of manuscripts most definitely does not represent all of the manuscripts that ever existed. Many have since rotted away. Therefore, in light of God's promise of preservation, it is not illogical to think that manuscripts once existed that completely agreed with the traditional text of the Textus Receptus and consequently, contained the Johannine Comma. Maybe Erasmus, Luther, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir Brothers, and the King James translators did not have such manuscripts, but why couldn't Almighty God have guided them into selecting the right words from the body of manuscripts they did possess? After, all God is in control of His words. Towns writes, "If an all-powerful God cannot control the vehicle of His self-revelation, then His power and nature can be questioned."[107]

A common assertion among conservative evangelicals is that the inspiration of Scripture only applies to the original autographs. This, however, cannot be true in light of God's promise of preservation.[108] The word "Scripture" is never used in the Bible to refer to the originals (cf. Acts 8:32; 17:11).Besides, in II Timothy 3:16, when Paul discusses the inspiration of Scripture, he does so in a context in which he says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures as a child (cf. 3:15).Paul is not referring to the original autographs of the Old Testament, for they had passed out of existence long before the Apostle was even born. Paul was saying that the Scripture Timothy had read as a child were inspired.They were not the original autographs, but they were inspired in the sense that they had been perfectly preserved by God Almighty. Some might argue that this interpretation is faulty because it calls for the fusing together of two verses.The "scholar" may see it that way, but the Bible was written for the common man (cf. Psalm 119:99-100).A simple reading (minus grammatical analysis, verb parsings, theological presuppositions, etc.) of this passage clearly shows that Paul is not limiting inspiration to the originals. Such a faulty interpretation is based on theological presupposition.[109] Towns writes, "The Bible . . . is as perfect as God, and its perfection extends to every word."[110] Most evangelicals will accept this statement as truth, but such a statement is meaningless if there is not immediate access to these perfect words. Immediate access is available by way of divine preservation. Not only is God's Word perfectly preserved after the Original Autographs, but according to Psalm 119:89; John 12:49-50; 17:8, it precedes them.

The doctrine of inspiration does not only apply to the original autographs nor does it apply exclusively to the original languages of the autographs. IfGod preserved his Word as He promised, then inspiration can apply to translations.[111] When is the last time that Greek and Hebrew was used by God to reach someone with the Gospel? If the original languages were the only source of inspired Scripture, then the ancient Hebrews must have been a extremely ignorant, for the Pentateuch could not have originally been written in Hebrew. After all, "Moses was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), and someone had to translate what Moses said in Egyptian to Pharaoh back into Hebrew. Yet, the Jews believed their Hebrew Scriptures were inspired and still do today. Moorman makes a point worthy of consideration: "as so few can read the original languages, God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations. . . If a translation cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek before they can be saved, or built up in the faith."[112]

Another principle to keep in mind with reference to "questionable passages" (e.g. I John 5:7-8) is that they must be approached with an attitude of faith. As Hebrews 11:6 asserts, "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Dean Burgon once wrote, "There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, immediately abdicated His office and took no further care of His work; that He abandoned those precious writings."[113] The whole crux of the matter boils down to faith, plain and simple. Unfortunately, most modern critics (Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, the UBS, et. al,) approach the sacred science of textual criticism with presuppositions against inerrancy. They treat the Bible as if it were just another book. Such an attitude cannot be founded upon faith, and consequently, is not pleasing to God.

Much more could be said about the relationship between inspiration and preservation, but the question must come back to the Johannine Comma. In this excursus, the author has shown that a case can be constructed for the genuineness of the text of the three heavenly witnesses. As to how strong a case, the author will leave it up to the reader's individual judgment. The author does not say that his case is all conclusive, but on the other hand, by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should not be included. In the case of the accusation against the King James Bible, the burden of proof, as has been noted several times, LIES WITH THE ACCUSER. The accuser cannot prove his case; therefore, the author accepts the Comma's authenticity by faith., a faith that is backed up with plenty of evidence. God, in His sovereignty, saw to it that the text was preserved in the Bible's of the Reformation and the best-selling book of all time—The Authorized King James Version. As to why the passage fell out of so many Greek mss, only the Almighty knows. It is at least possible that the text was excised from the Greek tradition by heretics who didn't want to believe that Jesus was God. Nonetheless, it was preserved in the Latin text through the use of the Latin speaking church.

The whole matter can be concluded with a question? Who would be honored more by the presence of the Comma in Holy Scripture—Jesus Christ or the Devil? The answer goes without saying. In the words of Gail Riplinger, "Guesses or God, fear or faith, haughty or humble. These are the perpetual options for the Christian."[114]

==Homiletical Analysis==

It is the author's opinion that the Johannine Comma is authentic Holy Scripture. Therefore, it can and should be preached from. Two approaches can be taken—an exegetical and a topical. An exegetical approach might utilize the surrounding context. A possible outline might look something like this:
Proposition: In I John 5:4-10, John promulgates two facts about biblical faith.
I. THE FIRST FACT: Biblical faith overcomes the world - 5:4-5

A. The inevitability of overcoming – 5:4

1.Stated – "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."

2.Elaborated – "and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

B. The identity of the overcomer – 5:5

1.What he does – "Who is he that overcometh the world"

2.What he believes – "but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."

II. THE SECOND FACT: Biblical faith is sanctioned.

A. Sanctioned by truth – 5:6

B. Sanctioned by three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Holy Ghost) – 5:7

C. Sanctioned by three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, blood) – 5:8

D. A Parenthetical Explanation – 5:9

1.The supremacy of the witness of God – "If we receive the witness of men,

witness of God is greater."

2.The clarification of the witness of God – "for this is the witness of God which he

hath testified of his Son."

E. Sanctioned by the believer's spiritual consciousness – 5:10

1.Stated positively – "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in

himself"

2.Stated negatively – "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he

believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

A topical approach to I John 5:7-8 might focus upon the nature of the Trinity. A possible outline could resemble the following.

Proposition: In I John 5:7-8, the Apostle explicates the triune nature of God from two

perspectives.

I. THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE: A Heavenly Perspective – 5:7

A. Delineated – "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost."

1.The first person of the Trinity – "Father"

2.The second person of the Trinity – "Word"

3.The third person of the Trinity – "Holy Ghost"

B. Described – "and these three are one"

II. THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE: An Earthly Perspective – 5:8

A. Delineated – "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the

water, and the blood."

1.The third person of the Trinity – "Spirit"

2.The second person of the Trinity—Jesus at his baptism—"water"

3.The first person of the Trinity—the blood of God shed on the cross—"blood"

B. Described – "and these three agree in one"

==APPENDIX A==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA—EARLY EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST===
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts = 5,000 +
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence
* 30 mss. – 10th century
* 80 mss. – 11th century
* 79 mss. – 12th century
* 98 mss. – 13th century
* 119 mss. – 14th century
* 55 mss. – 15th century
* 15 mss. –16th century
* 6 mss. – 17th century
* 1 mss. – 18th century

Historical Breakdown of Favorable Evidence
A.D. (ca.)
* 200 – Tertullian
* 250 – Cyprian
* 318 – Athanasius
* 350 – Idacius Clarus
* 380 – Priscillian
* 385 – Gregory of Nazanzius
* 390 – Jerome
* 450 – Contra Varimadum
* 450 – Latin mss. m
* 485 – Council of Carthage
* 485 – Victor of Vitensis
* 500 – Latin mss. r
* 527 – Fulgentius
* 570 – Cassiodorus
* 636 – Isidore of Seville
* 650 – Codex Pal Legionensus
* 700 – Jaqub of Edessa
* 735 – mss. used by Venerable Bede
* 850 – Codex Ulmensis

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century. Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day. It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation. The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

RESULT: The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence
predating the ninth century; hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence. The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe. In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be.

==APPENDIX B==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA AND THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH===

Having refuted the customary arguments against the Johannine Comma, it becomes appropriate to evaluate the textual evidence. This is best done perhaps by applying Dean Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth." Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, believed that the science of textual criticism should be approached with an attitude of faith, for the Bible is an inspired Book; it should not be treated and evaluated like any other book. "The Bible is different because it is divine." Therefore, Burgon set forth seven tests of truth that he believed would best help a person evaluate the evidence for any given passage. Concerning these tests, he comments:
. . . although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength lies in their cooperation.

For this cause, the author shall apply the "Seven Notes" to the Johannine Comma on a pass or fail basis. By their cooperation, it will be seen that a case can be constructed for the inclusion of this important passage within the text of Holy Scripture.

==The Test of Antiquity==

"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony." A word of caution, however, is in order. The "oldest is best" philosophy is sound only on the surface, for there is much more to judging the age of a reading than simply determining the age of any given manuscript. After all, the oldest reading is not necessarily found in the oldest manuscript. For example, although Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century) is far older than the few Greek mss that do contain the Comma, the passage is quoted by Cyprian, as noted, in the third century. In that respect, the reading of Comma is actually older than the oldest Greek manuscript which attests to I John 5.

When considering this test, one must not forget that the worst corruption to which the New Testament has perhaps ever been subjected originated within a hundred years or so after the originals were penned. According to Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150. Moreover, an ancient Western (Rome) Church Father by the name of Caius (2nd century) once wrote:

For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them . . . their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them . . . For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs [emphasis is mine]? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed.

The point of drawing attention to this fact is that it is not the oldest document for which one must search, but the oldest reading. Does the Johannine Comma represent an early reading? Tertullian and Cyprian cite the passage in the third century; it is utilized at the Council of Carthage in 485; and it can be traced back through the Old Latin of the Waldensian Church (The Old Itala was translated in the second century). In addition to this, one must consider that all extant Greek papyrii are silent to the issue. However, Tertullian, Cyprian, the African Bishops at Carthage, and the Waldenses had to get the reading from somewhere. Therefore, the Comma passes the test of antiquity.

==The Test of Consent of Witnessss==

By this, Burgon means number. Unfortunately, most modern textual critics argue that manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted. Burgon asserted that this maxim "may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy." The traditional text of the Textus Receptus, for the most part, is based upon the readings of the majority of manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are generally late (8th-11th centuries) and consequently discarded by modern critics such as the UBS editors. The question that such critics refuse to ask is where did this great number of manuscripts come from? They must have been copies of earlier uncials and/or papyri that were perhaps lost or destroyed. If ten students were asked to copy a paragraph off the chalkboard, and nine of the ten copies agreed, which best represents the true text? Logic is in favor of the nine copies as opposed to the one disparate copy. The same holds true for New Testament manuscripts. Logic is in favor of the great majority of witnesses. As convincing as this argument is, it must not be utilized as the sole test of truth, for there are several passages in the Textus Receptus that are not found in the great majority of witnesses (e.g. I John 5:7-8). Therefore, as James Borland argues, "Number must be considered as an important factor, but only as one of the tests of truth." Nonetheless, the Comma enjoys at least 19 witnesses prior to the ninth century and numerous witnesses thereafter. Granted, the number is a minority. Were there only two or three witnesses, the Comma could legitimately be said to have failed this test. However, 19 witnesses prior to the 9th century does not bespeak failure. I John 5:7-8 passes the test of consent of witnesses.

==The Test of Variety==

"The greater the variety of witnesses there are, the less chance there is for collusion or deceit to spring from the few." This, of course, can apply to both geographical location and kinds of witnesses. Burgon argues that this is the strongest ally that any reading can have. The Johannine Comma definitely has variety on its side, despite a weak attestation in extant Greek manuscripts. It is found in eight Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, various Waldensian Bibles, numerous German manuscripts, and a few Armenian and Slavonic copies. Moreover, it enjoys early patristic evidence (i.e. Cyprian, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cassiodorus, et. al.). These witnesses represent a wide geographical spread—North Africa, Italy, Asia Minor; Syria; the Caucasus; Russia; Germany; and even England (i.e. the work of Venerable Bede in the 8th century). The Comma passes the test of variety.

==The Test of Continuity==

A fourth test of truth considers the continuity or unbroken testimony of witnesses in favor of a particular reading. As Burgon argued, "this principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the cursives and the later uncials," not the so-called "oldest and best" readings of the modern Greek editions. For the most part, the readings contained in the Textus Receptus have continuity on their side. I John 5:7-8, for example, appears consistently throughout history from A.D. 200 to A.D. 1500 just prior to Erasmus' compiling of the first printed Greek edition. On that basis, the Comma again passes the test.

==The Test of Respectability of Witnesses==

Another test of truth involves weight or respectability. In other words, "if a manuscript proves itself to be erroneous on a frequent basis by a number of acceptable standards, then it loses its respectability." It is safe to say that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not satisfy this category, for their differences from the majority of manuscripts as well as from each other are horrific. Therefore, they should be overlooked. Maybe modern critics should take a lesson from Erasmus when he was approached with readings from Vaticanus; he rejected them. With specific regard to the Comma, witnesses such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, orthodox African writers, the [[Vulgate]], and the Waldensian Bibles certainly stand out as respectable witnesses. Again, the text passes.

==The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage==

This test is concerned with the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. In other words, if a manuscript can be shown to be faulty in several instances in the context of a particular reading, then it is logical that "mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or other shapes." With regard to the Comma, all of the above state witnesses exhibit unsullied integrity in the first few verses of I John 5.

==The Test of Internal Considerations==

This final test of truth focuses upon internal evidence, particularly of a grammatical and scientific nature. "If a particular reading is grammatically, geographically, scientifically, and historically impossible, then it must not be accepted if other readings do not present such problems." For example, the UBS4 accepts a variant reading in Luke 23:45 that is a scientific impossibility. Each of the synoptic Gospels contains the phrase "skotoV egeneto" (there was darkness) (cf. Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). However, Luke adds an additional phrase regarding the sun. The Textus Receptus reads "kai eskotisqh o hlioV" (and the sun was darkened) while the UBS4 reads "tou hliou eklipontoV" (The sun was eclipsed). Like the UBS's faulty readings in Matthew 1:7,10, this reading implies an error in Luke's original autograph: "A solar eclipse is impossible astronomically during the full moon of the Passover when sun and moon are 180 degrees apart in relation to the earth." Luke, being an astute physician, would not have made such a blundering mistake. This reading fails the test of reasonableness because it is scientifically impossible. Therefore, it needs to be added to the long list of corrupt readings found in the UBS4 that should be discarded.

The Johannine Comma, on the other hand, has much on its side in the area of internal considerations. It not only fits the structure, style, and immediate context of I John, but its omission presents a bald grammatical difficulty—three neuter nouns governed by a masculine participle. Let the Comma stand, and "the power of attraction" goes into effect. The Comma thus passes the seventh and final test.

==APPENDIX C==
===A NOTE ON BAPTIST HERITAGE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT===

The inseparable relationship that exists between the inspiration and preservation of Holy Scripture has been an important issue particularly in Baptist heritage. For example, the London Confession of 1644, a creed of the English Baptists reads:
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures . . . In this written Word God hath plainly revealed whatsoever he hath though needful for us to know . . .

It was clear to the English Baptists that God had plainly revealed to them His words in the Holy Scriptures which had been inspired and passed down through the ages as the absolute "Rule of Faith." Only through perfect preservation could this possibly have been true.

In 1833, the American Baptists drew up the New Hampshire Confession. Concerning the Scriptures, it reads,
We believe [that] the Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter . . . and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

This could only be true if God's words had been inspired and perfectly preserved.
For Baptists to deny the perfect providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures is to defy their Baptist heritage as well as the general consensus of the Christian Church for most of history prior to the modern era. Unfortunately, this has occurred all to often as Baptist schools and seminaries are rejecting the doctrine of preservation in favor of naturalistic textual criticism. Michael Maynard, while speaking of Baptist scholars such as A.T. Robertson, J.A. Broadus, J.P. Boyce and D.A. Carson, all of whom regarded the Received Text as an inferior Greek text, argues that they "betrayed their Baptist heritage when they adopted the textual theories of the Anglican scholar F.J.A. Hort, the Presbyterian B.B. Warfield, and the Lutheran K. Tischendorf."

With regard to the Johannine Comma, Baptist views in favor of the passage have long been in print. John Gill (1748) and Andrew Fuller (1815), two Baptist scholars, argued for the authenticity of the Comma long before A.T. Robertson came along. When Robertson, however, did show up on the scene, he was completely oblivious to the views of his Baptist predecessors; he did not even acknowledge them in his works on textual criticism. All in all, Baptist heritage and the Johannine Comma goes all the way back to the Swiss Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Waldensians et. al. All of these groups have their place in the lineage of modern-day Baptists, and all of them held to the Received Text of Scripture which included I John 5:7-8 as it stands in an Authorized King James Bible. Therefore, to deny the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is in a sense to deny Baptist heritage.

==WORKS CONSULTED==
Aland, Barbara and [[Kurt Aland|Aland, Kurt]]. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [[1987 AD|1987]].

Ankerberg, John and Weldon, John. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996.

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Borger, Rykle. "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta." In Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3
(1987). 280-284.

Borland, James. A General Introduction to the New Testament. Lynchburg: VA: University
Book House, 1995.

. "Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate
Inerrancy." In Journal of the Evangelical Thelogical Society (December 4, 1982): 499-506.

Brown, R.E. The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Burgon, John W. "The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels." In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed. by Jay P. Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

Butler, Charles. "To Rev. Herbert Marsh." Horae Biblicae. London: W. Clarke & Sons, 1817.

Clarke, Adam. The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.

Combs, William. "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus." In Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1
(Spring 1996): 35-53.

Custer, Stewart, The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. Greenville, SC: BJU
University Press, 1981.

Dabney, Robert. The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek. Edinburgh:
Banner of Trust, 1967.

Dobbin, Orlando T. The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation. London: Bagster, 1854.

Ebrard, John. Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860.

Elliot, J.K. "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions." In A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of
the Greek New Testament. New York: E.J. Brill, 1987.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lee. (LB IX
199-284) [May, 1520]. Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980]: 381-389).

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Forster, C. A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1867.

Gill, John. An Exposition on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1980 [rep].

Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984.

The Greek New Testament (4th Edition). Ed. by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Greene, Oliver. The Epistles of John. Greenville. SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966.

Hayes, D.A. John and His Writings. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1917.

Jaqub of Edessa. On The Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries. Translated by R.E. Brown in The
Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Jerome. The Canonical Epistles. Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate
Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

Jonge, Henk J. Personal Lettter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).

"Letter IX." In The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1988.

Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

McGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1911.

[[Bruce Metzger|Metzger, Bruce]]. The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition). Germany: United
Bible Societies, 1993.

[[Jack Moorman|Moorman, Jack]]. Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, NJ: Bible for
Today, n.d.

."Principles of Bible Preservation." O Timothy Magazine. Vol. 9, Issue 8. Ed. by David
W. Cloud. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1992: 1-13.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolan, Frederick. Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. n.p., 1815.

Puckett, David. Class Notes—General Church History I. Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern
Seminary, 1998.

[[Gail Riplinger|Riplinger, Gail]]. New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

. Which Bible is God's Word? Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1933.

[[Peter Ruckman|Ruckman, Peter]]. Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1998.

."James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible - Errors 6&7." In Bible Believer's
Bulletin (March, 1996): 1-5

Scott, Ernest. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press,
1963.

Scrivener, F. H. A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th Edition.
London: G. Bell, 1984 (rep).

Tidwell, Josiah. John and His Five Books. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today (2nd Edition). Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994.

Vedder, Henry. The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Griffith
and Rowland Press, n.d.

Victor of Vitensis. Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov. 2.82 in CSEL 7, 60. Translated by
Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995. 43.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

[[James White|White, James]]. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

[[Benjamin Wilkinson|Wilkinson, Benjamin]]. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." In Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

==Footnotes==

* [1] The author recognizes that much of the evidence presented is based upon internal considerations which are subjective by their very nature.What one may see as support for a given reading, another might view as an indictment against that very same reading.Nevertheless, the fact that support can be gleaned for the Comma from internal evidence shows that the issue is not a foregone conclusion.The internal evidence, which greatly supports the passage, serves to supplement what critics term a weak attestation in the realm of external evidence.
* [2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1933),6: 199.
* [3] Josiah Tidwell, John and His Five Books(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937),90-92.
* [4] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1860),5.
* [5] The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
* [6] The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.
* [7] Robertson,6:200.
* [8] David Puckett, Class Notes—General Church History I (Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Seminary, 1998),10.Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge (gnwsiV) and so were called Gnostics (Gnwstikoi).
* [9] I John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2.
* [10] Robertson,6:201
* [11] Ibid.
* [12] Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984), 167.
* [13] D. A. Hayes, John and His Writings(New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1917),161.
* [14] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860),3.
* [15] Henry Vedder, The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Rowland Press),99.
* [16] Ibid.,101.
* [17] Ernest Scott, The Literature of the New Testament(New York: Columbia University Press, 1963),260.
* [18] Vedder, 103-132
* [19] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994),649.
* [20] Robert Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek(Edinburgh: Banner of Trust, 1967),306.
* [21] In the Greek, the phrase reads, "oi treiV eiV to en eisin" which literally translates "and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One."
* [22] Dabney,307
* [23] The spelling of the word "Saviour" as retained in the Authorized Version is preferred by the author.The modern English translations remove the "u" from this title.As a result, a seven-letter word (7= the number of God) becomes a six-letter word (6=the number of man).
* [24] Dabney,307
* [25] Because the foundation of all accusations against I John 5:7-8 rests upon textual evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, this analysis will be more lengthy and complex than the others.
* [26] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger (4th Edition), The Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994).
* [27] Ibid.,819; Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647-648.
* [28] Ibid.
* [29] Robertson,6:241.
* [30] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647.
* [31] Oftentimes, the marginal readings are hastily dismissed.However, what are they doing in the margins?It makes more sense that someone would put them there because they recognized the passage to be missing.
* [32] The reading of the Comma found in Codex Britannicus is given byOrlando T. Dobbin in The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation (London: Bagster, 1854) on page 10.His source is Erasmus' Apologia ad Jacobum Stunicam (1522), reprinted in the Basle edition (1540) of Erasmus' works, pp. 238-296.Codex Britannicus reads: "7oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to pna 8kai outoi oi treiV en eisi, kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pna, to udwr, kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisi ei thn marturian twn anwn lambanomen."The underlined phrase is not found in Codex Monfortianus, so the two manuscripts cannot be the same.Furthermore, Erasmus could not have gotten the Comma from the Monfort Codex.
* [33] William Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996), 49.
* [34] Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),76.
* [35] Desiderius Erasmus,Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lei (LB IX 199-284) [May, 1520] . Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980] , 381-389).
* [36] Henk J. de Jonge, Personal Letter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).
* [37] The reading of the Comma found in the Monfort Codex could not have come from the Compultensian Polygot.Although this edition was first printed in 1514, Cardinal Ximenes did not get permission from Pope Leo X to publish the work until 1520.It was not until 1522 that this edition actually began to circulate and eventually come into Erasmus' hands.
* [38] Erasmus first included the Comma in his third edition which did not appear until 1522.The reading of the Comma as found in the Codex Monfort does not match Erasmus' reading in his third edition in several places.For example, the last clause (and these three agree in one) is not in the Monfort, but included in Erasmus' third edition.Furthermore, the six articles are omitted and agoin and pneuma are transposed.Erasmus included the articles and did not swap agion pneuma.
* [39] Peter Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"Bible Believer's Bulletin (March 1996),3.
* [40] Adam Clarke, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.), 6: 928-929.
* [41] Charles Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1867), 126.
* [42] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978),7: 323-324.
* [43] Maynard,41.A more thorough discussion of the syntactical problem that arises if the Comma is omitted can be found under the Syntactical Analysis.
* [44] Metzger, Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament,648.
* [45] Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11] ; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.
* [46] Charles Butler, "To Rev. Herbert Marsh," in Horae Biblicae (London: W. Clarke and Sons, 1817), 403-406.
* [47] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,648.
* [48] F.H.A. Scrivener,A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th Edition
(London: G. Bell, 1984 [rep] ), 403.
* [49] Maynard,15-16.For a specific identification of these five Syriac editions, one should consult page 51* of the UBS4.
* [50] Jaqub of Edessa, On the Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries, translated by R.E. Brown in The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),778.
* [51] Maynard,96.
* [52] Tremellius' words were provided and translated by Rykle Borger into German in "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta," in Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3 (1987) 280-284.Michael Maynard, in turn, translated Borger's German into English (A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 , 95).
* [53] Maynard,96.
* [54] Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"3.
* [55] Maynard,334-339
* [56] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, II-- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),3: 598.
* [57] John Gill,An Exposition on the Old and New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 [rep.] ),907-908.
* [58] R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),782.
* [59] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926),5:423.
* [60] Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),285.
* [61] Maynard,62.
* [62] Metzger, Early Versions, 304.
* [63] Maynard,62.
* [64] J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," in A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament(New York: E. J. Brill, 1987),280.
* [65] Maynard,62.
* [66] Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version.(Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, n.d.),29.
* [67] Gail Riplinger, Which Bible is God's Word (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995),53.
* [68] Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," in Which Bible?Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975),212.
* [69] Ibid.,210.
* [70] Ibid.
* [71] Ibid.,211.
* [72] Ibid. [emphasis mine] .
* [73] Ibid.
* [74] Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (n.p., 1815), xvii-xviii.
* [75] For a complete listing of Old Latin manuscripts which contain the Comma, one should consult Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (332-348).
* [76] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions,482.
* [77] Maynard,343-348.
* [78] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the New Testament, 648.
* [79] Jerome, The Canonical Epistles.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),41.
* [80] Scrivener,650.
* [81] Maynard,343.
* [82] Besides what has been mentioned in this brief textual analysis, there is a lot more evidence for the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 as retained in the Textus Receptus of the AV 1611 King James Bible.For more information, one should consult Michael Maynard's astounding work, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
* [83] Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 281.
* [84] Stewart Custer made such claim in The Truth About the King James Version Controversy.(Greenville, SC: BJU University Press, 1981).He, however, argued that only 2 manuscripts contained the Comma out of 5000.Similar claims have been made in the classrooms of many colleges and universities across the country.
* [85] There are only 14 Greek manuscripts hostile to the Johannine Comma that predate the ninth century.They are as follows: a, A, B, Y, K, L, P, 048, 049, 0296, 1424, 1841, 1862, 1895.Maynard lists these in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (pp. 333-335).
* [86] Maynard,286 [emphasis mine] .
* [87] Ibid.
* [88] Robertson,5:4.
* [89] oi treiV marturounteV
* [90] pneuma, udwr, aima
* [91] Dabney,306.
* [92] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996),332.
* [93] Pater, LogoV92Agion Pneuma
* [95] The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 7: 233-234.
* [96] Ebrard,41.
* [97] Oliver Greene, The Epistles of John(Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966),191.
* [98] "Letter IX" in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller(Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, [[1988 AD|1988] ] ), 1: 708-709.
* [99] Millard Erickson,Christian Theology(Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House,1983),329.
* [100] [[Peter Ruckman] ] , [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7] ] , Why We Retain It In The Authorized Version(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d.),4.
* [101] [[James White] ] , The King James Only Controversy(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers,1995),40.
* [102] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996),8.
* [103] Erickson,327.
* [104] Ibid.[emphasis mine] .
* [105] Peter Ruckman, Biblical Scholarship(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988),105.
* [106] Jack Moorman, "Principles of Bible Preservation,"O Timothy Magazine(Vol. 9, Issue 8, 1992),2.
* [107] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today , 2nd Edition (Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994),49.
* [108] Some might criticize this perspective, claiming that inspiration cannot be equated with preservation.However, the two are inseparable.Preservation reflects inspiration.In other words, the words contained in the Received Text are inspired in the sense that they are preserved.
* [109] The "scholar" might go on to argue that no copies are perfect, so they cannot be inspired.Therefore, it is concluded that God's words are preserved in manuscript copies only as far as these copies agree with the original manuscripts.Such an argument is nonsense.When is the last time that anyone saw the original manuscripts?They passed out of existence almost 1900 years ago.Such a viewpoint essentially says that we cannot know God's very words because we do not have the inspired originals with which to compare manuscript copies to.This clearly goes against God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7 and downplays the absolute authority of Scripture.
* [110] Towns,49.
* [111] Of course, inspiration can only apply to translations that represent the pure line of Scripture.Modern versions represent a corrupt line of Scripture that was born in Egypt (a), moved to Rome (B), and eventually came to England (RSV) and America (ASV, NASV, NIV, NEB, LB, etc.).The pure line of text, on the other hand, originated in Antioch, is represented by the Old Latin, Old Syriac, German Bibles, the Textus Receptus, and the AV 1611 King James Bible.
* [112] Moorman, Principles of Biblical Preservation,4.
* [113] John Burgon, "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by Jay P. Green(Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990),A-7.
* [114] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 511.

Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd

2011-01-19T21:07:39Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* AND THESE THREE ARE ONE */

"And These Three Are One"

A Case For the Authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]]
Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

BY

JESSE M. BOYD

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

22 APRIL [[1999 AD|1999]]

This exegesis is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written word--perfectly preserved down through the ages and given to me in a language I can understand. Recognizing that, as [[Martin Luther]] once said, "The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself," I hereby construct this defense out of genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word of God as contained in the Authorized King James Bible. Without a perfectly preserved Written Word, I would know nothing of a personal relationship with the Living Word.

Secondly, it is dedicated to the many men, women, and children who gave their lives that I might have the Bible in English, a privilege which I do not take for granted. Thank-you for your sacrifice and may the Lord reward you richly in His kingdom.

Last, but not least, I dedicate this exegesis to my seminary professor, Dr. David Black, whose books have had a profound effect on my acquisition of a working knowledge of the Greek language. No biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students. The reasons for differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] are to be laid out in this paper. Despite disagreement, however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God. I pray, Dr. Black, that you would consider my presentation, acknowledging that this passage does not deserve the hasty dismissal it so often receives.

"And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory."
-II Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M. Boyd

==AND THESE THREE ARE ONE==
[[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], commonly referred to as the [[Johannine Comma]], has been one of the most hotly debated passages with regard to its authenticity for over a century.

Because it is one of those few passages included in the [[Textus Receptus]] which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts, many a student has paced his study for hours struggling with the question as to whether or not the Comma is a legitimate part of the Holy Scriptures. The hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern versions of the Bible is largely due to the fact that it is only found in eight of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth chapter of [[1 John|I John]]. Consequently, it is almost unanimously regarded among modern textual critics as a later scribal emendation.

The primary English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is the Authorized [[King James Bible]] which is based upon the Greek [[Textus Receptus]]. The passage reads:
* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Most modern translations ([[NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

* [[1 John 5:7|7]] For there are three that testify:
* [[1 John 5:8|8]] the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse [[1 John 5:7|7]], as found in the [[AV]]; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse [[1 John 5:8|8]] (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse [[1 John 5:7|7]].Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.

Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such [[Exegesis|exegesis]] is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The [[Exegesis|exegesis]] that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.[1] May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. [2]

==Historical Analysis==

The epistle of I John was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the Apostle John. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for John's Gospel which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. 85-90).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate New Testament writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote, "in the whole of the First Epistle [1 John|I John] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

It [1 John|I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]
The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].[5]Cyprian writes around [[250 AD|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

==Literary Analysis==

In addition to the matter of historical context, the literary context of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] demands our attention. All three levels of literary analysis—canonical, remote, and immediate contexts—are important. With regard to the text's place in the New Testament canon, the Johannine Comma is the only clear affirmation of the [[Trinity]] throughout the entire [[New Testament]]. Apart from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together (e.g. [[Matthew 28:18]] + [[John 10:30]] + [[John 1:1]] + [[Acts 5:3]]-[[Acts 5:4|4).If a later scribe interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness. For example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in [[Matthew 28:19]].
The Johannine Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John. This can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre. I John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to simply edify other believers in the faith. However, it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament epistles. I John contains no formal greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or specified. Hayes argues, "There is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John. It might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and under almost any conditions. Its contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."[13]These facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in favor of the theological treatise such as is found in the Book of Hebrews. However, this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feelings."[14]

Perhaps the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle and treatise. Vedder argues that the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature. He writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."[15]In other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer. "A brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has written."[16]One, however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation. I John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a definite class of readers. "The writer is concerned throughout with a given situation. He takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph, to which the clue has now been lost."[17]With all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit I John. The Book contains numerous brief discourses dealing with a wide range of subjects. At the same time, however, while the Apostle chooses not to use the set epistolary forms, he approaches the readers as a community, briefly addressing them in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore, the theological discussions contained therein are laced with personal emotion and feeling which is common in New Testament epistles.

How does the genre of I John relate to the Comma? If the book is properly recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological teaching contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly. Such a statement, in fact, would be expected. The Epistle of I John can be broken down in the following manner:

I. Prologue (1:1-4)

II. Our Advocate (1:8-2:2)

III. Obedience (2:3-6)

IV. Purpose (2:12-14)

V. Love of the World (2:15-17)

VI. Antichrist (2:18-28)

VII. Character of God's Children (2:29-3:12)

IX. Love (3:13-24)

X. Test of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)

XI. God is Love (4:7-21)

XII. Victory of Faith (5:1-5)

XIII. Three Witnesses (5:6-13)

XIV. Prayer (5:14-17)

XV. Epilogue[18]

Each aforementioned section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes a brief discourse on a different theological topic. While no particular order is apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the readers understanding of Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of I John.

The Comma is found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses. This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials. The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth. It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God. In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty. If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down. The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses. They most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse (Victory of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).

Finally, I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. [[Bruce Metzger|Metzger]], in his [[Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament]], argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [[[The Johannine Comma]]] makes an awkward break in the sense."[19]Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true. For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."[20]Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.[21]What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree? In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage. "Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[22]The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted. The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

In a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and his consequent victory over the world. Such faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5, 11, 12, 20).This warrant is first presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy Ghost speaking by way of inspired men. In 5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father. Thirdly, the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning work of the Saviour.[23]Finally, as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge. "How harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."[24]

==FAITH'S SOLID WARRANT==
Textual Analysis[25]
The brunt of the argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma lies within the realm of textual criticism. Unfortunately, as mentioned, it is one of the few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from the Greek manuscript tradition. As a result, most modern critics toss it into the wastebasket. An example of such hasty dismissal can be seen in the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of The Greek New Testament.[26]In the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.[27]One is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers; and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.[28]Though such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad generalizations that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence. Perhaps the best approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's arguments, for they bespeak the opinions of most critical scholars. As noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of the Comma, such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the preserved Word of God. Nonetheless, the external evidence in favor of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us to believe by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."[29]

Metzger's presentation of the manuscript evidence is misleading.

The first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are as follows . . ."[30]Next, he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, 2318).Where is the eighth manuscript? The critical apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it. One is forced to wonder about this initial contradiction. Four of these eight manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636), while the other four include it as part of the text.[31]

It is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list the [[Codex Britannicus]] as evidence for the Comma.[32]Their reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators. The well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first and second editions. He argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript with the passage. Only then, would he include it in his edition.[33]Codex Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received it. Nevertheless he is said to have inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed to be the Codex Monfort).[34] First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely unsound. A careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius quod respondet . . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:

Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.[35]

Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript. Rather, he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk J. de Jonge states, "Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access."[36]In light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince Erasmus. If there had been, Erasmus would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.

Although [[Codex Monfortanius]] is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century (ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from. It did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.[37]It did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores of places.[38]Rather, the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which was not known in Europe until after 1552.[39]Besides, this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.[40]

As far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it cannot be equated with the Monfort, because the respective renderings of I John 5:7-8 are quite different.On the one hand, the Monfort omits the articles in verse seven (o, o, to) and transposes "agion pneuma."In verse 8, the articles (to, to, to), a conjunction (kai), and the last phrase (kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin) are missing.Britannicus, on the other hand, includes the articles and the final phrase but omits the adjective "agion" in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire the last clause for his third edition?He surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex Monfort, but from Britannicus. This is why Monfortanius "cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."[41]At this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.

After promulgating his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma, Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers." Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage). Gregory writes:

What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?[42]

In this brief excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle with three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the case if the Comma is omitted. In other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."[43]

Metzger's presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is misleading.

Metzger goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma, they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)."[44]There is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea). There is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in these major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves nothing. Nonetheless, Metzger completely ignores the fact that the verse was employed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by doing so, he would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used as proof of the Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates that arose and plagued the Church concerning these issues. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians (led byKing Huneric the Vandal) and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

In spite of this example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous testimony of the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was in all of their copies. Secondly, they assert that as no dispute took place, but the conference was broken up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept the passage. Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized.

Charles Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God's Word as their first line of defense.[46]The African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in their manuscripts. As a result, they were able to successfully employ the passage as they defended their faith before the Arian accusers.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.

Metzger follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary. He claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin . . ."[47]This allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."[48]F. H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect, agrees with Metzger. However, he does admit that it appears in a few copies of the Armenian and Slavonic, both being ancient version. Metzger's blanket statement overlooks this fact.

As far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma appeared in its early manuscripts. First of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920), syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."[49] Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies. In fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary. For example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."[50]Here, Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in conjunction with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8 with the Comma inserted. It must have been in some Syriac copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate allusion to it.

Tremellius' Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version. Tremellius translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.[51]Modern scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this. If Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he take the time to translate it? Better yet, why did he place it in the margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering, and leave a blank space for it? Tremellius must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac tradition. He himself wrote:

But because it was omitted not only in the printed version, but only in the manuscript Heidelberg codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I did not dare to insert it into the text.So in order that there might not be a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers may correspond to the numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed from the sixth to the eighth verse.[52]

As Maynard correctly concludes:

How often is a blank space provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek edition? The four questions together could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts. His actions are not in accord with his words. Perhaps, with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this spot. (Modern editors do not hesitate over a 'disturbance of the verses.' They merely split verse six in half.)[53]

Another Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern scholars. Also, of notable importance, is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.[54]It is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well. After all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the sixth century. Unfortunately, these have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain the Comma.[55]Therefore, Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the Old Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all the evidence. Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius, and Gutbier had to get the Comma from somewhere.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.

Metzger also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine). This too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage. If they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However, less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:

. . .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[56]

This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma. On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus. However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]

The [[Old Latin]] translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for [[Latin]] was the major language up through the Middle Ages. The [[Old Latin]] is not the same as the [[Latin]] of Jerome's [[Vulgate]], which by the way, does include the Comma. The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages. Did the [[Old Latin]] consistently contain the [[Johannine Comma]]? For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in [[Middle High German]]. This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus. As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century. This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63] According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value. But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w). The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]The Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the [[Textus Receptus]], but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English versions.

The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the [[Waldensians]]. History teaches that the [[Waldensians]] were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century. The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries. As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe."[67]

The translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the Comma because it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.[68]All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus Receptus. The first of these was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center of the Swiss Reformation. The basis for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin. This fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."[69]Secondly, the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. With Calvin's help, Beza brought out a later edition of the Textus Receptus. Wilkinson argues:

This later edition of the [[Received Text]] is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles [emphasis mine].[70]

The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati. Diodati, an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated the received text into Italian. "This version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."[71]The fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned, was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German. "This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."[72]In addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.[73]

In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick Nolan. In Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan. Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. All of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly Apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."[74]Therefore, claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.

The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard to I John 5:7-8.The passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.[75]Studies show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the minority text of a and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.[76]It is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remain unexamined. It is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.[77]Dogmatic conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all the evidence.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.

The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.[78]True, it does not appear in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome?In fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.[79]If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts, what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus (988).Scrivener said that the passage "is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps 49 out of every 50 of its manuscripts."[80]Moreover, against Metzger's claim of lateness, the Comma is claimed by others to be found in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts.[81]

As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger's external evidence for the omission of I John 5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive at almost every point. Thus, he fails to prove that the passage is an interpolation. The textual evidence supporting the Comma is much greater than most critics would have us to believe; an honest evaluation of the evidence yields a case for inclusion that is at least as plausible as one for exclusion.[82]Once again, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Metzger falls short.

If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John 5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14).Even Aland, the UBS' own, admits that the true text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.[83]The majority, however, is not as extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.[84]Such a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5.This is hardly the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 498 are hostile to the Comma. This is substantially less than 5000.Of those 498 manuscripts, only 14 of them predate the ninth century.[85]The same scholars that reject the Comma criticize the Textus Receptus for following so-called "late manuscripts" when they use the same manuscripts as the bulk of their evidence against I John 5:7-8.In other words, 97 per cent of their evidence is late. Maynard asserts:

Opposers of 1 John v.7f are not admitting, that after four centuries (the 17th to 20th) of scholars searching for MSS they could not even muster 3% of all their evidence against 1 John v.7f as being significant, by their standards. Only 14 Greek MSS (2.8%) of the 482 hostile MSS [Maynard arrives at this number from the fact that Metzger considers 16 of the 498 manuscripts to be worthless and irrelevant] they would consider boasting about, were dated from the ninth century or earlier.[86]

Another "reason that the absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse."[87]God may have allowed I John 5:7-8 to fall out of 14 Greek manuscripts prior to the ninth century and many thereafter for the purpose of drawing our attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, for after all, the Comma is the most concise and clear statement regarding this subject throughout all of Scripture. Such a scenario is at least plausible and worthy of consideration.

==Lexical Analysis==

The Johannine Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard to the issue at hand—logoV. This is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine Christology. The second person of the Trinity is referred to as the "Word." Such a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in [[John 1:1]], 14; I John 1:1; and [[Revelation 19:13]].This fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse, for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."[88]LogoV, being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to use when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as is the case in the Comma. On the other hand, if the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove the trinity, the forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19).This issue of tradition, however, will be discussed more in depth under the traditional analysis.

==Syntactical Analysis==

Of significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue of syntax. Plainly speaking, if the Comma is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with respect to the general rules of the Greek language. The masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness[89]) are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood[90]).As Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty."[91]John most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure and syntax are altogether simple and understandable. In attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender."[92]However, the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless the Comma is present. It is true that the Spirit (pneuma), a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides, Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.

If the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with the two masculines (Father & Word[93]) and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit[94]), and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected to them. Such is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament and John's writings in particular. As previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca. 385).[95]

==Structural Analysis==

From the above structural analysis, a contrast of two groups of three becomes apparent. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of two, three, or four. Examples of this include Proverbs 30; [[Amos 1:3]], 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

The Comma is also structurally important with reference to verse 9. I John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness of men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.

==Rhetorical Analysis==

In the realm of rhetorical criticism, the Johannine Comma seems to conform to the Apostle John's literary style. As far as tone is concerned, "there reigns throughout the Epistle a firm and manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm" (e.g. 1:6-10; 2:19; 3:6-10; 4:1-2; etc.).[96]This tone is likewise prevalent in the Comma which tersely presents the truth of an important doctrine, leaving the reader with no room to question.

John's writings are also characterized by contrasts. According to Tidwell, "the ordinary contrasts cover almost the same words and ideas of the Gospel such as life and death, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness with several others and with the addition of Christ and anti-Christ." The Comma, in particular, feeds the contrast which John creates between Jesus Christ and Antichrist (cf. 2:18-23).Jesus Christ is God (cf. 5:7-8).Antichrist, on the other hand, is the one who denies this fact (cf. 2:22).

One final aspect of John's style that is worthy of consideration with respect to the Comma, is parallelism. I John is filled with both positive and negative parallelism. For example, the Apostle writes in 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all," and in 1:9, "Forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 5:7-8, the Comma included, also contains parallelism, a synthetic type to be exact. The three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, and Holy Ghost) and the three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood) are actually the same three witnesses. As Oliver Greene argues, "Therefore, since the Trinity - the Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost - bear record in heaven, it is these three who also bear record in earth."[97]In other words, the promulgation of the three earthly witnesses serves to expand or elaborate on the role of the three heavenly witnesses. The earthly witnesses are sourced in the heavenly witnesses. The "blood" refers to the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28) while the "water" is a reference to Jesus Christ at his baptism. The "Spirit," of course, is the third member of the Godhead. This particular type of parallelism is very common with John and could conceivably be called a chiasmus in this particular instance.

A. Father

B. Word <------------------------------Heavenly Witnesses

C. Holy Ghost

A'.Blood

If the Comma is omitted, the chiasmic structure falls apart.

Altogether, the Johannine Comma reflects John's rhetorical style. Fuller points out, "The connexion of the passage is altogether in its favor. The phraseology is that of the Apostle John; so that if the words are not his, it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined."[98]

==Tradition Analysis==

With regard to tradition criticism, it is the tradition that the Comma does reflect that is significant. Had a redactor added the passage to argue for the Trinity, he would have almost certainly utilized the common Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This formula "became part of a very early tradition in the church."[99]It was employed in the Didache (7.1-4) as well as Justin's Apology (1.61).The strength of forgery is similarity not uniqueness. Ruckman argues, "What would have possibly been gained by inventing a different formula than the one given in Matthew 28, which every Christian knew by heart?"[100]Also, Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" numerous times in I John. A true forger would have no doubt utilized "Son" instead of "Word" so as to further disguise his redactional efforts.

==Theological Analysis==

The theological significance of the Johannine Comma goes without saying. As noted, it is the only clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in all of Scripture. Thus, when James White argues that "the reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures," he is wrong.[101]When John Ankerberg concludes that textual differences only apply to 1% of the text, and none of them are doctrinally important, he is incorrect.[102]The Trinity is a doctrine that sets Christianity apart from all other religions—one God in three persons. It is interesting to note Erickson's argument for the Trinity in his Christian Theology. He begins by stating, "One text which has traditionally been appealed to as documenting the Trinity is I John 5:7 . . .unfortunately, the textual basis is so weak . . . If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere."[103]He then proceeds over the next five pages to exegete and systematize numerous passages that imply this doctrine. He concludes, "Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated, the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing."[104]It seems rather strange to base a fundamental Christian doctrine upon suggestion. Perhaps this is why so many cults ([[Jehovah's Witnesses]]) are able to manipulate the Bible so as to assert that Jesus was not God. After all, the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses rejects the Comma.

A matter of theological significance that transcends the text of I John 5:7-8 concerns the issue of final authority. Is the Bible we hold in our hands the Word of God or not? If it contains errors, it can only be said that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. This is Neo-orthodoxy. When critical scholars boastfully claim that the Comma is not a legitimate part of Scripture, they are questioning the authority of the Book and disregarding the traditional text that brought about the Reformation. Questioning, when it comes to the text of Scripture, is the starting point of all kinds of apostasy. Is the final authority in the Book, or is it in what man says about the Book? In other words, should one reject the Comma because man says it doesn't belong, or should it be accepted by faith because it has been preserved in a Bible that God has blessed for 450 years."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" ([[Psalm 118:8]]).The King James Bible has unquestionably produced more spiritual fruit than all of modern English versions put together. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).Whatever may have be wrong with modern English versions, "There is one thing that is certain, they produced an ignorance of the CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING."[105]

The accusations against I John 5:7-8 that are hurled by modern scholars are typical of attacks that rain down on numerous other places in the text of the Bible ("I know your King James Bible says this, but it really should say this . . .").Such assaults sound too strikingly familiar to Satan's discourse in the Garden of Eden. The "Father of Lies" did not argue with Eve about whether or not there was a God, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity was true, or even whether God's Word was inspired. No, apostasy began when Satan questioned God's words and placed doubt in Eve's heart. "Eve, I know that God said you would die if you eat the fruit, but he really meant that you would be just like him, a god" (author's paraphrase). Jesus warns in Mark 4:15, "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." When doubt is given a beachhead, all other defenses soon fall. Hasty dismissals of I John 5:7-8 have served to do nothing but cast doubt upon the sovereignly preserved Word of God. According to Moorman, the entire matter boils down to one question: "Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture."[106] A heretic has never been able to construct an argument without altering the words of the King James Bible. Interesting?

Any proper approach to the text of Scripture, including I John 5:7-8, must take into account the doctrine of preservation. In Psalm 12:6-7, God promised to preserve His words for every generation. The same God who inspired the original Greek autographs is most certainly powerful enough to preserve them in the copying process as Greek manuscripts multiplied. If this is not true, what would have been the purpose in inspiring the Scriptures if men were just going to mutilate and corrupt them? Preservation does not just extend to the general message of the Bible, but to the very words themselves (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35).This being true, the perfectly preserved Word of God existed down through the ages and will be in existence until Christ returns. It is true that not even two out of the five thousand extant Greek manuscripts agree with each other 100% of the time. However, this body of manuscripts most definitely does not represent all of the manuscripts that ever existed. Many have since rotted away. Therefore, in light of God's promise of preservation, it is not illogical to think that manuscripts once existed that completely agreed with the traditional text of the Textus Receptus and consequently, contained the Johannine Comma. Maybe Erasmus, Luther, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir Brothers, and the King James translators did not have such manuscripts, but why couldn't Almighty God have guided them into selecting the right words from the body of manuscripts they did possess? After, all God is in control of His words. Towns writes, "If an all-powerful God cannot control the vehicle of His self-revelation, then His power and nature can be questioned."[107]

A common assertion among conservative evangelicals is that the inspiration of Scripture only applies to the original autographs. This, however, cannot be true in light of God's promise of preservation.[108] The word "Scripture" is never used in the Bible to refer to the originals (cf. Acts 8:32; 17:11).Besides, in II Timothy 3:16, when Paul discusses the inspiration of Scripture, he does so in a context in which he says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures as a child (cf. 3:15).Paul is not referring to the original autographs of the Old Testament, for they had passed out of existence long before the Apostle was even born. Paul was saying that the Scripture Timothy had read as a child were inspired.They were not the original autographs, but they were inspired in the sense that they had been perfectly preserved by God Almighty. Some might argue that this interpretation is faulty because it calls for the fusing together of two verses.The "scholar" may see it that way, but the Bible was written for the common man (cf. Psalm 119:99-100).A simple reading (minus grammatical analysis, verb parsings, theological presuppositions, etc.) of this passage clearly shows that Paul is not limiting inspiration to the originals. Such a faulty interpretation is based on theological presupposition.[109] Towns writes, "The Bible . . . is as perfect as God, and its perfection extends to every word."[110] Most evangelicals will accept this statement as truth, but such a statement is meaningless if there is not immediate access to these perfect words. Immediate access is available by way of divine preservation. Not only is God's Word perfectly preserved after the Original Autographs, but according to Psalm 119:89; John 12:49-50; 17:8, it precedes them.

The doctrine of inspiration does not only apply to the original autographs nor does it apply exclusively to the original languages of the autographs. IfGod preserved his Word as He promised, then inspiration can apply to translations.[111] When is the last time that Greek and Hebrew was used by God to reach someone with the Gospel? If the original languages were the only source of inspired Scripture, then the ancient Hebrews must have been a extremely ignorant, for the Pentateuch could not have originally been written in Hebrew. After all, "Moses was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), and someone had to translate what Moses said in Egyptian to Pharaoh back into Hebrew. Yet, the Jews believed their Hebrew Scriptures were inspired and still do today. Moorman makes a point worthy of consideration: "as so few can read the original languages, God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations. . . If a translation cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek before they can be saved, or built up in the faith."[112]

Another principle to keep in mind with reference to "questionable passages" (e.g. I John 5:7-8) is that they must be approached with an attitude of faith. As Hebrews 11:6 asserts, "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Dean Burgon once wrote, "There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, immediately abdicated His office and took no further care of His work; that He abandoned those precious writings."[113] The whole crux of the matter boils down to faith, plain and simple. Unfortunately, most modern critics (Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, the UBS, et. al,) approach the sacred science of textual criticism with presuppositions against inerrancy. They treat the Bible as if it were just another book. Such an attitude cannot be founded upon faith, and consequently, is not pleasing to God.

Much more could be said about the relationship between inspiration and preservation, but the question must come back to the Johannine Comma. In this excursus, the author has shown that a case can be constructed for the genuineness of the text of the three heavenly witnesses. As to how strong a case, the author will leave it up to the reader's individual judgment. The author does not say that his case is all conclusive, but on the other hand, by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should not be included. In the case of the accusation against the King James Bible, the burden of proof, as has been noted several times, LIES WITH THE ACCUSER. The accuser cannot prove his case; therefore, the author accepts the Comma's authenticity by faith., a faith that is backed up with plenty of evidence. God, in His sovereignty, saw to it that the text was preserved in the Bible's of the Reformation and the best-selling book of all time—The Authorized King James Version. As to why the passage fell out of so many Greek mss, only the Almighty knows. It is at least possible that the text was excised from the Greek tradition by heretics who didn't want to believe that Jesus was God. Nonetheless, it was preserved in the Latin text through the use of the Latin speaking church.

The whole matter can be concluded with a question? Who would be honored more by the presence of the Comma in Holy Scripture—Jesus Christ or the Devil? The answer goes without saying. In the words of Gail Riplinger, "Guesses or God, fear or faith, haughty or humble. These are the perpetual options for the Christian."[114]

==Homiletical Analysis==

It is the author's opinion that the Johannine Comma is authentic Holy Scripture. Therefore, it can and should be preached from. Two approaches can be taken—an exegetical and a topical. An exegetical approach might utilize the surrounding context. A possible outline might look something like this:
Proposition: In I John 5:4-10, John promulgates two facts about biblical faith.
I. THE FIRST FACT: Biblical faith overcomes the world - 5:4-5

A. The inevitability of overcoming – 5:4

1.Stated – "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."

2.Elaborated – "and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

B. The identity of the overcomer – 5:5

1.What he does – "Who is he that overcometh the world"

2.What he believes – "but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."

II. THE SECOND FACT: Biblical faith is sanctioned.

A. Sanctioned by truth – 5:6

B. Sanctioned by three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Holy Ghost) – 5:7

C. Sanctioned by three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, blood) – 5:8

D. A Parenthetical Explanation – 5:9

1.The supremacy of the witness of God – "If we receive the witness of men,

witness of God is greater."

2.The clarification of the witness of God – "for this is the witness of God which he

hath testified of his Son."

E. Sanctioned by the believer's spiritual consciousness – 5:10

1.Stated positively – "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in

himself"

2.Stated negatively – "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he

believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

A topical approach to I John 5:7-8 might focus upon the nature of the Trinity. A possible outline could resemble the following.

Proposition: In I John 5:7-8, the Apostle explicates the triune nature of God from two

perspectives.

I. THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE: A Heavenly Perspective – 5:7

A. Delineated – "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost."

1.The first person of the Trinity – "Father"

2.The second person of the Trinity – "Word"

3.The third person of the Trinity – "Holy Ghost"

B. Described – "and these three are one"

II. THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE: An Earthly Perspective – 5:8

A. Delineated – "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the

water, and the blood."

1.The third person of the Trinity – "Spirit"

2.The second person of the Trinity—Jesus at his baptism—"water"

3.The first person of the Trinity—the blood of God shed on the cross—"blood"

B. Described – "and these three agree in one"

==APPENDIX A==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA—EARLY EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST===
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts = 5,000 +
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence
* 30 mss. – 10th century
* 80 mss. – 11th century
* 79 mss. – 12th century
* 98 mss. – 13th century
* 119 mss. – 14th century
* 55 mss. – 15th century
* 15 mss. –16th century
* 6 mss. – 17th century
* 1 mss. – 18th century

Historical Breakdown of Favorable Evidence
A.D. (ca.)
* 200 – Tertullian
* 250 – Cyprian
* 318 – Athanasius
* 350 – Idacius Clarus
* 380 – Priscillian
* 385 – Gregory of Nazanzius
* 390 – Jerome
* 450 – Contra Varimadum
* 450 – Latin mss. m
* 485 – Council of Carthage
* 485 – Victor of Vitensis
* 500 – Latin mss. r
* 527 – Fulgentius
* 570 – Cassiodorus
* 636 – Isidore of Seville
* 650 – Codex Pal Legionensus
* 700 – Jaqub of Edessa
* 735 – mss. used by Venerable Bede
* 850 – Codex Ulmensis

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century. Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day. It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation. The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

RESULT: The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence
predating the ninth century; hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence. The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe. In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be.

==APPENDIX B==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA AND THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH===

Having refuted the customary arguments against the Johannine Comma, it becomes appropriate to evaluate the textual evidence. This is best done perhaps by applying Dean Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth." Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, believed that the science of textual criticism should be approached with an attitude of faith, for the Bible is an inspired Book; it should not be treated and evaluated like any other book. "The Bible is different because it is divine." Therefore, Burgon set forth seven tests of truth that he believed would best help a person evaluate the evidence for any given passage. Concerning these tests, he comments:
. . . although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength lies in their cooperation.

For this cause, the author shall apply the "Seven Notes" to the Johannine Comma on a pass or fail basis. By their cooperation, it will be seen that a case can be constructed for the inclusion of this important passage within the text of Holy Scripture.

==The Test of Antiquity==

"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony." A word of caution, however, is in order. The "oldest is best" philosophy is sound only on the surface, for there is much more to judging the age of a reading than simply determining the age of any given manuscript. After all, the oldest reading is not necessarily found in the oldest manuscript. For example, although Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century) is far older than the few Greek mss that do contain the Comma, the passage is quoted by Cyprian, as noted, in the third century. In that respect, the reading of Comma is actually older than the oldest Greek manuscript which attests to I John 5.

When considering this test, one must not forget that the worst corruption to which the New Testament has perhaps ever been subjected originated within a hundred years or so after the originals were penned. According to Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150. Moreover, an ancient Western (Rome) Church Father by the name of Caius (2nd century) once wrote:

For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them . . . their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them . . . For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs [emphasis is mine]? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed.

The point of drawing attention to this fact is that it is not the oldest document for which one must search, but the oldest reading. Does the Johannine Comma represent an early reading? Tertullian and Cyprian cite the passage in the third century; it is utilized at the Council of Carthage in 485; and it can be traced back through the Old Latin of the Waldensian Church (The Old Itala was translated in the second century). In addition to this, one must consider that all extant Greek papyrii are silent to the issue. However, Tertullian, Cyprian, the African Bishops at Carthage, and the Waldenses had to get the reading from somewhere. Therefore, the Comma passes the test of antiquity.

==The Test of Consent of Witnessss==

By this, Burgon means number. Unfortunately, most modern textual critics argue that manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted. Burgon asserted that this maxim "may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy." The traditional text of the Textus Receptus, for the most part, is based upon the readings of the majority of manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are generally late (8th-11th centuries) and consequently discarded by modern critics such as the UBS editors. The question that such critics refuse to ask is where did this great number of manuscripts come from? They must have been copies of earlier uncials and/or papyri that were perhaps lost or destroyed. If ten students were asked to copy a paragraph off the chalkboard, and nine of the ten copies agreed, which best represents the true text? Logic is in favor of the nine copies as opposed to the one disparate copy. The same holds true for New Testament manuscripts. Logic is in favor of the great majority of witnesses. As convincing as this argument is, it must not be utilized as the sole test of truth, for there are several passages in the Textus Receptus that are not found in the great majority of witnesses (e.g. I John 5:7-8). Therefore, as James Borland argues, "Number must be considered as an important factor, but only as one of the tests of truth." Nonetheless, the Comma enjoys at least 19 witnesses prior to the ninth century and numerous witnesses thereafter. Granted, the number is a minority. Were there only two or three witnesses, the Comma could legitimately be said to have failed this test. However, 19 witnesses prior to the 9th century does not bespeak failure. I John 5:7-8 passes the test of consent of witnesses.

==The Test of Variety==

"The greater the variety of witnesses there are, the less chance there is for collusion or deceit to spring from the few." This, of course, can apply to both geographical location and kinds of witnesses. Burgon argues that this is the strongest ally that any reading can have. The Johannine Comma definitely has variety on its side, despite a weak attestation in extant Greek manuscripts. It is found in eight Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, various Waldensian Bibles, numerous German manuscripts, and a few Armenian and Slavonic copies. Moreover, it enjoys early patristic evidence (i.e. Cyprian, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cassiodorus, et. al.). These witnesses represent a wide geographical spread—North Africa, Italy, Asia Minor; Syria; the Caucasus; Russia; Germany; and even England (i.e. the work of Venerable Bede in the 8th century). The Comma passes the test of variety.

==The Test of Continuity==

A fourth test of truth considers the continuity or unbroken testimony of witnesses in favor of a particular reading. As Burgon argued, "this principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the cursives and the later uncials," not the so-called "oldest and best" readings of the modern Greek editions. For the most part, the readings contained in the Textus Receptus have continuity on their side. I John 5:7-8, for example, appears consistently throughout history from A.D. 200 to A.D. 1500 just prior to Erasmus' compiling of the first printed Greek edition. On that basis, the Comma again passes the test.

==The Test of Respectability of Witnesses==

Another test of truth involves weight or respectability. In other words, "if a manuscript proves itself to be erroneous on a frequent basis by a number of acceptable standards, then it loses its respectability." It is safe to say that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not satisfy this category, for their differences from the majority of manuscripts as well as from each other are horrific. Therefore, they should be overlooked. Maybe modern critics should take a lesson from Erasmus when he was approached with readings from Vaticanus; he rejected them. With specific regard to the Comma, witnesses such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, orthodox African writers, the [[Vulgate]], and the Waldensian Bibles certainly stand out as respectable witnesses. Again, the text passes.

==The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage==

This test is concerned with the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. In other words, if a manuscript can be shown to be faulty in several instances in the context of a particular reading, then it is logical that "mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or other shapes." With regard to the Comma, all of the above state witnesses exhibit unsullied integrity in the first few verses of I John 5.

==The Test of Internal Considerations==

This final test of truth focuses upon internal evidence, particularly of a grammatical and scientific nature. "If a particular reading is grammatically, geographically, scientifically, and historically impossible, then it must not be accepted if other readings do not present such problems." For example, the UBS4 accepts a variant reading in Luke 23:45 that is a scientific impossibility. Each of the synoptic Gospels contains the phrase "skotoV egeneto" (there was darkness) (cf. Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). However, Luke adds an additional phrase regarding the sun. The Textus Receptus reads "kai eskotisqh o hlioV" (and the sun was darkened) while the UBS4 reads "tou hliou eklipontoV" (The sun was eclipsed). Like the UBS's faulty readings in Matthew 1:7,10, this reading implies an error in Luke's original autograph: "A solar eclipse is impossible astronomically during the full moon of the Passover when sun and moon are 180 degrees apart in relation to the earth." Luke, being an astute physician, would not have made such a blundering mistake. This reading fails the test of reasonableness because it is scientifically impossible. Therefore, it needs to be added to the long list of corrupt readings found in the UBS4 that should be discarded.

The Johannine Comma, on the other hand, has much on its side in the area of internal considerations. It not only fits the structure, style, and immediate context of I John, but its omission presents a bald grammatical difficulty—three neuter nouns governed by a masculine participle. Let the Comma stand, and "the power of attraction" goes into effect. The Comma thus passes the seventh and final test.

==APPENDIX C==
===A NOTE ON BAPTIST HERITAGE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT===

The inseparable relationship that exists between the inspiration and preservation of Holy Scripture has been an important issue particularly in Baptist heritage. For example, the London Confession of 1644, a creed of the English Baptists reads:
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures . . . In this written Word God hath plainly revealed whatsoever he hath though needful for us to know . . .

It was clear to the English Baptists that God had plainly revealed to them His words in the Holy Scriptures which had been inspired and passed down through the ages as the absolute "Rule of Faith." Only through perfect preservation could this possibly have been true.

In 1833, the American Baptists drew up the New Hampshire Confession. Concerning the Scriptures, it reads,
We believe [that] the Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter . . . and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

This could only be true if God's words had been inspired and perfectly preserved.
For Baptists to deny the perfect providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures is to defy their Baptist heritage as well as the general consensus of the Christian Church for most of history prior to the modern era. Unfortunately, this has occurred all to often as Baptist schools and seminaries are rejecting the doctrine of preservation in favor of naturalistic textual criticism. Michael Maynard, while speaking of Baptist scholars such as A.T. Robertson, J.A. Broadus, J.P. Boyce and D.A. Carson, all of whom regarded the Received Text as an inferior Greek text, argues that they "betrayed their Baptist heritage when they adopted the textual theories of the Anglican scholar F.J.A. Hort, the Presbyterian B.B. Warfield, and the Lutheran K. Tischendorf."

With regard to the Johannine Comma, Baptist views in favor of the passage have long been in print. John Gill (1748) and Andrew Fuller (1815), two Baptist scholars, argued for the authenticity of the Comma long before A.T. Robertson came along. When Robertson, however, did show up on the scene, he was completely oblivious to the views of his Baptist predecessors; he did not even acknowledge them in his works on textual criticism. All in all, Baptist heritage and the Johannine Comma goes all the way back to the Swiss Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Waldensians et. al. All of these groups have their place in the lineage of modern-day Baptists, and all of them held to the Received Text of Scripture which included I John 5:7-8 as it stands in an Authorized King James Bible. Therefore, to deny the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is in a sense to deny Baptist heritage.

==WORKS CONSULTED==
Aland, Barbara and [[Kurt Aland|Aland, Kurt]]. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [[1987 AD|1987]].

Ankerberg, John and Weldon, John. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996.

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Borger, Rykle. "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta." In Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3
(1987). 280-284.

Borland, James. A General Introduction to the New Testament. Lynchburg: VA: University
Book House, 1995.

. "Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate
Inerrancy." In Journal of the Evangelical Thelogical Society (December 4, 1982): 499-506.

Brown, R.E. The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Burgon, John W. "The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels." In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed. by Jay P. Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

Butler, Charles. "To Rev. Herbert Marsh." Horae Biblicae. London: W. Clarke & Sons, 1817.

Clarke, Adam. The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.

Combs, William. "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus." In Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1
(Spring 1996): 35-53.

Custer, Stewart, The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. Greenville, SC: BJU
University Press, 1981.

Dabney, Robert. The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek. Edinburgh:
Banner of Trust, 1967.

Dobbin, Orlando T. The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation. London: Bagster, 1854.

Ebrard, John. Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860.

Elliot, J.K. "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions." In A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of
the Greek New Testament. New York: E.J. Brill, 1987.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lee. (LB IX
199-284) [May, 1520]. Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980]: 381-389).

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Forster, C. A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1867.

Gill, John. An Exposition on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1980 [rep].

Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984.

The Greek New Testament (4th Edition). Ed. by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Greene, Oliver. The Epistles of John. Greenville. SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966.

Hayes, D.A. John and His Writings. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1917.

Jaqub of Edessa. On The Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries. Translated by R.E. Brown in The
Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Jerome. The Canonical Epistles. Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate
Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

Jonge, Henk J. Personal Lettter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).

"Letter IX." In The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1988.

Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

McGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1911.

[[Bruce Metzger|Metzger, Bruce]]. The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition). Germany: United
Bible Societies, 1993.

[[Jack Moorman|Moorman, Jack]]. Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, NJ: Bible for
Today, n.d.

."Principles of Bible Preservation." O Timothy Magazine. Vol. 9, Issue 8. Ed. by David
W. Cloud. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1992: 1-13.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolan, Frederick. Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. n.p., 1815.

Puckett, David. Class Notes—General Church History I. Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern
Seminary, 1998.

[[Gail Riplinger|Riplinger, Gail]]. New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

. Which Bible is God's Word? Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1933.

[[Peter Ruckman|Ruckman, Peter]]. Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1998.

."James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible - Errors 6&7." In Bible Believer's
Bulletin (March, 1996): 1-5

Scott, Ernest. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press,
1963.

Scrivener, F. H. A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th Edition.
London: G. Bell, 1984 (rep).

Tidwell, Josiah. John and His Five Books. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today (2nd Edition). Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994.

Vedder, Henry. The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Griffith
and Rowland Press, n.d.

Victor of Vitensis. Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov. 2.82 in CSEL 7, 60. Translated by
Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995. 43.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

[[James White|White, James]]. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

[[Benjamin Wilkinson|Wilkinson, Benjamin]]. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." In Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

==Footnotes==

* [1] The author recognizes that much of the evidence presented is based upon internal considerations which are subjective by their very nature.What one may see as support for a given reading, another might view as an indictment against that very same reading.Nevertheless, the fact that support can be gleaned for the Comma from internal evidence shows that the issue is not a foregone conclusion.The internal evidence, which greatly supports the passage, serves to supplement what critics term a weak attestation in the realm of external evidence.
* [2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1933),6: 199.
* [3] Josiah Tidwell, John and His Five Books(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937),90-92.
* [4] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1860),5.
* [5] The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
* [6] The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.
* [7] Robertson,6:200.
* [8] David Puckett, Class Notes—General Church History I (Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Seminary, 1998),10.Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge (gnwsiV) and so were called Gnostics (Gnwstikoi).
* [9] I John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2.
* [10] Robertson,6:201
* [11] Ibid.
* [12] Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984), 167.
* [13] D. A. Hayes, John and His Writings(New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1917),161.
* [14] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860),3.
* [15] Henry Vedder, The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Rowland Press),99.
* [16] Ibid.,101.
* [17] Ernest Scott, The Literature of the New Testament(New York: Columbia University Press, 1963),260.
* [18] Vedder, 103-132
* [19] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994),649.
* [20] Robert Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek(Edinburgh: Banner of Trust, 1967),306.
* [21] In the Greek, the phrase reads, "oi treiV eiV to en eisin" which literally translates "and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One."
* [22] Dabney,307
* [23] The spelling of the word "Saviour" as retained in the Authorized Version is preferred by the author.The modern English translations remove the "u" from this title.As a result, a seven-letter word (7= the number of God) becomes a six-letter word (6=the number of man).
* [24] Dabney,307
* [25] Because the foundation of all accusations against I John 5:7-8 rests upon textual evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, this analysis will be more lengthy and complex than the others.
* [26] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger (4th Edition), The Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994).
* [27] Ibid.,819; Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647-648.
* [28] Ibid.
* [29] Robertson,6:241.
* [30] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647.
* [31] Oftentimes, the marginal readings are hastily dismissed.However, what are they doing in the margins?It makes more sense that someone would put them there because they recognized the passage to be missing.
* [32] The reading of the Comma found in Codex Britannicus is given byOrlando T. Dobbin in The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation (London: Bagster, 1854) on page 10.His source is Erasmus' Apologia ad Jacobum Stunicam (1522), reprinted in the Basle edition (1540) of Erasmus' works, pp. 238-296.Codex Britannicus reads: "7oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to pna 8kai outoi oi treiV en eisi, kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pna, to udwr, kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisi ei thn marturian twn anwn lambanomen."The underlined phrase is not found in Codex Monfortianus, so the two manuscripts cannot be the same.Furthermore, Erasmus could not have gotten the Comma from the Monfort Codex.
* [33] William Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996), 49.
* [34] Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),76.
* [35] Desiderius Erasmus,Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lei (LB IX 199-284) [May, 1520] . Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980] , 381-389).
* [36] Henk J. de Jonge, Personal Letter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).
* [37] The reading of the Comma found in the Monfort Codex could not have come from the Compultensian Polygot.Although this edition was first printed in 1514, Cardinal Ximenes did not get permission from Pope Leo X to publish the work until 1520.It was not until 1522 that this edition actually began to circulate and eventually come into Erasmus' hands.
* [38] Erasmus first included the Comma in his third edition which did not appear until 1522.The reading of the Comma as found in the Codex Monfort does not match Erasmus' reading in his third edition in several places.For example, the last clause (and these three agree in one) is not in the Monfort, but included in Erasmus' third edition.Furthermore, the six articles are omitted and agoin and pneuma are transposed.Erasmus included the articles and did not swap agion pneuma.
* [39] Peter Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"Bible Believer's Bulletin (March 1996),3.
* [40] Adam Clarke, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.), 6: 928-929.
* [41] Charles Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1867), 126.
* [42] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978),7: 323-324.
* [43] Maynard,41.A more thorough discussion of the syntactical problem that arises if the Comma is omitted can be found under the Syntactical Analysis.
* [44] Metzger, Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament,648.
* [45] Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11] ; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.
* [46] Charles Butler, "To Rev. Herbert Marsh," in Horae Biblicae (London: W. Clarke and Sons, 1817), 403-406.
* [47] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,648.
* [48] F.H.A. Scrivener,A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th Edition
(London: G. Bell, 1984 [rep] ), 403.
* [49] Maynard,15-16.For a specific identification of these five Syriac editions, one should consult page 51* of the UBS4.
* [50] Jaqub of Edessa, On the Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries, translated by R.E. Brown in The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),778.
* [51] Maynard,96.
* [52] Tremellius' words were provided and translated by Rykle Borger into German in "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta," in Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3 (1987) 280-284.Michael Maynard, in turn, translated Borger's German into English (A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 , 95).
* [53] Maynard,96.
* [54] Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"3.
* [55] Maynard,334-339
* [56] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, II-- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),3: 598.
* [57] John Gill,An Exposition on the Old and New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 [rep.] ),907-908.
* [58] R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),782.
* [59] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926),5:423.
* [60] Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),285.
* [61] Maynard,62.
* [62] Metzger, Early Versions, 304.
* [63] Maynard,62.
* [64] J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," in A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament(New York: E. J. Brill, 1987),280.
* [65] Maynard,62.
* [66] Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version.(Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, n.d.),29.
* [67] Gail Riplinger, Which Bible is God's Word (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995),53.
* [68] Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," in Which Bible?Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975),212.
* [69] Ibid.,210.
* [70] Ibid.
* [71] Ibid.,211.
* [72] Ibid. [emphasis mine] .
* [73] Ibid.
* [74] Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (n.p., 1815), xvii-xviii.
* [75] For a complete listing of Old Latin manuscripts which contain the Comma, one should consult Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (332-348).
* [76] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions,482.
* [77] Maynard,343-348.
* [78] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the New Testament, 648.
* [79] Jerome, The Canonical Epistles.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),41.
* [80] Scrivener,650.
* [81] Maynard,343.
* [82] Besides what has been mentioned in this brief textual analysis, there is a lot more evidence for the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 as retained in the Textus Receptus of the AV 1611 King James Bible.For more information, one should consult Michael Maynard's astounding work, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
* [83] Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 281.
* [84] Stewart Custer made such claim in The Truth About the King James Version Controversy.(Greenville, SC: BJU University Press, 1981).He, however, argued that only 2 manuscripts contained the Comma out of 5000.Similar claims have been made in the classrooms of many colleges and universities across the country.
* [85] There are only 14 Greek manuscripts hostile to the Johannine Comma that predate the ninth century.They are as follows: a, A, B, Y, K, L, P, 048, 049, 0296, 1424, 1841, 1862, 1895.Maynard lists these in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (pp. 333-335).
* [86] Maynard,286 [emphasis mine] .
* [87] Ibid.
* [88] Robertson,5:4.
* [89] oi treiV marturounteV
* [90] pneuma, udwr, aima
* [91] Dabney,306.
* [92] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996),332.
* [93] Pater, LogoV92Agion Pneuma
* [95] The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 7: 233-234.
* [96] Ebrard,41.
* [97] Oliver Greene, The Epistles of John(Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966),191.
* [98] "Letter IX" in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller(Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, [[1988 AD|1988] ] ), 1: 708-709.
* [99] Millard Erickson,Christian Theology(Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House,1983),329.
* [100] [[Peter Ruckman] ] , [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7] ] , Why We Retain It In The Authorized Version(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d.),4.
* [101] [[James White] ] , The King James Only Controversy(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers,1995),40.
* [102] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996),8.
* [103] Erickson,327.
* [104] Ibid.[emphasis mine] .
* [105] Peter Ruckman, Biblical Scholarship(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988),105.
* [106] Jack Moorman, "Principles of Bible Preservation,"O Timothy Magazine(Vol. 9, Issue 8, 1992),2.
* [107] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today , 2nd Edition (Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994),49.
* [108] Some might criticize this perspective, claiming that inspiration cannot be equated with preservation.However, the two are inseparable.Preservation reflects inspiration.In other words, the words contained in the Received Text are inspired in the sense that they are preserved.
* [109] The "scholar" might go on to argue that no copies are perfect, so they cannot be inspired.Therefore, it is concluded that God's words are preserved in manuscript copies only as far as these copies agree with the original manuscripts.Such an argument is nonsense.When is the last time that anyone saw the original manuscripts?They passed out of existence almost 1900 years ago.Such a viewpoint essentially says that we cannot know God's very words because we do not have the inspired originals with which to compare manuscript copies to.This clearly goes against God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7 and downplays the absolute authority of Scripture.
* [110] Towns,49.
* [111] Of course, inspiration can only apply to translations that represent the pure line of Scripture.Modern versions represent a corrupt line of Scripture that was born in Egypt (a), moved to Rome (B), and eventually came to England (RSV) and America (ASV, NASV, NIV, NEB, LB, etc.).The pure line of text, on the other hand, originated in Antioch, is represented by the Old Latin, Old Syriac, German Bibles, the Textus Receptus, and the AV 1611 King James Bible.
* [112] Moorman, Principles of Biblical Preservation,4.
* [113] John Burgon, "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by Jay P. Green(Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990),A-7.
* [114] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 511.

Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd

2011-01-19T21:04:16Z

Textus Receptus Bible: /* AND THESE THREE ARE ONE */

"And These Three Are One"

A Case For the Authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]]
Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

BY

JESSE M. BOYD

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

22 APRIL [[1999 AD|1999]]

This exegesis is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written word--perfectly preserved down through the ages and given to me in a language I can understand. Recognizing that, as [[Martin Luther]] once said, "The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself," I hereby construct this defense out of genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word of God as contained in the Authorized King James Bible. Without a perfectly preserved Written Word, I would know nothing of a personal relationship with the Living Word.

Secondly, it is dedicated to the many men, women, and children who gave their lives that I might have the Bible in English, a privilege which I do not take for granted. Thank-you for your sacrifice and may the Lord reward you richly in His kingdom.

Last, but not least, I dedicate this exegesis to my seminary professor, Dr. David Black, whose books have had a profound effect on my acquisition of a working knowledge of the Greek language. No biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students. The reasons for differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] are to be laid out in this paper. Despite disagreement, however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God. I pray, Dr. Black, that you would consider my presentation, acknowledging that this passage does not deserve the hasty dismissal it so often receives.

"And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory."
-II Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M. Boyd

==AND THESE THREE ARE ONE==
[[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], commonly referred to as the [[Johannine Comma]], has been one of the most hotly debated passages with regard to its authenticity for over a century.

Because it is one of those few passages included in the [[Textus Receptus]] which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts, many a student has paced his study for hours struggling with the question as to whether or not the Comma is a legitimate part of the Holy Scriptures. The hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern versions of the Bible is largely due to the fact that it is only found in eight of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth chapter of [[1 John|I John]]. Consequently, it is almost unanimously regarded among modern textual critics as a later scribal emendation.

The primary English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is the Authorized [[King James Bible]] which is based upon the Greek [[Textus Receptus]]. The passage reads:
* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Most modern translations ([[NASV|NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

* 7 For there are three that testify: * 8 the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse 7, as found in the AV; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse 8 (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse 7.Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.

Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of I John 5:7-8, gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such exegesis is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The exegesis that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.[1] May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. []

==Historical Analysis==

The epistle of I John was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the Apostle John. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for John's Gospel which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. 85-90).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate New Testament writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote, "in the whole of the First Epistle [1 John|I John] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

It [1 John|I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]
The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].[5]Cyprian writes around [[250 AD|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

==Literary Analysis==

In addition to the matter of historical context, the literary context of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] demands our attention. All three levels of literary analysis—canonical, remote, and immediate contexts—are important. With regard to the text's place in the New Testament canon, the Johannine Comma is the only clear affirmation of the [[Trinity]] throughout the entire [[New Testament]]. Apart from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together (e.g. [[Matthew 28:18]] + [[John 10:30]] + [[John 1:1]] + [[Acts 5:3]]-[[Acts 5:4|4).If a later scribe interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness. For example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in [[Matthew 28:19]].
The Johannine Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John. This can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre. I John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to simply edify other believers in the faith. However, it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament epistles. I John contains no formal greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or specified. Hayes argues, "There is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John. It might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and under almost any conditions. Its contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."[13]These facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in favor of the theological treatise such as is found in the Book of Hebrews. However, this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feelings."[14]

Perhaps the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle and treatise. Vedder argues that the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature. He writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."[15]In other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer. "A brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has written."[16]One, however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation. I John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a definite class of readers. "The writer is concerned throughout with a given situation. He takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph, to which the clue has now been lost."[17]With all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit I John. The Book contains numerous brief discourses dealing with a wide range of subjects. At the same time, however, while the Apostle chooses not to use the set epistolary forms, he approaches the readers as a community, briefly addressing them in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore, the theological discussions contained therein are laced with personal emotion and feeling which is common in New Testament epistles.

How does the genre of I John relate to the Comma? If the book is properly recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological teaching contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly. Such a statement, in fact, would be expected. The Epistle of I John can be broken down in the following manner:

I. Prologue (1:1-4)

II. Our Advocate (1:8-2:2)

III. Obedience (2:3-6)

IV. Purpose (2:12-14)

V. Love of the World (2:15-17)

VI. Antichrist (2:18-28)

VII. Character of God's Children (2:29-3:12)

IX. Love (3:13-24)

X. Test of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)

XI. God is Love (4:7-21)

XII. Victory of Faith (5:1-5)

XIII. Three Witnesses (5:6-13)

XIV. Prayer (5:14-17)

XV. Epilogue[18]

Each aforementioned section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes a brief discourse on a different theological topic. While no particular order is apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the readers understanding of Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of I John.

The Comma is found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses. This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials. The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth. It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God. In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty. If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down. The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses. They most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse (Victory of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).

Finally, I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. [[Bruce Metzger|Metzger]], in his [[Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament]], argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [[[The Johannine Comma]]] makes an awkward break in the sense."[19]Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true. For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."[20]Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.[21]What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree? In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage. "Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[22]The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted. The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

In a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and his consequent victory over the world. Such faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5, 11, 12, 20).This warrant is first presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy Ghost speaking by way of inspired men. In 5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father. Thirdly, the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning work of the Saviour.[23]Finally, as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge. "How harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."[24]

==FAITH'S SOLID WARRANT==
Textual Analysis[25]
The brunt of the argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma lies within the realm of textual criticism. Unfortunately, as mentioned, it is one of the few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from the Greek manuscript tradition. As a result, most modern critics toss it into the wastebasket. An example of such hasty dismissal can be seen in the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of The Greek New Testament.[26]In the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.[27]One is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers; and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.[28]Though such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad generalizations that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence. Perhaps the best approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's arguments, for they bespeak the opinions of most critical scholars. As noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of the Comma, such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the preserved Word of God. Nonetheless, the external evidence in favor of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us to believe by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."[29]

Metzger's presentation of the manuscript evidence is misleading.

The first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are as follows . . ."[30]Next, he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, 2318).Where is the eighth manuscript? The critical apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it. One is forced to wonder about this initial contradiction. Four of these eight manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636), while the other four include it as part of the text.[31]

It is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list the [[Codex Britannicus]] as evidence for the Comma.[32]Their reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators. The well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first and second editions. He argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript with the passage. Only then, would he include it in his edition.[33]Codex Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received it. Nevertheless he is said to have inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed to be the Codex Monfort).[34] First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely unsound. A careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius quod respondet . . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:

Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.[35]

Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript. Rather, he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk J. de Jonge states, "Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access."[36]In light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince Erasmus. If there had been, Erasmus would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.

Although [[Codex Monfortanius]] is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century (ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from. It did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.[37]It did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores of places.[38]Rather, the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which was not known in Europe until after 1552.[39]Besides, this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.[40]

As far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it cannot be equated with the Monfort, because the respective renderings of I John 5:7-8 are quite different.On the one hand, the Monfort omits the articles in verse seven (o, o, to) and transposes "agion pneuma."In verse 8, the articles (to, to, to), a conjunction (kai), and the last phrase (kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin) are missing.Britannicus, on the other hand, includes the articles and the final phrase but omits the adjective "agion" in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire the last clause for his third edition?He surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex Monfort, but from Britannicus. This is why Monfortanius "cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."[41]At this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.

After promulgating his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma, Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers." Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage). Gregory writes:

What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?[42]

In this brief excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle with three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the case if the Comma is omitted. In other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."[43]

Metzger's presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is misleading.

Metzger goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma, they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)."[44]There is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea). There is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in these major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves nothing. Nonetheless, Metzger completely ignores the fact that the verse was employed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by doing so, he would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used as proof of the Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates that arose and plagued the Church concerning these issues. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians (led byKing Huneric the Vandal) and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

In spite of this example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous testimony of the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was in all of their copies. Secondly, they assert that as no dispute took place, but the conference was broken up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept the passage. Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized.

Charles Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God's Word as their first line of defense.[46]The African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in their manuscripts. As a result, they were able to successfully employ the passage as they defended their faith before the Arian accusers.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.

Metzger follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary. He claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin . . ."[47]This allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."[48]F. H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect, agrees with Metzger. However, he does admit that it appears in a few copies of the Armenian and Slavonic, both being ancient version. Metzger's blanket statement overlooks this fact.

As far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma appeared in its early manuscripts. First of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920), syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."[49] Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies. In fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary. For example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."[50]Here, Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in conjunction with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8 with the Comma inserted. It must have been in some Syriac copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate allusion to it.

Tremellius' Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version. Tremellius translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.[51]Modern scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this. If Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he take the time to translate it? Better yet, why did he place it in the margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering, and leave a blank space for it? Tremellius must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac tradition. He himself wrote:

But because it was omitted not only in the printed version, but only in the manuscript Heidelberg codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I did not dare to insert it into the text.So in order that there might not be a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers may correspond to the numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed from the sixth to the eighth verse.[52]

As Maynard correctly concludes:

How often is a blank space provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek edition? The four questions together could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts. His actions are not in accord with his words. Perhaps, with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this spot. (Modern editors do not hesitate over a 'disturbance of the verses.' They merely split verse six in half.)[53]

Another Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern scholars. Also, of notable importance, is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.[54]It is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well. After all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the sixth century. Unfortunately, these have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain the Comma.[55]Therefore, Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the Old Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all the evidence. Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius, and Gutbier had to get the Comma from somewhere.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.

Metzger also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine). This too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage. If they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However, less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:

. . .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[56]

This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma. On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus. However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]

The [[Old Latin]] translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for [[Latin]] was the major language up through the Middle Ages. The [[Old Latin]] is not the same as the [[Latin]] of Jerome's [[Vulgate]], which by the way, does include the Comma. The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages. Did the [[Old Latin]] consistently contain the [[Johannine Comma]]? For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in [[Middle High German]]. This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus. As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century. This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63] According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value. But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w). The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]The Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the [[Textus Receptus]], but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English versions.

The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the [[Waldensians]]. History teaches that the [[Waldensians]] were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century. The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries. As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe."[67]

The translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the Comma because it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.[68]All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus Receptus. The first of these was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center of the Swiss Reformation. The basis for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin. This fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."[69]Secondly, the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. With Calvin's help, Beza brought out a later edition of the Textus Receptus. Wilkinson argues:

This later edition of the [[Received Text]] is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles [emphasis mine].[70]

The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati. Diodati, an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated the received text into Italian. "This version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."[71]The fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned, was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German. "This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."[72]In addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.[73]

In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick Nolan. In Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan. Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. All of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly Apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."[74]Therefore, claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.

The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard to I John 5:7-8.The passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.[75]Studies show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the minority text of a and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.[76]It is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remain unexamined. It is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.[77]Dogmatic conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all the evidence.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.

The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.[78]True, it does not appear in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome?In fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.[79]If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts, what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus (988).Scrivener said that the passage "is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps 49 out of every 50 of its manuscripts."[80]Moreover, against Metzger's claim of lateness, the Comma is claimed by others to be found in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts.[81]

As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger's external evidence for the omission of I John 5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive at almost every point. Thus, he fails to prove that the passage is an interpolation. The textual evidence supporting the Comma is much greater than most critics would have us to believe; an honest evaluation of the evidence yields a case for inclusion that is at least as plausible as one for exclusion.[82]Once again, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Metzger falls short.

If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John 5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14).Even Aland, the UBS' own, admits that the true text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.[83]The majority, however, is not as extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.[84]Such a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5.This is hardly the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 498 are hostile to the Comma. This is substantially less than 5000.Of those 498 manuscripts, only 14 of them predate the ninth century.[85]The same scholars that reject the Comma criticize the Textus Receptus for following so-called "late manuscripts" when they use the same manuscripts as the bulk of their evidence against I John 5:7-8.In other words, 97 per cent of their evidence is late. Maynard asserts:

Opposers of 1 John v.7f are not admitting, that after four centuries (the 17th to 20th) of scholars searching for MSS they could not even muster 3% of all their evidence against 1 John v.7f as being significant, by their standards. Only 14 Greek MSS (2.8%) of the 482 hostile MSS [Maynard arrives at this number from the fact that Metzger considers 16 of the 498 manuscripts to be worthless and irrelevant] they would consider boasting about, were dated from the ninth century or earlier.[86]

Another "reason that the absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse."[87]God may have allowed I John 5:7-8 to fall out of 14 Greek manuscripts prior to the ninth century and many thereafter for the purpose of drawing our attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, for after all, the Comma is the most concise and clear statement regarding this subject throughout all of Scripture. Such a scenario is at least plausible and worthy of consideration.

==Lexical Analysis==

The Johannine Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard to the issue at hand—logoV. This is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine Christology. The second person of the Trinity is referred to as the "Word." Such a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in [[John 1:1]], 14; I John 1:1; and [[Revelation 19:13]].This fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse, for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."[88]LogoV, being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to use when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as is the case in the Comma. On the other hand, if the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove the trinity, the forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19).This issue of tradition, however, will be discussed more in depth under the traditional analysis.

==Syntactical Analysis==

Of significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue of syntax. Plainly speaking, if the Comma is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with respect to the general rules of the Greek language. The masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness[89]) are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood[90]).As Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty."[91]John most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure and syntax are altogether simple and understandable. In attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender."[92]However, the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless the Comma is present. It is true that the Spirit (pneuma), a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides, Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.

If the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with the two masculines (Father & Word[93]) and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit[94]), and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected to them. Such is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament and John's writings in particular. As previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca. 385).[95]

==Structural Analysis==

From the above structural analysis, a contrast of two groups of three becomes apparent. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of two, three, or four. Examples of this include Proverbs 30; [[Amos 1:3]], 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

The Comma is also structurally important with reference to verse 9. I John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness of men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.

==Rhetorical Analysis==

In the realm of rhetorical criticism, the Johannine Comma seems to conform to the Apostle John's literary style. As far as tone is concerned, "there reigns throughout the Epistle a firm and manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm" (e.g. 1:6-10; 2:19; 3:6-10; 4:1-2; etc.).[96]This tone is likewise prevalent in the Comma which tersely presents the truth of an important doctrine, leaving the reader with no room to question.

John's writings are also characterized by contrasts. According to Tidwell, "the ordinary contrasts cover almost the same words and ideas of the Gospel such as life and death, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness with several others and with the addition of Christ and anti-Christ." The Comma, in particular, feeds the contrast which John creates between Jesus Christ and Antichrist (cf. 2:18-23).Jesus Christ is God (cf. 5:7-8).Antichrist, on the other hand, is the one who denies this fact (cf. 2:22).

One final aspect of John's style that is worthy of consideration with respect to the Comma, is parallelism. I John is filled with both positive and negative parallelism. For example, the Apostle writes in 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all," and in 1:9, "Forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 5:7-8, the Comma included, also contains parallelism, a synthetic type to be exact. The three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, and Holy Ghost) and the three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood) are actually the same three witnesses. As Oliver Greene argues, "Therefore, since the Trinity - the Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost - bear record in heaven, it is these three who also bear record in earth."[97]In other words, the promulgation of the three earthly witnesses serves to expand or elaborate on the role of the three heavenly witnesses. The earthly witnesses are sourced in the heavenly witnesses. The "blood" refers to the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28) while the "water" is a reference to Jesus Christ at his baptism. The "Spirit," of course, is the third member of the Godhead. This particular type of parallelism is very common with John and could conceivably be called a chiasmus in this particular instance.

A. Father

B. Word <------------------------------Heavenly Witnesses

C. Holy Ghost

A'.Blood

If the Comma is omitted, the chiasmic structure falls apart.

Altogether, the Johannine Comma reflects John's rhetorical style. Fuller points out, "The connexion of the passage is altogether in its favor. The phraseology is that of the Apostle John; so that if the words are not his, it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined."[98]

==Tradition Analysis==

With regard to tradition criticism, it is the tradition that the Comma does reflect that is significant. Had a redactor added the passage to argue for the Trinity, he would have almost certainly utilized the common Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This formula "became part of a very early tradition in the church."[99]It was employed in the Didache (7.1-4) as well as Justin's Apology (1.61).The strength of forgery is similarity not uniqueness. Ruckman argues, "What would have possibly been gained by inventing a different formula than the one given in Matthew 28, which every Christian knew by heart?"[100]Also, Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" numerous times in I John. A true forger would have no doubt utilized "Son" instead of "Word" so as to further disguise his redactional efforts.

==Theological Analysis==

The theological significance of the Johannine Comma goes without saying. As noted, it is the only clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in all of Scripture. Thus, when James White argues that "the reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures," he is wrong.[101]When John Ankerberg concludes that textual differences only apply to 1% of the text, and none of them are doctrinally important, he is incorrect.[102]The Trinity is a doctrine that sets Christianity apart from all other religions—one God in three persons. It is interesting to note Erickson's argument for the Trinity in his Christian Theology. He begins by stating, "One text which has traditionally been appealed to as documenting the Trinity is I John 5:7 . . .unfortunately, the textual basis is so weak . . . If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere."[103]He then proceeds over the next five pages to exegete and systematize numerous passages that imply this doctrine. He concludes, "Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated, the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing."[104]It seems rather strange to base a fundamental Christian doctrine upon suggestion. Perhaps this is why so many cults ([[Jehovah's Witnesses]]) are able to manipulate the Bible so as to assert that Jesus was not God. After all, the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses rejects the Comma.

A matter of theological significance that transcends the text of I John 5:7-8 concerns the issue of final authority. Is the Bible we hold in our hands the Word of God or not? If it contains errors, it can only be said that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. This is Neo-orthodoxy. When critical scholars boastfully claim that the Comma is not a legitimate part of Scripture, they are questioning the authority of the Book and disregarding the traditional text that brought about the Reformation. Questioning, when it comes to the text of Scripture, is the starting point of all kinds of apostasy. Is the final authority in the Book, or is it in what man says about the Book? In other words, should one reject the Comma because man says it doesn't belong, or should it be accepted by faith because it has been preserved in a Bible that God has blessed for 450 years."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" ([[Psalm 118:8]]).The King James Bible has unquestionably produced more spiritual fruit than all of modern English versions put together. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).Whatever may have be wrong with modern English versions, "There is one thing that is certain, they produced an ignorance of the CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING."[105]

The accusations against I John 5:7-8 that are hurled by modern scholars are typical of attacks that rain down on numerous other places in the text of the Bible ("I know your King James Bible says this, but it really should say this . . .").Such assaults sound too strikingly familiar to Satan's discourse in the Garden of Eden. The "Father of Lies" did not argue with Eve about whether or not there was a God, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity was true, or even whether God's Word was inspired. No, apostasy began when Satan questioned God's words and placed doubt in Eve's heart. "Eve, I know that God said you would die if you eat the fruit, but he really meant that you would be just like him, a god" (author's paraphrase). Jesus warns in Mark 4:15, "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." When doubt is given a beachhead, all other defenses soon fall. Hasty dismissals of I John 5:7-8 have served to do nothing but cast doubt upon the sovereignly preserved Word of God. According to Moorman, the entire matter boils down to one question: "Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture."[106] A heretic has never been able to construct an argument without altering the words of the King James Bible. Interesting?

Any proper approach to the text of Scripture, including I John 5:7-8, must take into account the doctrine of preservation. In Psalm 12:6-7, God promised to preserve His words for every generation. The same God who inspired the original Greek autographs is most certainly powerful enough to preserve them in the copying process as Greek manuscripts multiplied. If this is not true, what would have been the purpose in inspiring the Scriptures if men were just going to mutilate and corrupt them? Preservation does not just extend to the general message of the Bible, but to the very words themselves (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35).This being true, the perfectly preserved Word of God existed down through the ages and will be in existence until Christ returns. It is true that not even two out of the five thousand extant Greek manuscripts agree with each other 100% of the time. However, this body of manuscripts most definitely does not represent all of the manuscripts that ever existed. Many have since rotted away. Therefore, in light of God's promise of preservation, it is not illogical to think that manuscripts once existed that completely agreed with the traditional text of the Textus Receptus and consequently, contained the Johannine Comma. Maybe Erasmus, Luther, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir Brothers, and the King James translators did not have such manuscripts, but why couldn't Almighty God have guided them into selecting the right words from the body of manuscripts they did possess? After, all God is in control of His words. Towns writes, "If an all-powerful God cannot control the vehicle of His self-revelation, then His power and nature can be questioned."[107]

A common assertion among conservative evangelicals is that the inspiration of Scripture only applies to the original autographs. This, however, cannot be true in light of God's promise of preservation.[108] The word "Scripture" is never used in the Bible to refer to the originals (cf. Acts 8:32; 17:11).Besides, in II Timothy 3:16, when Paul discusses the inspiration of Scripture, he does so in a context in which he says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures as a child (cf. 3:15).Paul is not referring to the original autographs of the Old Testament, for they had passed out of existence long before the Apostle was even born. Paul was saying that the Scripture Timothy had read as a child were inspired.They were not the original autographs, but they were inspired in the sense that they had been perfectly preserved by God Almighty. Some might argue that this interpretation is faulty because it calls for the fusing together of two verses.The "scholar" may see it that way, but the Bible was written for the common man (cf. Psalm 119:99-100).A simple reading (minus grammatical analysis, verb parsings, theological presuppositions, etc.) of this passage clearly shows that Paul is not limiting inspiration to the originals. Such a faulty interpretation is based on theological presupposition.[109] Towns writes, "The Bible . . . is as perfect as God, and its perfection extends to every word."[110] Most evangelicals will accept this statement as truth, but such a statement is meaningless if there is not immediate access to these perfect words. Immediate access is available by way of divine preservation. Not only is God's Word perfectly preserved after the Original Autographs, but according to Psalm 119:89; John 12:49-50; 17:8, it precedes them.

The doctrine of inspiration does not only apply to the original autographs nor does it apply exclusively to the original languages of the autographs. IfGod preserved his Word as He promised, then inspiration can apply to translations.[111] When is the last time that Greek and Hebrew was used by God to reach someone with the Gospel? If the original languages were the only source of inspired Scripture, then the ancient Hebrews must have been a extremely ignorant, for the Pentateuch could not have originally been written in Hebrew. After all, "Moses was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), and someone had to translate what Moses said in Egyptian to Pharaoh back into Hebrew. Yet, the Jews believed their Hebrew Scriptures were inspired and still do today. Moorman makes a point worthy of consideration: "as so few can read the original languages, God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations. . . If a translation cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek before they can be saved, or built up in the faith."[112]

Another principle to keep in mind with reference to "questionable passages" (e.g. I John 5:7-8) is that they must be approached with an attitude of faith. As Hebrews 11:6 asserts, "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Dean Burgon once wrote, "There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, immediately abdicated His office and took no further care of His work; that He abandoned those precious writings."[113] The whole crux of the matter boils down to faith, plain and simple. Unfortunately, most modern critics (Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, the UBS, et. al,) approach the sacred science of textual criticism with presuppositions against inerrancy. They treat the Bible as if it were just another book. Such an attitude cannot be founded upon faith, and consequently, is not pleasing to God.

Much more could be said about the relationship between inspiration and preservation, but the question must come back to the Johannine Comma. In this excursus, the author has shown that a case can be constructed for the genuineness of the text of the three heavenly witnesses. As to how strong a case, the author will leave it up to the reader's individual judgment. The author does not say that his case is all conclusive, but on the other hand, by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should not be included. In the case of the accusation against the King James Bible, the burden of proof, as has been noted several times, LIES WITH THE ACCUSER. The accuser cannot prove his case; therefore, the author accepts the Comma's authenticity by faith., a faith that is backed up with plenty of evidence. God, in His sovereignty, saw to it that the text was preserved in the Bible's of the Reformation and the best-selling book of all time—The Authorized King James Version. As to why the passage fell out of so many Greek mss, only the Almighty knows. It is at least possible that the text was excised from the Greek tradition by heretics who didn't want to believe that Jesus was God. Nonetheless, it was preserved in the Latin text through the use of the Latin speaking church.

The whole matter can be concluded with a question? Who would be honored more by the presence of the Comma in Holy Scripture—Jesus Christ or the Devil? The answer goes without saying. In the words of Gail Riplinger, "Guesses or God, fear or faith, haughty or humble. These are the perpetual options for the Christian."[114]

==Homiletical Analysis==

It is the author's opinion that the Johannine Comma is authentic Holy Scripture. Therefore, it can and should be preached from. Two approaches can be taken—an exegetical and a topical. An exegetical approach might utilize the surrounding context. A possible outline might look something like this:
Proposition: In I John 5:4-10, John promulgates two facts about biblical faith.
I. THE FIRST FACT: Biblical faith overcomes the world - 5:4-5

A. The inevitability of overcoming – 5:4

1.Stated – "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."

2.Elaborated – "and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

B. The identity of the overcomer – 5:5

1.What he does – "Who is he that overcometh the world"

2.What he believes – "but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."

II. THE SECOND FACT: Biblical faith is sanctioned.

A. Sanctioned by truth – 5:6

B. Sanctioned by three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Holy Ghost) – 5:7

C. Sanctioned by three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, blood) – 5:8

D. A Parenthetical Explanation – 5:9

1.The supremacy of the witness of God – "If we receive the witness of men,

witness of God is greater."

2.The clarification of the witness of God – "for this is the witness of God which he

hath testified of his Son."

E. Sanctioned by the believer's spiritual consciousness – 5:10

1.Stated positively – "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in

himself"

2.Stated negatively – "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he

believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

A topical approach to I John 5:7-8 might focus upon the nature of the Trinity. A possible outline could resemble the following.

Proposition: In I John 5:7-8, the Apostle explicates the triune nature of God from two

perspectives.

I. THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE: A Heavenly Perspective – 5:7

A. Delineated – "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost."

1.The first person of the Trinity – "Father"

2.The second person of the Trinity – "Word"

3.The third person of the Trinity – "Holy Ghost"

B. Described – "and these three are one"

II. THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE: An Earthly Perspective – 5:8

A. Delineated – "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the

water, and the blood."

1.The third person of the Trinity – "Spirit"

2.The second person of the Trinity—Jesus at his baptism—"water"

3.The first person of the Trinity—the blood of God shed on the cross—"blood"

B. Described – "and these three agree in one"

==APPENDIX A==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA—EARLY EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST===
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts = 5,000 +
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence
* 30 mss. – 10th century
* 80 mss. – 11th century
* 79 mss. – 12th century
* 98 mss. – 13th century
* 119 mss. – 14th century
* 55 mss. – 15th century
* 15 mss. –16th century
* 6 mss. – 17th century
* 1 mss. – 18th century

Historical Breakdown of Favorable Evidence
A.D. (ca.)
* 200 – Tertullian
* 250 – Cyprian
* 318 – Athanasius
* 350 – Idacius Clarus
* 380 – Priscillian
* 385 – Gregory of Nazanzius
* 390 – Jerome
* 450 – Contra Varimadum
* 450 – Latin mss. m
* 485 – Council of Carthage
* 485 – Victor of Vitensis
* 500 – Latin mss. r
* 527 – Fulgentius
* 570 – Cassiodorus
* 636 – Isidore of Seville
* 650 – Codex Pal Legionensus
* 700 – Jaqub of Edessa
* 735 – mss. used by Venerable Bede
* 850 – Codex Ulmensis

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century. Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day. It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation. The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

RESULT: The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence
predating the ninth century; hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence. The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe. In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be.

==APPENDIX B==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA AND THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH===

Having refuted the customary arguments against the Johannine Comma, it becomes appropriate to evaluate the textual evidence. This is best done perhaps by applying Dean Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth." Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, believed that the science of textual criticism should be approached with an attitude of faith, for the Bible is an inspired Book; it should not be treated and evaluated like any other book. "The Bible is different because it is divine." Therefore, Burgon set forth seven tests of truth that he believed would best help a person evaluate the evidence for any given passage. Concerning these tests, he comments:
. . . although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength lies in their cooperation.

For this cause, the author shall apply the "Seven Notes" to the Johannine Comma on a pass or fail basis. By their cooperation, it will be seen that a case can be constructed for the inclusion of this important passage within the text of Holy Scripture.

==The Test of Antiquity==

"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony." A word of caution, however, is in order. The "oldest is best" philosophy is sound only on the surface, for there is much more to judging the age of a reading than simply determining the age of any given manuscript. After all, the oldest reading is not necessarily found in the oldest manuscript. For example, although Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century) is far older than the few Greek mss that do contain the Comma, the passage is quoted by Cyprian, as noted, in the third century. In that respect, the reading of Comma is actually older than the oldest Greek manuscript which attests to I John 5.

When considering this test, one must not forget that the worst corruption to which the New Testament has perhaps ever been subjected originated within a hundred years or so after the originals were penned. According to Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150. Moreover, an ancient Western (Rome) Church Father by the name of Caius (2nd century) once wrote:

For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them . . . their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them . . . For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs [emphasis is mine]? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed.

The point of drawing attention to this fact is that it is not the oldest document for which one must search, but the oldest reading. Does the Johannine Comma represent an early reading? Tertullian and Cyprian cite the passage in the third century; it is utilized at the Council of Carthage in 485; and it can be traced back through the Old Latin of the Waldensian Church (The Old Itala was translated in the second century). In addition to this, one must consider that all extant Greek papyrii are silent to the issue. However, Tertullian, Cyprian, the African Bishops at Carthage, and the Waldenses had to get the reading from somewhere. Therefore, the Comma passes the test of antiquity.

==The Test of Consent of Witnessss==

By this, Burgon means number. Unfortunately, most modern textual critics argue that manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted. Burgon asserted that this maxim "may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy." The traditional text of the Textus Receptus, for the most part, is based upon the readings of the majority of manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are generally late (8th-11th centuries) and consequently discarded by modern critics such as the UBS editors. The question that such critics refuse to ask is where did this great number of manuscripts come from? They must have been copies of earlier uncials and/or papyri that were perhaps lost or destroyed. If ten students were asked to copy a paragraph off the chalkboard, and nine of the ten copies agreed, which best represents the true text? Logic is in favor of the nine copies as opposed to the one disparate copy. The same holds true for New Testament manuscripts. Logic is in favor of the great majority of witnesses. As convincing as this argument is, it must not be utilized as the sole test of truth, for there are several passages in the Textus Receptus that are not found in the great majority of witnesses (e.g. I John 5:7-8). Therefore, as James Borland argues, "Number must be considered as an important factor, but only as one of the tests of truth." Nonetheless, the Comma enjoys at least 19 witnesses prior to the ninth century and numerous witnesses thereafter. Granted, the number is a minority. Were there only two or three witnesses, the Comma could legitimately be said to have failed this test. However, 19 witnesses prior to the 9th century does not bespeak failure. I John 5:7-8 passes the test of consent of witnesses.

==The Test of Variety==

"The greater the variety of witnesses there are, the less chance there is for collusion or deceit to spring from the few." This, of course, can apply to both geographical location and kinds of witnesses. Burgon argues that this is the strongest ally that any reading can have. The Johannine Comma definitely has variety on its side, despite a weak attestation in extant Greek manuscripts. It is found in eight Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, various Waldensian Bibles, numerous German manuscripts, and a few Armenian and Slavonic copies. Moreover, it enjoys early patristic evidence (i.e. Cyprian, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cassiodorus, et. al.). These witnesses represent a wide geographical spread—North Africa, Italy, Asia Minor; Syria; the Caucasus; Russia; Germany; and even England (i.e. the work of Venerable Bede in the 8th century). The Comma passes the test of variety.

==The Test of Continuity==

A fourth test of truth considers the continuity or unbroken testimony of witnesses in favor of a particular reading. As Burgon argued, "this principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the cursives and the later uncials," not the so-called "oldest and best" readings of the modern Greek editions. For the most part, the readings contained in the Textus Receptus have continuity on their side. I John 5:7-8, for example, appears consistently throughout history from A.D. 200 to A.D. 1500 just prior to Erasmus' compiling of the first printed Greek edition. On that basis, the Comma again passes the test.

==The Test of Respectability of Witnesses==

Another test of truth involves weight or respectability. In other words, "if a manuscript proves itself to be erroneous on a frequent basis by a number of acceptable standards, then it loses its respectability." It is safe to say that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not satisfy this category, for their differences from the majority of manuscripts as well as from each other are horrific. Therefore, they should be overlooked. Maybe modern critics should take a lesson from Erasmus when he was approached with readings from Vaticanus; he rejected them. With specific regard to the Comma, witnesses such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, orthodox African writers, the [[Vulgate]], and the Waldensian Bibles certainly stand out as respectable witnesses. Again, the text passes.

==The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage==

This test is concerned with the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. In other words, if a manuscript can be shown to be faulty in several instances in the context of a particular reading, then it is logical that "mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or other shapes." With regard to the Comma, all of the above state witnesses exhibit unsullied integrity in the first few verses of I John 5.

==The Test of Internal Considerations==

This final test of truth focuses upon internal evidence, particularly of a grammatical and scientific nature. "If a particular reading is grammatically, geographically, scientifically, and historically impossible, then it must not be accepted if other readings do not present such problems." For example, the UBS4 accepts a variant reading in Luke 23:45 that is a scientific impossibility. Each of the synoptic Gospels contains the phrase "skotoV egeneto" (there was darkness) (cf. Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). However, Luke adds an additional phrase regarding the sun. The Textus Receptus reads "kai eskotisqh o hlioV" (and the sun was darkened) while the UBS4 reads "tou hliou eklipontoV" (The sun was eclipsed). Like the UBS's faulty readings in Matthew 1:7,10, this reading implies an error in Luke's original autograph: "A solar eclipse is impossible astronomically during the full moon of the Passover when sun and moon are 180 degrees apart in relation to the earth." Luke, being an astute physician, would not have made such a blundering mistake. This reading fails the test of reasonableness because it is scientifically impossible. Therefore, it needs to be added to the long list of corrupt readings found in the UBS4 that should be discarded.

The Johannine Comma, on the other hand, has much on its side in the area of internal considerations. It not only fits the structure, style, and immediate context of I John, but its omission presents a bald grammatical difficulty—three neuter nouns governed by a masculine participle. Let the Comma stand, and "the power of attraction" goes into effect. The Comma thus passes the seventh and final test.

==APPENDIX C==
===A NOTE ON BAPTIST HERITAGE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT===

The inseparable relationship that exists between the inspiration and preservation of Holy Scripture has been an important issue particularly in Baptist heritage. For example, the London Confession of 1644, a creed of the English Baptists reads:
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures . . . In this written Word God hath plainly revealed whatsoever he hath though needful for us to know . . .

It was clear to the English Baptists that God had plainly revealed to them His words in the Holy Scriptures which had been inspired and passed down through the ages as the absolute "Rule of Faith." Only through perfect preservation could this possibly have been true.

In 1833, the American Baptists drew up the New Hampshire Confession. Concerning the Scriptures, it reads,
We believe [that] the Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter . . . and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

This could only be true if God's words had been inspired and perfectly preserved.
For Baptists to deny the perfect providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures is to defy their Baptist heritage as well as the general consensus of the Christian Church for most of history prior to the modern era. Unfortunately, this has occurred all to often as Baptist schools and seminaries are rejecting the doctrine of preservation in favor of naturalistic textual criticism. Michael Maynard, while speaking of Baptist scholars such as A.T. Robertson, J.A. Broadus, J.P. Boyce and D.A. Carson, all of whom regarded the Received Text as an inferior Greek text, argues that they "betrayed their Baptist heritage when they adopted the textual theories of the Anglican scholar F.J.A. Hort, the Presbyterian B.B. Warfield, and the Lutheran K. Tischendorf."

With regard to the Johannine Comma, Baptist views in favor of the passage have long been in print. John Gill (1748) and Andrew Fuller (1815), two Baptist scholars, argued for the authenticity of the Comma long before A.T. Robertson came along. When Robertson, however, did show up on the scene, he was completely oblivious to the views of his Baptist predecessors; he did not even acknowledge them in his works on textual criticism. All in all, Baptist heritage and the Johannine Comma goes all the way back to the Swiss Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Waldensians et. al. All of these groups have their place in the lineage of modern-day Baptists, and all of them held to the Received Text of Scripture which included I John 5:7-8 as it stands in an Authorized King James Bible. Therefore, to deny the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is in a sense to deny Baptist heritage.

==WORKS CONSULTED==
Aland, Barbara and [[Kurt Aland|Aland, Kurt]]. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [[1987 AD|1987]].

Ankerberg, John and Weldon, John. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996.

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Borger, Rykle. "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta." In Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3
(1987). 280-284.

Borland, James. A General Introduction to the New Testament. Lynchburg: VA: University
Book House, 1995.

. "Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate
Inerrancy." In Journal of the Evangelical Thelogical Society (December 4, 1982): 499-506.

Brown, R.E. The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Burgon, John W. "The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels." In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed. by Jay P. Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

Butler, Charles. "To Rev. Herbert Marsh." Horae Biblicae. London: W. Clarke & Sons, 1817.

Clarke, Adam. The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.

Combs, William. "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus." In Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1
(Spring 1996): 35-53.

Custer, Stewart, The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. Greenville, SC: BJU
University Press, 1981.

Dabney, Robert. The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek. Edinburgh:
Banner of Trust, 1967.

Dobbin, Orlando T. The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation. London: Bagster, 1854.

Ebrard, John. Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860.

Elliot, J.K. "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions." In A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of
the Greek New Testament. New York: E.J. Brill, 1987.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lee. (LB IX
199-284) [May, 1520]. Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980]: 381-389).

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Forster, C. A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1867.

Gill, John. An Exposition on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1980 [rep].

Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984.

The Greek New Testament (4th Edition). Ed. by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Greene, Oliver. The Epistles of John. Greenville. SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966.

Hayes, D.A. John and His Writings. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1917.

Jaqub of Edessa. On The Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries. Translated by R.E. Brown in The
Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Jerome. The Canonical Epistles. Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate
Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

Jonge, Henk J. Personal Lettter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).

"Letter IX." In The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1988.

Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

McGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1911.

[[Bruce Metzger|Metzger, Bruce]]. The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition). Germany: United
Bible Societies, 1993.

[[Jack Moorman|Moorman, Jack]]. Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, NJ: Bible for
Today, n.d.

."Principles of Bible Preservation." O Timothy Magazine. Vol. 9, Issue 8. Ed. by David
W. Cloud. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1992: 1-13.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolan, Frederick. Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. n.p., 1815.

Puckett, David. Class Notes—General Church History I. Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern
Seminary, 1998.

[[Gail Riplinger|Riplinger, Gail]]. New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

. Which Bible is God's Word? Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1933.

[[Peter Ruckman|Ruckman, Peter]]. Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1998.

."James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible - Errors 6&7." In Bible Believer's
Bulletin (March, 1996): 1-5

Scott, Ernest. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press,
1963.

Scrivener, F. H. A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th Edition.
London: G. Bell, 1984 (rep).

Tidwell, Josiah. John and His Five Books. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today (2nd Edition). Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994.

Vedder, Henry. The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Griffith
and Rowland Press, n.d.

Victor of Vitensis. Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov. 2.82 in CSEL 7, 60. Translated by
Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995. 43.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

[[James White|White, James]]. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

[[Benjamin Wilkinson|Wilkinson, Benjamin]]. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." In Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

==Footnotes==

* [1] The author recognizes that much of the evidence presented is based upon internal considerations which are subjective by their very nature.What one may see as support for a given reading, another might view as an indictment against that very same reading.Nevertheless, the fact that support can be gleaned for the Comma from internal evidence shows that the issue is not a foregone conclusion.The internal evidence, which greatly supports the passage, serves to supplement what critics term a weak attestation in the realm of external evidence.
* [2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1933),6: 199.
* [3] Josiah Tidwell, John and His Five Books(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937),90-92.
* [4] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1860),5.
* [5] The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
* [6] The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.
* [7] Robertson,6:200.
* [8] David Puckett, Class Notes—General Church History I (Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Seminary, 1998),10.Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge (gnwsiV) and so were called Gnostics (Gnwstikoi).
* [9] I John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2.
* [10] Robertson,6:201
* [11] Ibid.
* [12] Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984), 167.
* [13] D. A. Hayes, John and His Writings(New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1917),161.
* [14] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860),3.
* [15] Henry Vedder, The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Rowland Press),99.
* [16] Ibid.,101.
* [17] Ernest Scott, The Literature of the New Testament(New York: Columbia University Press, 1963),260.
* [18] Vedder, 103-132
* [19] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994),649.
* [20] Robert Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek(Edinburgh: Banner of Trust, 1967),306.
* [21] In the Greek, the phrase reads, "oi treiV eiV to en eisin" which literally translates "and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One."
* [22] Dabney,307
* [23] The spelling of the word "Saviour" as retained in the Authorized Version is preferred by the author.The modern English translations remove the "u" from this title.As a result, a seven-letter word (7= the number of God) becomes a six-letter word (6=the number of man).
* [24] Dabney,307
* [25] Because the foundation of all accusations against I John 5:7-8 rests upon textual evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, this analysis will be more lengthy and complex than the others.
* [26] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger (4th Edition), The Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994).
* [27] Ibid.,819; Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647-648.
* [28] Ibid.
* [29] Robertson,6:241.
* [30] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647.
* [31] Oftentimes, the marginal readings are hastily dismissed.However, what are they doing in the margins?It makes more sense that someone would put them there because they recognized the passage to be missing.
* [32] The reading of the Comma found in Codex Britannicus is given byOrlando T. Dobbin in The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation (London: Bagster, 1854) on page 10.His source is Erasmus' Apologia ad Jacobum Stunicam (1522), reprinted in the Basle edition (1540) of Erasmus' works, pp. 238-296.Codex Britannicus reads: "7oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to pna 8kai outoi oi treiV en eisi, kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pna, to udwr, kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisi ei thn marturian twn anwn lambanomen."The underlined phrase is not found in Codex Monfortianus, so the two manuscripts cannot be the same.Furthermore, Erasmus could not have gotten the Comma from the Monfort Codex.
* [33] William Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996), 49.
* [34] Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),76.
* [35] Desiderius Erasmus,Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lei (LB IX 199-284) [May, 1520] . Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980] , 381-389).
* [36] Henk J. de Jonge, Personal Letter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).
* [37] The reading of the Comma found in the Monfort Codex could not have come from the Compultensian Polygot.Although this edition was first printed in 1514, Cardinal Ximenes did not get permission from Pope Leo X to publish the work until 1520.It was not until 1522 that this edition actually began to circulate and eventually come into Erasmus' hands.
* [38] Erasmus first included the Comma in his third edition which did not appear until 1522.The reading of the Comma as found in the Codex Monfort does not match Erasmus' reading in his third edition in several places.For example, the last clause (and these three agree in one) is not in the Monfort, but included in Erasmus' third edition.Furthermore, the six articles are omitted and agoin and pneuma are transposed.Erasmus included the articles and did not swap agion pneuma.
* [39] Peter Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"Bible Believer's Bulletin (March 1996),3.
* [40] Adam Clarke, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.), 6: 928-929.
* [41] Charles Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1867), 126.
* [42] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978),7: 323-324.
* [43] Maynard,41.A more thorough discussion of the syntactical problem that arises if the Comma is omitted can be found under the Syntactical Analysis.
* [44] Metzger, Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament,648.
* [45] Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11] ; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.
* [46] Charles Butler, "To Rev. Herbert Marsh," in Horae Biblicae (London: W. Clarke and Sons, 1817), 403-406.
* [47] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,648.
* [48] F.H.A. Scrivener,A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th Edition
(London: G. Bell, 1984 [rep] ), 403.
* [49] Maynard,15-16.For a specific identification of these five Syriac editions, one should consult page 51* of the UBS4.
* [50] Jaqub of Edessa, On the Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries, translated by R.E. Brown in The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),778.
* [51] Maynard,96.
* [52] Tremellius' words were provided and translated by Rykle Borger into German in "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta," in Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3 (1987) 280-284.Michael Maynard, in turn, translated Borger's German into English (A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 , 95).
* [53] Maynard,96.
* [54] Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"3.
* [55] Maynard,334-339
* [56] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, II-- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),3: 598.
* [57] John Gill,An Exposition on the Old and New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 [rep.] ),907-908.
* [58] R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),782.
* [59] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926),5:423.
* [60] Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),285.
* [61] Maynard,62.
* [62] Metzger, Early Versions, 304.
* [63] Maynard,62.
* [64] J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," in A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament(New York: E. J. Brill, 1987),280.
* [65] Maynard,62.
* [66] Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version.(Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, n.d.),29.
* [67] Gail Riplinger, Which Bible is God's Word (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995),53.
* [68] Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," in Which Bible?Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975),212.
* [69] Ibid.,210.
* [70] Ibid.
* [71] Ibid.,211.
* [72] Ibid. [emphasis mine] .
* [73] Ibid.
* [74] Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (n.p., 1815), xvii-xviii.
* [75] For a complete listing of Old Latin manuscripts which contain the Comma, one should consult Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (332-348).
* [76] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions,482.
* [77] Maynard,343-348.
* [78] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the New Testament, 648.
* [79] Jerome, The Canonical Epistles.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),41.
* [80] Scrivener,650.
* [81] Maynard,343.
* [82] Besides what has been mentioned in this brief textual analysis, there is a lot more evidence for the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 as retained in the Textus Receptus of the AV 1611 King James Bible.For more information, one should consult Michael Maynard's astounding work, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
* [83] Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 281.
* [84] Stewart Custer made such claim in The Truth About the King James Version Controversy.(Greenville, SC: BJU University Press, 1981).He, however, argued that only 2 manuscripts contained the Comma out of 5000.Similar claims have been made in the classrooms of many colleges and universities across the country.
* [85] There are only 14 Greek manuscripts hostile to the Johannine Comma that predate the ninth century.They are as follows: a, A, B, Y, K, L, P, 048, 049, 0296, 1424, 1841, 1862, 1895.Maynard lists these in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (pp. 333-335).
* [86] Maynard,286 [emphasis mine] .
* [87] Ibid.
* [88] Robertson,5:4.
* [89] oi treiV marturounteV
* [90] pneuma, udwr, aima
* [91] Dabney,306.
* [92] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996),332.
* [93] Pater, LogoV92Agion Pneuma
* [95] The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 7: 233-234.
* [96] Ebrard,41.
* [97] Oliver Greene, The Epistles of John(Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966),191.
* [98] "Letter IX" in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller(Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, [[1988 AD|1988] ] ), 1: 708-709.
* [99] Millard Erickson,Christian Theology(Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House,1983),329.
* [100] [[Peter Ruckman] ] , [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7] ] , Why We Retain It In The Authorized Version(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d.),4.
* [101] [[James White] ] , The King James Only Controversy(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers,1995),40.
* [102] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996),8.
* [103] Erickson,327.
* [104] Ibid.[emphasis mine] .
* [105] Peter Ruckman, Biblical Scholarship(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988),105.
* [106] Jack Moorman, "Principles of Bible Preservation,"O Timothy Magazine(Vol. 9, Issue 8, 1992),2.
* [107] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today , 2nd Edition (Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994),49.
* [108] Some might criticize this perspective, claiming that inspiration cannot be equated with preservation.However, the two are inseparable.Preservation reflects inspiration.In other words, the words contained in the Received Text are inspired in the sense that they are preserved.
* [109] The "scholar" might go on to argue that no copies are perfect, so they cannot be inspired.Therefore, it is concluded that God's words are preserved in manuscript copies only as far as these copies agree with the original manuscripts.Such an argument is nonsense.When is the last time that anyone saw the original manuscripts?They passed out of existence almost 1900 years ago.Such a viewpoint essentially says that we cannot know God's very words because we do not have the inspired originals with which to compare manuscript copies to.This clearly goes against God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7 and downplays the absolute authority of Scripture.
* [110] Towns,49.
* [111] Of course, inspiration can only apply to translations that represent the pure line of Scripture.Modern versions represent a corrupt line of Scripture that was born in Egypt (a), moved to Rome (B), and eventually came to England (RSV) and America (ASV, NASV, NIV, NEB, LB, etc.).The pure line of text, on the other hand, originated in Antioch, is represented by the Old Latin, Old Syriac, German Bibles, the Textus Receptus, and the AV 1611 King James Bible.
* [112] Moorman, Principles of Biblical Preservation,4.
* [113] John Burgon, "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by Jay P. Green(Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990),A-7.
* [114] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 511.

Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd

2011-01-19T21:03:49Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

"And These Three Are One"

A Case For the Authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]]
Rooted in Biblical Exegesis

BY

JESSE M. BOYD

WAKE FOREST, NORTH CAROLINA

22 APRIL [[1999 AD|1999]]

This exegesis is dedicated first and foremost to my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ who revealed Himself to me in the written word--perfectly preserved down through the ages and given to me in a language I can understand. Recognizing that, as [[Martin Luther]] once said, "The Bible is like a lion; it does not need to be defended; just let it loose and it will defend itself," I hereby construct this defense out of genuine gratefulness for the infallible Word of God as contained in the Authorized King James Bible. Without a perfectly preserved Written Word, I would know nothing of a personal relationship with the Living Word.

Secondly, it is dedicated to the many men, women, and children who gave their lives that I might have the Bible in English, a privilege which I do not take for granted. Thank-you for your sacrifice and may the Lord reward you richly in His kingdom.

Last, but not least, I dedicate this exegesis to my seminary professor, Dr. David Black, whose books have had a profound effect on my acquisition of a working knowledge of the Greek language. No biblical scholar that I have had contact with has exhibited such humility and self-sacrificing devotion toward his students. The reasons for differing with Dr. Black in opinion with regard to the authenticity of [[1 John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] are to be laid out in this paper. Despite disagreement, however, he holds my highest respect as a Man of God. I pray, Dr. Black, that you would consider my presentation, acknowledging that this passage does not deserve the hasty dismissal it so often receives.

"And after him was Shammah the son of Agee the Hararite. And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, where was a piece of ground full of lentiles: and the people fled from the Philistines. But he stood in the midst of the ground, and defended it, and slew the Philistines: and the LORD wrought a great victory."
-II Samuel 23:11-12
-Jesse M. Boyd

==AND THESE THREE ARE ONE==
[[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]], commonly referred to as the [[Johannine Comma]], has been one of the most hotly debated passages with regard to its authenticity for over a century.

Because it is one of those few passages included in the [[Textus Receptus]] which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts, many a student has paced his study for hours struggling with the question as to whether or not the Comma is a legitimate part of the Holy Scriptures. The hasty dismissal of this passage in most modern versions of the Bible is largely due to the fact that it is only found in eight of the five hundred Greek manuscripts that witness to the fifth chapter of [[1 John|I John]]. Consequently, it is almost unanimously regarded among modern textual critics as a later scribal emendation.

The primary English translation that contains the Johannine Comma is the Authorized [[King James Bible]] which is based upon the Greek [[Textus Receptus]]. The passage reads:
* 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Most modern translations ([[NAS]], [[NIV]], [[RSV]], [[NLT]], [[LB]] et. al.), on the other hand, are based upon the Alexandrian text-type tradition (i.e. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus). These versions commonly read as does the [[NIV]]:

* 7 For there are three that testify: * 8 the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

As anyone can clearly see, there is a substantial omission and consequent mix-up of the text. The modern versions arrive at such a rendering by completely removing verse 7, as found in the AV; then, the phrase "in the earth" is excised and the first phrase of verse 8 (There are three that bear witness) becomes verse 7.Thus, the entire arrangement and sense of the passage is altered.

Unfortunately, this altering of the text is often accepted without question. In fact, the issue is rarely, if ever, reasoned through in modern times. Accusations against the passage's authenticity are simply announced as though they were facts. Such conclusions imply that there is no evidence that can be mounted in favor of the Comma's genuineness. This, however, is far from the truth. The purpose of this study is to construct such a case. In doing so, the author will apply ten exegetical tools to the text of I John 5:7-8, gearing them toward the issue of authenticity. The overall purpose of such exegesis is not to prove genuineness although the author would concede to such a conclusion. Rather, the evidence will show that a case for authenticity deserves a hearing as much, if not more than a case for spuriousness. The issue, in other words, is not settled as most critical commentators would assert; there are no foregone conclusions. After all, the burden of proof lies with the accuser whose responsibility it is to prove that the text is an emendation. The exegesis that follows will at the very least cast a shadow of doubt on the accusation itself therefore precluding its ability to be proven.[1] May God Almighty guide this quest which seeks, above all, to magnify and establish his perfectly preserved Word. []

==Historical Analysis==

The epistle of I John was probably written late in the first century (ca. 90) from Ephesus by none other than the Apostle John. The intended audience is not exactly clear; however, the lack of personal references suggests that it was written to Christians all across Asia Minor. The same can be said for John's Gospel which was also written from Ephesus in the same general time period (ca. 85-90).It is interesting to note the literary coherence that exists between these two separate New Testament writings. The well-known Greek scholar, A.T. Robertson, once wrote, "in the whole of the First Epistle [1 John|I John] there is hardly a single thought that is not found in the Gospel [John]."[2]This coherence has been considered even more evident than that which exists between Luke and Acts. Such a fact has led some to believe that I John served as preface or dedicatory epistle to the Gospel of John, for both Books are characterized by repetition, contrast, parallelism, personal elements, profound spirituality, and doctrine.[3]Historically speaking, it is very possible that the Gospel of John was attached to the epistle as it was sent out to the addressees. I John was to be read as an introduction or commentary on the teachings of the Gospel. John Ebrard writes:

It [1 John|I John] bears the stamp of a preface or dedicatory epistle. The Apostle addresses himself to specific readers, and holds communion, person to person, with them, in that we mark the essence of the epistle; but he does this on occasion of another communication, to which this is attached, and to which it refers; and therefore, in its form, it is no epistle, no simple and direct substitute of oral speech, but an address uttered on occasion of the reading of another and different communication.[4]
The exhortations contained in I John were uttered by the Apostle on occasion of the contents contained in the Gospel. Having understood the principles of Christians fellowship promulgated in the Epistle, the reader could proceed to understand the entire basis of his fellowship, the life and work of Jesus Christ as promulgated in the Gospel.

Regarding the issue at hand, such a distinct literary/historical coherence fully supports the inclusion of the Johannine Comma. The resounding theme of the [[Gospel of John]] is the divinity of Jesus Christ. Such is summed up in [[John 10:30]], when Jesus says, "I and my Father are one." This same theme is prevalent in the Epistle, being concisely and clearly stated in 5:7-8.The Comma truly bears coherence with the message of John's Gospel in this sense. It serves as an occasion to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity as the original readers prepared to study the attached Gospel. Although Christ's divinity is inferred throughout the epistle, one is not confronted with such succinct declaration as is conveyed in the Comma.If this passage is omitted, it seems that the theme of John's Gospel would lack a proper introduction.

It is interesting to note that one of the earliest allusions to the Johannine Comma in church history is promulgated in connection to the thematic statement made by the Lord in [[John 10:30]].[5]Cyprian writes around [[250 AD|A.D. 250]], "The Lord says 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[6]The theological teaching of the Comma most definitely bears coherence with the overriding theme of John's Gospel. There is no reason to believe that the verse is not genuine in this sense, for it serves as a proper prelude to the theme of the Gospel which, historically speaking, most likely accompanied the Epistle as it was sent out to its original audience.

The heresy of Gnosticism is also of notable importance with regard to the historical context surrounding the Johannine Comma. This "unethical intellectualism" had begun to make inroads among churches in John's day; its influence would continue to grow up until the second century when it gave pure Christianity a giant struggle.[7]Generally speaking, Gnosticism can be described as a variety of syncretic religious movements in the early period of church history that sought to answer the question, "What must I do to be saved?" The Gnostic answer was that a person must possess a secret knowledge.[8]One of the major tenets of Gnosticism was the essential evil of matter; the physical body, in other words, was viewed as evil. According to this line of thought, Jesus Christ could not have been fully God and fully man, for this would have required him to posses an evil physical body.

The seeds of the Gnostic heresy seem to be before John's mind in his first epistle; nine times he gives tests for knowing truth in conjunction with the verb ginwskw (to know).[9]This being said, the Johannine Comma would have constituted an integral component of the case the Apostle made against the false teachings of the Gnostics, especially with regard to the nature of Christ. Robertson notes that John's Gospel was written to prove the deity of Christ, assuming his humanity, while I John was written to prove the humanity of Christ, assuming his deity.[10]He goes on to say, "Certainly both ideas appear in both books."[11]If these notions are true, then the Comma is important to John's polemic. Jesus Christ, the human Son of God, is the eternal, living Word (cf. [[John 1:1]]).The Word, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, bears witness to "he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ" ([[1 John 5:6|I John 5:6]]).This assertion would have flown right into the face of Gnosticism.

On the flip side of the coin, the Gnostics would have completely disregarded the truth promulgated in the [[Johannine Comma]]. In fact, they may have excised it from the text in the same way that Marcion took a butcher knife to the New Testament in the second century. Also, the Arian heresy, which taught that Jesus was not God but a created being, grew out of Gnosticism. In fact, it was widespread in the Church during the third and fourth centuries. Not long after the Council of Nicea ([[325 AD|A.D. 325]]), an ecumenical council that denounced Arianism, "the whole world woke from a deep slumber and discovered that it had become Arian."[12]Perhaps the prevalent influences of these heresies were responsible for the text falling out of many manuscripts and versions of the [[New Testament]]. This hypothesis is at least as plausible as competing theories which suppose that someone added the verses to combat heretical teaching.

==Literary Analysis==

In addition to the matter of historical context, the literary context of [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7]]-[[1 John 5:8|8]] demands our attention. All three levels of literary analysis—canonical, remote, and immediate contexts—are important. With regard to the text's place in the New Testament canon, the Johannine Comma is the only clear affirmation of the [[Trinity]] throughout the entire [[New Testament]]. Apart from it, the triune nature of God is only arrived at after having pieced numerous passages together (e.g. [[Matthew 28:18]] + [[John 10:30]] + [[John 1:1]] + [[Acts 5:3]]-[[Acts 5:4|4).If a later scribe interpolated the passage to make a case for the Trinity, there are many other places that it could have been inserted so as to disguise its spuriousness. For example, the statement "these three are one" would have made a nice addition to the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" in [[Matthew 28:19]].
The Johannine Comma also fits the remote context of the entire epistle of I John. This can be seen by focusing upon the book's genre. I John has long been classified as an epistle proper, a letter written to simply edify other believers in the faith. However, it lacks the external form as is characteristic of other New Testament epistles. I John contains no formal greeting or benediction, and the author and readers are not mentioned or specified. Hayes argues, "There is no suggestion of any particular occasion for the writing of I John. It might have been written at almost any time and in almost any place and under almost any conditions. Its contents are suitable for all times and places and conditions of men."[13]These facts have caused some to cast aside the notion of "epistolary form" in favor of the theological treatise such as is found in the Book of Hebrews. However, this classification also has its problems because I John is not "a production sent forth in the form of a treatise, but a thoroughly epistolary outpouring of thought and feelings."[14]

Perhaps the best classification of I John can be arrived at by blending epistle and treatise. Vedder argues that the affinities of this book are with the Wisdom literature. He writes, "The lack of continuity of thought, so perplexing to those who persist in regarding this as epistolary in literary form, becomes appropriate and even characteristic in a composition of the Wisdom order."[15]In other words, one sees a collection on brief essays or thought, more or less connected to a general theme - the fellowship of the believer. "A brief prologue states this theme, and an equally brief epilogue sums up what the writer regards as the chief things established by what he has written."[16]One, however, cannot completely dismiss the epistolary connotation. I John is a letter in which the author expresses a personal relation to a definite class of readers. "The writer is concerned throughout with a given situation. He takes for granted that his readers are acquainted with the persons and events he has in mind, and makes allusions, in almost every paragraph, to which the clue has now been lost."[17]With all of this in mind, the word "Epistolary Treatise" can be coined to fit I John. The Book contains numerous brief discourses dealing with a wide range of subjects. At the same time, however, while the Apostle chooses not to use the set epistolary forms, he approaches the readers as a community, briefly addressing them in the prologue (1:1-4) as well as the epilogue (5:21).Furthermore, the theological discussions contained therein are laced with personal emotion and feeling which is common in New Testament epistles.

How does the genre of I John relate to the Comma? If the book is properly recognized as an "Epistolary Treatise," then the theological teaching contained in 5:7-8 fits the structure of the epistle neatly. Such a statement, in fact, would be expected. The Epistle of I John can be broken down in the following manner:

I. Prologue (1:1-4)

II. Our Advocate (1:8-2:2)

III. Obedience (2:3-6)

IV. Purpose (2:12-14)

V. Love of the World (2:15-17)

VI. Antichrist (2:18-28)

VII. Character of God's Children (2:29-3:12)

IX. Love (3:13-24)

X. Test of the Spirit (3:24-4:6)

XI. God is Love (4:7-21)

XII. Victory of Faith (5:1-5)

XIII. Three Witnesses (5:6-13)

XIV. Prayer (5:14-17)

XV. Epilogue[18]

Each aforementioned section, excluding the prologue and epilogue, constitutes a brief discourse on a different theological topic. While no particular order is apparent, each discourse serves to heighten the readers understanding of Christian fellowship, the overriding theme of I John.

The Comma is found in the midst of a brief discourse dealing with three witnesses. This discourse contributes to the overall theme of the Book by promulgating a consequence of Christian fellowship, the verification of Christ's credentials. The Comma, nicely aligned with the structure of the entire book, shows plainly that Christ is one with the Father and the Spirit as he bears witness in heaven. At the same time, his baptism, crucifixion, and the earthly ministry of the Holy Spirit bear witness on earth. It is these witnesses that verify Christ's identity as the Son of God. In light of these facts, the believer can have fellowship with God Almighty. If the Comma is omitted from the passage, the structure breaks down. The theological argument of 5:6-12 becomes vague and one is left trying to figure out how to apply these verses. They most definitely do not fall in line with the preceding discourse (Victory of Faith) or the one that follows (Prayer).

Finally, I John 5:7-8 fits the immediate context; in fact, it is an indispensable component of the surrounding verses. [[Bruce Metzger|Metzger]], in his [[Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament]], argues that "as regards intrinsic probability, the passage [[[The Johannine Comma]]] makes an awkward break in the sense."[19]Upon close examination of the immediate context, however, one finds that this assertion is far from true. For example, if the Comma is omitted, verse 6 and verse 8 are thrown together, "which gives a very bald, awkward, and meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession."[20]Furthermore, the omission causes the concluding phrase of verse 8 (and these three agree in one) to contain an unintelligible reference.[21]What is "that one" (to en) to which "these three" are said to agree? In other words, "that one" in verse 8 which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced does not have antecedent presence in the passage. "Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute."[22]The passage makes absolutely no sense if the Comma is omitted. The phrase "in earth" in verse 8 as well as the entire ninth verse would also have to be knocked out to regain the sense because both infer that the "witness of God," as promulgated in the Comma, has already been introduced.

In a slightly broader immediate context, John has asserted in the previous six verses that faith is the bond of the believer's spiritual life and his consequent victory over the world. Such faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth by which it is to be assured is none other than the Sonship and Deity of Jesus Christ (cf. I John 5:5, 11, 12, 20).This warrant is first presented in 5:6, in Jesus' earthly ministry and the witness of the Holy Ghost speaking by way of inspired men. In 5:7, it comes in the words of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the unity of Christ with God the Father. Thirdly, the warrant appears in 5:8 through the work of the Holy Spirit in conjunction with Christ's baptism and crucifixion, all of which verify the atoning work of the Saviour.[23]Finally, as promulgated in 5:10, the warrant lies in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him his divine charge. "How harmonious is all thus if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it, the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (5:9) is struck out."[24]

==FAITH'S SOLID WARRANT==
Textual Analysis[25]
The brunt of the argument against the authenticity of the Johannine Comma lies within the realm of textual criticism. Unfortunately, as mentioned, it is one of the few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from the Greek manuscript tradition. As a result, most modern critics toss it into the wastebasket. An example of such hasty dismissal can be seen in the United Bible Societies' fourth edition of The Greek New Testament.[26]In the critical apparatus, as well as Metzger's accompanying commentary, the evidence presented is misleading and deceptive to the average reader.[27]One is led to believe, as Metzger claims, that the passage is absent from virtually every known Greek manuscript; it is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers; and it is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions.[28]Though such assertions may have a ring of truth to them, they are broad generalizations that result from a biased evaluation of all the evidence. Perhaps the best approach to constructing a case for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma involves a point by point refutation of Metzger's arguments, for they bespeak the opinions of most critical scholars. As noted, the purpose of this study is not to prove the authenticity of the Comma, such a conclusion can only be accepted by faith in the preserved Word of God. Nonetheless, the external evidence in favor of the passage is far greater than modern critics would have us to believe by their tales of the "stupidity of Erasmus."[29]

Metzger's presentation of the manuscript evidence is misleading.

The first claim that Metzger makes is that the Comma "is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight . . . the eight manuscripts are as follows . . ."[30]Next, he proceeds to list the manuscripts, but only catalogues seven (61, 88, 221, 429, 636, 918, 2318).Where is the eighth manuscript? The critical apparatus of the UBS4 adds Codex Ottobonianus (629) which dates to the fourteenth century, but Metzger fails to mention it. One is forced to wonder about this initial contradiction. Four of these eight manuscripts contain the Comma written in the margin (88, 221, 429, 636), while the other four include it as part of the text.[31]

It is interesting to note that both Metzger and the UBS editors fail to list the [[Codex Britannicus]] as evidence for the Comma.[32]Their reason for doing this is probably the same reason that all modern textual critics ignore the codex--they equate it with Codex Monfortianus (61).The so-called "evidence" for this miscalculation centers around Erasmus, the man whose Novum Testamentum Graecum was utilized by the AV translators. The well-known anecdote says that Erasmus was criticized for omitting the Comma from his first and second editions. He argued that no Greek manuscripts contained the reading and supposedly challenged his critic, Edward Lee who charged him with being an Arian for omitting I John 5:7-8,to produce a manuscript with the passage. Only then, would he include it in his edition.[33]Codex Monfort is supposedly the manuscript that was hastily drawn up to meet Erasmus' demands; the ink was supposedly still wet when Erasmus received it. Nevertheless he is said to have inserted the verse, defending his actions by stating that he had received a transcript of the Comma from Codex Britannicus (what is believed to be the Codex Monfort).[34] First of all, the argument that Erasmus challenged Lee is completely unsound. A careful perusal of Erasmus' words in his Liber tertius quod respondet . . . Ed. Lei yields evidence to the contrary:

Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.[35]

Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript. Rather, he simply argues that Lee can legitimately reproach him with negligence if and only if he can demonstrate that manuscripts could have consulted containing I John 5:7-8.As Henk J. de Jonge states, "Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access."[36]In light of these facts, there never was a manuscript produced to convince Erasmus. If there had been, Erasmus would have surely been smart enough to detect such a forgery.

Although [[Codex Monfortanius]] is dated by modern critics to the sixteenth century (ca. 1520), one must wonder where the reading of I John 5:7-8 came from. It did not come from Ximene's Polygot, for it was not published until 1522.[37]It did not come from Erasmus because it does not match his Greek in scores of places.[38]Rather, the literal affinities of Monfortanius are with the Syriac Version which was not known in Europe until after 1552.[39]Besides, this codex has been dated by Adam Clarke to the thirteenth century.[40]

As far as Codex Britannicus is concerned, it cannot be equated with the Monfort, because the respective renderings of I John 5:7-8 are quite different.On the one hand, the Monfort omits the articles in verse seven (o, o, to) and transposes "agion pneuma."In verse 8, the articles (to, to, to), a conjunction (kai), and the last phrase (kai oi treiV eiV to en eisin) are missing.Britannicus, on the other hand, includes the articles and the final phrase but omits the adjective "agion" in verse 8.Where did Erasmus acquire the last clause for his third edition?He surely did not get it from the Compultensian Polygot or Codex Monfort, but from Britannicus. This is why Monfortanius "cannot possibly be the same with the Codex Britannicus."[41]At this point, no date as been assigned to this manuscript.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from the Early Church Fathers is misleading.

After promulgating his faulty catalogue of Greek manuscripts containing the Comma, Metzger claims that "the passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers." Such a bold assertion is also misleading because Gregory of Nazanzius (a Greek Church Father from the fourth century), although not directly quoting the passage, specifically alludes to the passage and objects to the grammatical structure if the Comma is omitted (Metzger, on the other hand, would have one to believe that the Greek Church Fathers knew nothing of the passage). Gregory writes:

What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he had not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity?[42]

In this brief excursus, Gregory objects to the use of a masculine plural participle with three neuter nouns ( [7] m:pl = [8] n+n+n ) which, of course, is the case if the Comma is omitted. In other words, "Gregory of Nazianzus objected to the omission of 1 John v.7f."[43]

Metzger's presentation of evidence with regard to the Trinitarian Controversies is misleading.

Metzger goes on to claim that if any of the Greek Fathers had known of the Comma, they would have "most certainly employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian)."[44]There is some truth to this statement in that Metzger is referring to specific controversies that had taken place by A.D. 323 (e.g. Council of Nicea). There is no extant written evidence that the Comma was ever cited in these major Trinitarian controversies, but an argument from silence proves nothing. Nonetheless, Metzger completely ignores the fact that the verse was employed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 485;by doing so, he would have us to believe that I John 5:7-8 was never used as proof of the Trinity and/or deity of Christ in the numerous debates that arose and plagued the Church concerning these issues. Prior to this council, a conflict had arisen between the Arians (led byKing Huneric the Vandal) and a group of bishops from North Africa. An assembly was called at Carthage where I John 5:7-8 was insisted upon by Eugenius, the spokesman for the African bishops, as he confessed his faith and the faith of his brethren:

. . .and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son.It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, 'there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.[45]

In spite of this example, those that oppose the verse remark that the unanimous testimony of the 400 bishops in no way proves that the Comma was in all of their copies. Secondly, they assert that as no dispute took place, but the conference was broken up immediately; therefore, the Arians did not accept the passage. Charles Butler, in Horae Biblicae, offered an interesting 12-point rebuttal to the opposers of the Comma. Such is a lengthy treatise and will not be employed word for word but adequately summarized.

Charles Butler pointed out that the Catholic Bishops were summoned to a conference where they most certainly expected the tenets of their faith to be attacked by the Arians (the Arians denied the deity of Jesus Christ). Therefore, they would have been very careful about what they included in their proposed confession, seeing as all power was in the hands of their angry Arian adversaries. The bishops included the Johannine Comma as a first line of defense for their confession of Christ's deity. If the Arians could have argued what present-day opposers of the verse say (The Comma was is no Greek copy and in only a few Lain copies), what would the bishops have replied? If we are to believe that they were unable to hold out one Greek copy, no ancient Latin copy, and no ancient father where the verse could be found, the Arians could have rightly accused them on the spot of following a spurious passage and being guilty of palpable falsehood. It is almost certain that these bishops would not have exposed themselves to such immediate and indelible infamy. They volunteered to include the Comma in their confession despite the existence of many long treatises that had been written by the ancient defenders of the Trinity in which the verse had not been mentioned. Such treatises would have served as ample evidence, but the bishops cited I John 5:7-8 instead. Obviously, they had no fear that any claim of spuriousness could be legitimately dashed upon them. If the verse were attacked, the bishops could have produced Greek copies, ancient Latin copies, and ancient fathers in its defense. The Comma, however, was not attacked by the Arians and the Catholic bishops (302 of them) were exiled to different parts of Africa, exposed to the insults of their enemies, and carefully deprived of all temporal and spiritual comforts of life. It is ludicrous to think that these men could undergo such persecution and suffering for their belief of the deity of Jesus Christ only to insert a spurious verse into God's Word as their first line of defense.[46]The African bishops must have had weighty testimony to the Comma in their manuscripts. As a result, they were able to successfully employ the passage as they defended their faith before the Arian accusers.

Metzger's presentation of evidence from ancient versions is misleading.

Metzger follows up with yet another misleading claim in his textual commentary. He claims that "the passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethioptic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin . . ."[47]This allegation is misleading because, as Scrivener asserts, "scarcely any Armenian codex exhibits it, and only a few recent Slavonic copies, the margin of a Moscow edition of 1663 being the first to represent it."[48]F. H. A. Scrivener opposes the inclusion of the verse, and in that aspect, agrees with Metzger. However, he does admit that it appears in a few copies of the Armenian and Slavonic, both being ancient version. Metzger's blanket statement overlooks this fact.

As far as the Old Syriac is concerned, there is good evidence that the Comma appeared in its early manuscripts. First of all, it must be noted that when Metzger or the UBS editors refer to the Old Syriac, they are simply alluding to a collation of "five printed editions [sys(1910), syc(1904), syp(1920), syh(1909), syr(1788)(1803)(1889)], each of which is based on one or two MSS, or a slender portion of all extant Syriac MSS."[49] Just because I John 5:7-8 does not appear in any of these five editions does not mean that it was not present in any Syriac copies. In fact, the evidence yields quite the contrary. For example, Jaqub of Edessa, a well-known church writer from the seventh century who wrote in Syriac, inscribed, "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."[50]Here, Jaqub is clearly making reference to the three earthly witnesses in conjunction with the three heavenly witnesses as promulgated in I John 5:7-8 with the Comma inserted. It must have been in some Syriac copies of his day in order for him to be able to make a legitimate allusion to it.

Tremellius' Grammatica Chaldea Et Syra (1569) is also of notable importance with regard to Metzger's blanket generalization of the Syriac version. Tremellius translated the Comma from Greek into Syriac and placed it in the margin of his codex, as most modern accounts boldly announce, but he left a blank space in the text where the passage should appear.[51]Modern scholars such as Scrivener and Metzger do not mention this. If Tremellius was so sure about the spuriousness of the verse, why did he take the time to translate it? Better yet, why did he place it in the margin, hesitate to disturb the verse numbering, and leave a blank space for it? Tremellius must have been aware of its presence in the Syriac tradition. He himself wrote:

But because it was omitted not only in the printed version, but only in the manuscript Heidelberg codex, nor was read in all the old Greek codices, I did not dare to insert it into the text.So in order that there might not be a disturbance of the verses, and so that their numbers may correspond to the numbers on the verses of the Greek text, I have passed from the sixth to the eighth verse.[52]

As Maynard correctly concludes:

How often is a blank space provided for 1 John v.7f in an English translation today, let alone a Greek edition? The four questions together could indicate that Tremellius must have had doubts. His actions are not in accord with his words. Perhaps, with a blank space, he wanted not only to retain the correspondence with numbers but to ensure that a future Syriac editor would not overlook this spot. (Modern editors do not hesitate over a 'disturbance of the verses.' They merely split verse six in half.)[53]

Another Syriac edition worthy of consideration is Gutbier's Lexicon Syricum concerdatntiale omnes N.T. Syriaci which appeared in 1664.This version contains the Comma as well as Acts 8:37, another non-majority reading from the Textus Receptus that is commonly omitted by modern scholars. Also, of notable importance, is the fact that the Old Syriac has Textus Receptus readings for Matthew 6:13; Luke 2:33; 23:42; and John 9:35, against the UBS4.[54]It is very possible that the Syriac also agreed with the Textus Receptus on its rendering of I John 5:7-8 as well. After all, as Maynard shows, several indexes include numerous Syriac manuscripts as containing the fifth chapter of I John, some even dating back to the sixth century. Unfortunately, these have been neglected, and it remains unknown as to whether or not they contain the Comma.[55]Therefore, Metzger cannot legitimately claim that the passage is not found in the Old Syriac version, especially since he has obviously not evaluated all the evidence. Jaqub of Edessa, Tremellius, and Gutbier had to get the Comma from somewhere.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Old Latin Version is misleading.

Metzger also says that the Comma does not appear in the Old Latin in its earliest form (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine). This too, is a deceptive statement, for both Tertullian (ca. 200 AD) and Cyprian (ca. 250) cite or make an allusion to the passage. If they did not have it in their Latin manuscripts, where did they get it from? Tertullian is not cited as a witness to the Comma in the critical apparatus of the UBS4.However, less than a century after the death of John the Apostle (possibly as early as A.D. 200), Tertullian wrote:

. . .which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.[56]

This is a clear reference to the teaching found in the Comma. On another occasion, Tertullian, according to John Gill, quotes the passage in question.[57]Athanasius (ca. 350) is likewise not mentioned in the UBS' critical apparatus. However, according to R.E. Brown, Athanasius quotes the passage at least three times in his works.[58]Around A.D. 250, Cyprian, as noted, wrote, "The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one, and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[59]Cyprian, less than two hundred years after the writing of I John, is expressly quoting the Johannine Comma. He must have got it from an early form of the Old Latin in spite of Metzger's claims. It is interesting that even he admits that "Our information concerning the Old Latin translation of the New Testament is very defective . . ."[60]

The [[Old Latin]] translations of the New Testament are very important in establishing the authenticity of I John 5:7-8, for [[Latin]] was the major language up through the Middle Ages. The [[Old Latin]] is not the same as the [[Latin]] of Jerome's [[Vulgate]], which by the way, does include the Comma. The Old Latin predates the Vulgate text and is found well into the Middle Ages. Did the [[Old Latin]] consistently contain the [[Johannine Comma]]? For the answer to this question, one must turn to the Tepl Codex, a fourteenth century manuscript written in [[Middle High German]]. This Codex is significant because "the Tepl Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome text from a non-Vulgate MS, w."[61]Metzger acknowledges that w contains "Old Latin readings in Acts and the Catholic Epistles."[62]It comes as no surprise that the Tepl contains the Comma exactly as it is found in the Textus Receptus. As Maynard argues, its text "has a remarkable longevity into the 15th century. This indicates that German MSS ought not to be dismissed as mere copies of Latin Vulgate MSS."[63] According to Elliot, the Tepl comes from the Old Latin and has its affinity with w (an Old Latin manuscript from the 15th century).[64]Latin manuscript w is dated to the 15th century while the Tepl is dated to the 14th.Had this been reversed, the German Tepl would be regarded with much less value. But, as it is, this Codex actually predates a pre-Jerome Latin text (w). The Tepl and the Old Lain manuscripts together "provide pre-Reformation support for non-majority readings of the Authorized Version."[65]The Tepl not only contains I John 5:7-8 as it is found in the [[Textus Receptus]], but Acts 8:37; 9:5-6; and 15:34, all of which are omitted in modern English versions.

The Old Latin from which the Tepl descended is also found in the manuscripts of the [[Waldensians]]. History teaches that the [[Waldensians]] were those Christians who lived in the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to about A.D. 120.Their Old Itala Bible was translated in the early second century. The Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth and thirteenth centuries. As Jack Moorman argues, "Research into the text and history of the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the Traditional Text."[66]Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate, "It [the Waldensian Bible] was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . . the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe."[67]

The translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible did not simply include the Comma because it was in Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament; they had four Bibles on their tables that had come under heavy Waldensian influence.[68]All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus Receptus. The first of these was the Geneva Bible which was translated in 1557 at Geneva, the center of the Swiss Reformation. The basis for the Geneva Bible was the French Olivetan which was translated by Olivetan, a Waldensian pastor and relative of John Calvin. This fact illustrates "how readily the two streams of descent of the Received Text, through the Greek East and the Waldensian West, ran together."[69]Secondly, the AV translators utilized the Greek text of Theodore Beza, Calvin's successor at Geneva. With Calvin's help, Beza brought out a later edition of the Textus Receptus. Wilkinson argues:

This later edition of the [[Received Text]] is in reality a Greek New Testament brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -- German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles [emphasis mine].[70]

The third Bible influenced by the Waldensians and utilized by the AV translators was the Italian Diodati. Diodati, an Italian, succeeded Beza in the chair of Theology at Geneva and translated the received text into Italian. "This version was adopted by the Waldenses, although there was in use at that time a Waldensian Bible in their own peculiar language."[71]The fourth Bible of interest is the German Tepl which, as previously mentioned, was a translation of a pre-Jerome Latin text into German. "This Tepl manuscript represented a translation of the Waldensian Bible into the German which was spoken before the days of the Reformation."[72]In addition to these four Bibles, there is reason to believe that the King James translators had access to at least six Waldensian Bibles written in the old Waldensian vernacular, all of which contained the disputed passage.[73]

In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse byFrederick Nolan. In Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church (distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan. Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently, enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. All of this provided Nolan "with abundant proof on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly Apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate."[74]Therefore, claims that the Comma made its way into the King James Version by way of the Roman Catholic Vulgate are false.

The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regard to I John 5:7-8.The passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.[75]Studies show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the minority text of a and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the Textus Receptus in 20 places as opposed to 18 places with Vaticanus and 4 places with Sinaiticus.[76]It is conceivable that these manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remain unexamined. It is very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.[77]Dogmatic conclusions, much like Metzger's, cannot be drawn without evaluating all the evidence.

Metzger's presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.

The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.[78]True, it does not appear in Codex Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome?In fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.[79]If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts, what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus (988).Scrivener said that the passage "is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps 49 out of every 50 of its manuscripts."[80]Moreover, against Metzger's claim of lateness, the Comma is claimed by others to be found in twenty-nine of the fairest, oldest, and most correct of extant Vulgate manuscripts.[81]

As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger's external evidence for the omission of I John 5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive at almost every point. Thus, he fails to prove that the passage is an interpolation. The textual evidence supporting the Comma is much greater than most critics would have us to believe; an honest evaluation of the evidence yields a case for inclusion that is at least as plausible as one for exclusion.[82]Once again, the burden of proof lies with the accuser. Metzger falls short.

If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John 5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14).Even Aland, the UBS' own, admits that the true text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.[83]The majority, however, is not as extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.[84]Such a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5.This is hardly the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 498 are hostile to the Comma. This is substantially less than 5000.Of those 498 manuscripts, only 14 of them predate the ninth century.[85]The same scholars that reject the Comma criticize the Textus Receptus for following so-called "late manuscripts" when they use the same manuscripts as the bulk of their evidence against I John 5:7-8.In other words, 97 per cent of their evidence is late. Maynard asserts:

Opposers of 1 John v.7f are not admitting, that after four centuries (the 17th to 20th) of scholars searching for MSS they could not even muster 3% of all their evidence against 1 John v.7f as being significant, by their standards. Only 14 Greek MSS (2.8%) of the 482 hostile MSS [Maynard arrives at this number from the fact that Metzger considers 16 of the 498 manuscripts to be worthless and irrelevant] they would consider boasting about, were dated from the ninth century or earlier.[86]

Another "reason that the absence of 1 John 5:7-8 in Greek MSS before the sixteenth century does not constitute disproof is that God is not obligated to have a regular transmission through Greek MSS for every authentic verse."[87]God may have allowed I John 5:7-8 to fall out of 14 Greek manuscripts prior to the ninth century and many thereafter for the purpose of drawing our attention to the doctrine of the Trinity, for after all, the Comma is the most concise and clear statement regarding this subject throughout all of Scripture. Such a scenario is at least plausible and worthy of consideration.

==Lexical Analysis==

The Johannine Comma contains one word that is worthy of lexical analysis with regard to the issue at hand—logoV. This is a well-known term employed with respect to Jesus Christ in Johannine Christology. The second person of the Trinity is referred to as the "Word." Such a metaphor is unique to the Apostle John and can also be found in [[John 1:1]], 14; I John 1:1; and [[Revelation 19:13]].This fact, in and of itself, argues heavily for the authenticity of the verse, for as Robertson admits, the occurrence of the metaphor in the three aforementioned books is "an incidental argument for identity of authorship."[88]LogoV, being a favorite of John's with reference to Christ, was appropriate to use when referring to Christ's divine eternality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit as is the case in the Comma. On the other hand, if the passage is an interpolation that was added to prove the trinity, the forger almost certainly would not have employedlogoV overuioV as found in the common Trinitarian triage of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:19).This issue of tradition, however, will be discussed more in depth under the traditional analysis.

==Syntactical Analysis==

Of significant interest with regard to the Johannine Comma is the issue of syntax. Plainly speaking, if the Comma is omitted, John's word choice seems extremely awkward and unusual with respect to the general rules of the Greek language. The masculine article, numeral, and participle (There are three that bear witness[89]) are made to agree with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water, and blood[90]).As Robert Dabney argues, "This is an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty."[91]John most definitely would not have made such a connection, for his structure and syntax are altogether simple and understandable. In attempting to excuse this awkward choice of words, Daniel Wallace states "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender."[92]However, the personification of the water and blood does not become evident unless the Comma is present. It is true that the Spirit (pneuma), a neuter word, is sometimes used in connection with masculinity because the author is referring to the Holy Spirit as a person, a member of the Godhead; but inanimate objects are rarely, if at all, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides, Wallace's answer does not explain verse 6.There, Pneuma, as the third person of the Trinity, is not provided as a masculine to personalize the Spirit's witness; it remain neuter.

If the disputed verse is allowed to remain, the three neuter nouns agree with the two masculines (Father & Word[93]) and one neuter of verse 7 (Holy Spirit[94]), and, according to the rules of Greek syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected to them. Such is termed the "power of attraction" and is common throughout the New Testament and John's writings in particular. As previously noted, Gregory of Nazanzius, an early Greek Church Father, objected to the omission of the Comma for similar syntactical reasons (ca. 385).[95]

==Structural Analysis==

From the above structural analysis, a contrast of two groups of three becomes apparent. It is common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of two, three, or four. Examples of this include Proverbs 30; [[Amos 1:3]], 6, 9, 13 etc.; the visions of the butler and baker in Genesis 40; and the combination of Christ's words in Matthew 12:14.It is in accord with Biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in I John 5, "there are three that bear witness" will be repeated at least twice.

The Comma is also structurally important with reference to verse 9. I John 5:7 describes the witness of God; I John 5:8 describes the witness of men. "If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater" (5:9).Without the Comma, 5:9 has no antecedent and consequently, makes no sense.

==Rhetorical Analysis==

In the realm of rhetorical criticism, the Johannine Comma seems to conform to the Apostle John's literary style. As far as tone is concerned, "there reigns throughout the Epistle a firm and manly tone, the perfect opposite of all effeminate and sentimental enthusiasm" (e.g. 1:6-10; 2:19; 3:6-10; 4:1-2; etc.).[96]This tone is likewise prevalent in the Comma which tersely presents the truth of an important doctrine, leaving the reader with no room to question.

John's writings are also characterized by contrasts. According to Tidwell, "the ordinary contrasts cover almost the same words and ideas of the Gospel such as life and death, light and darkness, righteousness and unrighteousness with several others and with the addition of Christ and anti-Christ." The Comma, in particular, feeds the contrast which John creates between Jesus Christ and Antichrist (cf. 2:18-23).Jesus Christ is God (cf. 5:7-8).Antichrist, on the other hand, is the one who denies this fact (cf. 2:22).

One final aspect of John's style that is worthy of consideration with respect to the Comma, is parallelism. I John is filled with both positive and negative parallelism. For example, the Apostle writes in 1:5, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all," and in 1:9, "Forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness." I John 5:7-8, the Comma included, also contains parallelism, a synthetic type to be exact. The three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, and Holy Ghost) and the three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, and blood) are actually the same three witnesses. As Oliver Greene argues, "Therefore, since the Trinity - the Father, Word, and the Holy Ghost - bear record in heaven, it is these three who also bear record in earth."[97]In other words, the promulgation of the three earthly witnesses serves to expand or elaborate on the role of the three heavenly witnesses. The earthly witnesses are sourced in the heavenly witnesses. The "blood" refers to the blood of God (cf. Acts 20:28) while the "water" is a reference to Jesus Christ at his baptism. The "Spirit," of course, is the third member of the Godhead. This particular type of parallelism is very common with John and could conceivably be called a chiasmus in this particular instance.

A. Father

B. Word <------------------------------Heavenly Witnesses

C. Holy Ghost

A'.Blood

If the Comma is omitted, the chiasmic structure falls apart.

Altogether, the Johannine Comma reflects John's rhetorical style. Fuller points out, "The connexion of the passage is altogether in its favor. The phraseology is that of the Apostle John; so that if the words are not his, it must have been the most successful imitation of him that can be imagined."[98]

==Tradition Analysis==

With regard to tradition criticism, it is the tradition that the Comma does reflect that is significant. Had a redactor added the passage to argue for the Trinity, he would have almost certainly utilized the common Trinitarian formula as found in Matthew 28:19, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." This formula "became part of a very early tradition in the church."[99]It was employed in the Didache (7.1-4) as well as Justin's Apology (1.61).The strength of forgery is similarity not uniqueness. Ruckman argues, "What would have possibly been gained by inventing a different formula than the one given in Matthew 28, which every Christian knew by heart?"[100]Also, Christ is referred to as the "Son of God" numerous times in I John. A true forger would have no doubt utilized "Son" instead of "Word" so as to further disguise his redactional efforts.

==Theological Analysis==

The theological significance of the Johannine Comma goes without saying. As noted, it is the only clear affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in all of Scripture. Thus, when James White argues that "the reality is that the amount of variation between the two most extremely different manuscripts of the New Testament would not fundamentally alter the message of the Scriptures," he is wrong.[101]When John Ankerberg concludes that textual differences only apply to 1% of the text, and none of them are doctrinally important, he is incorrect.[102]The Trinity is a doctrine that sets Christianity apart from all other religions—one God in three persons. It is interesting to note Erickson's argument for the Trinity in his Christian Theology. He begins by stating, "One text which has traditionally been appealed to as documenting the Trinity is I John 5:7 . . .unfortunately, the textual basis is so weak . . . If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere."[103]He then proceeds over the next five pages to exegete and systematize numerous passages that imply this doctrine. He concludes, "Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly stated, the Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing."[104]It seems rather strange to base a fundamental Christian doctrine upon suggestion. Perhaps this is why so many cults ([[Jehovah's Witnesses]]) are able to manipulate the Bible so as to assert that Jesus was not God. After all, the Watchtower Bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses rejects the Comma.

A matter of theological significance that transcends the text of I John 5:7-8 concerns the issue of final authority. Is the Bible we hold in our hands the Word of God or not? If it contains errors, it can only be said that the Scriptures contain the Word of God. This is Neo-orthodoxy. When critical scholars boastfully claim that the Comma is not a legitimate part of Scripture, they are questioning the authority of the Book and disregarding the traditional text that brought about the Reformation. Questioning, when it comes to the text of Scripture, is the starting point of all kinds of apostasy. Is the final authority in the Book, or is it in what man says about the Book? In other words, should one reject the Comma because man says it doesn't belong, or should it be accepted by faith because it has been preserved in a Bible that God has blessed for 450 years."It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man" ([[Psalm 118:8]]).The King James Bible has unquestionably produced more spiritual fruit than all of modern English versions put together. "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20).Whatever may have be wrong with modern English versions, "There is one thing that is certain, they produced an ignorance of the CONTENTS OF THE BIBLE THAT IS ABSOLUTELY APPALLING."[105]

The accusations against I John 5:7-8 that are hurled by modern scholars are typical of attacks that rain down on numerous other places in the text of the Bible ("I know your King James Bible says this, but it really should say this . . .").Such assaults sound too strikingly familiar to Satan's discourse in the Garden of Eden. The "Father of Lies" did not argue with Eve about whether or not there was a God, or whether the doctrine of the Trinity was true, or even whether God's Word was inspired. No, apostasy began when Satan questioned God's words and placed doubt in Eve's heart. "Eve, I know that God said you would die if you eat the fruit, but he really meant that you would be just like him, a god" (author's paraphrase). Jesus warns in Mark 4:15, "Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts." When doubt is given a beachhead, all other defenses soon fall. Hasty dismissals of I John 5:7-8 have served to do nothing but cast doubt upon the sovereignly preserved Word of God. According to Moorman, the entire matter boils down to one question: "Has God preserved His word and kept intact His original work of inspiration or has He not? It is a fact that the one common denominator in all the varied errors, deviations, and heresies is that their advocates will first criticize the standard received edition or translation of Scripture."[106] A heretic has never been able to construct an argument without altering the words of the King James Bible. Interesting?

Any proper approach to the text of Scripture, including I John 5:7-8, must take into account the doctrine of preservation. In Psalm 12:6-7, God promised to preserve His words for every generation. The same God who inspired the original Greek autographs is most certainly powerful enough to preserve them in the copying process as Greek manuscripts multiplied. If this is not true, what would have been the purpose in inspiring the Scriptures if men were just going to mutilate and corrupt them? Preservation does not just extend to the general message of the Bible, but to the very words themselves (cf. Matthew 4:4; 5:18; 24:35).This being true, the perfectly preserved Word of God existed down through the ages and will be in existence until Christ returns. It is true that not even two out of the five thousand extant Greek manuscripts agree with each other 100% of the time. However, this body of manuscripts most definitely does not represent all of the manuscripts that ever existed. Many have since rotted away. Therefore, in light of God's promise of preservation, it is not illogical to think that manuscripts once existed that completely agreed with the traditional text of the Textus Receptus and consequently, contained the Johannine Comma. Maybe Erasmus, Luther, Stephanus, Beza, the Elzivir Brothers, and the King James translators did not have such manuscripts, but why couldn't Almighty God have guided them into selecting the right words from the body of manuscripts they did possess? After, all God is in control of His words. Towns writes, "If an all-powerful God cannot control the vehicle of His self-revelation, then His power and nature can be questioned."[107]

A common assertion among conservative evangelicals is that the inspiration of Scripture only applies to the original autographs. This, however, cannot be true in light of God's promise of preservation.[108] The word "Scripture" is never used in the Bible to refer to the originals (cf. Acts 8:32; 17:11).Besides, in II Timothy 3:16, when Paul discusses the inspiration of Scripture, he does so in a context in which he says that Timothy had known the Holy Scriptures as a child (cf. 3:15).Paul is not referring to the original autographs of the Old Testament, for they had passed out of existence long before the Apostle was even born. Paul was saying that the Scripture Timothy had read as a child were inspired.They were not the original autographs, but they were inspired in the sense that they had been perfectly preserved by God Almighty. Some might argue that this interpretation is faulty because it calls for the fusing together of two verses.The "scholar" may see it that way, but the Bible was written for the common man (cf. Psalm 119:99-100).A simple reading (minus grammatical analysis, verb parsings, theological presuppositions, etc.) of this passage clearly shows that Paul is not limiting inspiration to the originals. Such a faulty interpretation is based on theological presupposition.[109] Towns writes, "The Bible . . . is as perfect as God, and its perfection extends to every word."[110] Most evangelicals will accept this statement as truth, but such a statement is meaningless if there is not immediate access to these perfect words. Immediate access is available by way of divine preservation. Not only is God's Word perfectly preserved after the Original Autographs, but according to Psalm 119:89; John 12:49-50; 17:8, it precedes them.

The doctrine of inspiration does not only apply to the original autographs nor does it apply exclusively to the original languages of the autographs. IfGod preserved his Word as He promised, then inspiration can apply to translations.[111] When is the last time that Greek and Hebrew was used by God to reach someone with the Gospel? If the original languages were the only source of inspired Scripture, then the ancient Hebrews must have been a extremely ignorant, for the Pentateuch could not have originally been written in Hebrew. After all, "Moses was learned in all the ways of the Egyptians" (Acts 7:22), and someone had to translate what Moses said in Egyptian to Pharaoh back into Hebrew. Yet, the Jews believed their Hebrew Scriptures were inspired and still do today. Moorman makes a point worthy of consideration: "as so few can read the original languages, God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations. . . If a translation cannot be equated with the actual Word of God, then ultimately this leads to the situation that one must know Hebrew and Greek before they can be saved, or built up in the faith."[112]

Another principle to keep in mind with reference to "questionable passages" (e.g. I John 5:7-8) is that they must be approached with an attitude of faith. As Hebrews 11:6 asserts, "Without faith it is impossible to please him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." Dean Burgon once wrote, "There exists no reason for supposing that the Divine Agent, who in the first instance thus gave to mankind the Scriptures of Truth, immediately abdicated His office and took no further care of His work; that He abandoned those precious writings."[113] The whole crux of the matter boils down to faith, plain and simple. Unfortunately, most modern critics (Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Metzger, the UBS, et. al,) approach the sacred science of textual criticism with presuppositions against inerrancy. They treat the Bible as if it were just another book. Such an attitude cannot be founded upon faith, and consequently, is not pleasing to God.

Much more could be said about the relationship between inspiration and preservation, but the question must come back to the Johannine Comma. In this excursus, the author has shown that a case can be constructed for the genuineness of the text of the three heavenly witnesses. As to how strong a case, the author will leave it up to the reader's individual judgment. The author does not say that his case is all conclusive, but on the other hand, by no means can it be said to be conclusive that the text should not be included. In the case of the accusation against the King James Bible, the burden of proof, as has been noted several times, LIES WITH THE ACCUSER. The accuser cannot prove his case; therefore, the author accepts the Comma's authenticity by faith., a faith that is backed up with plenty of evidence. God, in His sovereignty, saw to it that the text was preserved in the Bible's of the Reformation and the best-selling book of all time—The Authorized King James Version. As to why the passage fell out of so many Greek mss, only the Almighty knows. It is at least possible that the text was excised from the Greek tradition by heretics who didn't want to believe that Jesus was God. Nonetheless, it was preserved in the Latin text through the use of the Latin speaking church.

The whole matter can be concluded with a question? Who would be honored more by the presence of the Comma in Holy Scripture—Jesus Christ or the Devil? The answer goes without saying. In the words of Gail Riplinger, "Guesses or God, fear or faith, haughty or humble. These are the perpetual options for the Christian."[114]

==Homiletical Analysis==

It is the author's opinion that the Johannine Comma is authentic Holy Scripture. Therefore, it can and should be preached from. Two approaches can be taken—an exegetical and a topical. An exegetical approach might utilize the surrounding context. A possible outline might look something like this:
Proposition: In I John 5:4-10, John promulgates two facts about biblical faith.
I. THE FIRST FACT: Biblical faith overcomes the world - 5:4-5

A. The inevitability of overcoming – 5:4

1.Stated – "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world."

2.Elaborated – "and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith."

B. The identity of the overcomer – 5:5

1.What he does – "Who is he that overcometh the world"

2.What he believes – "but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God."

II. THE SECOND FACT: Biblical faith is sanctioned.

A. Sanctioned by truth – 5:6

B. Sanctioned by three heavenly witnesses (Father, Word, Holy Ghost) – 5:7

C. Sanctioned by three earthly witnesses (Spirit, water, blood) – 5:8

D. A Parenthetical Explanation – 5:9

1.The supremacy of the witness of God – "If we receive the witness of men,

witness of God is greater."

2.The clarification of the witness of God – "for this is the witness of God which he

hath testified of his Son."

E. Sanctioned by the believer's spiritual consciousness – 5:10

1.Stated positively – "He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in

himself"

2.Stated negatively – "he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he

believeth not the record that God gave of his Son."

A topical approach to I John 5:7-8 might focus upon the nature of the Trinity. A possible outline could resemble the following.

Proposition: In I John 5:7-8, the Apostle explicates the triune nature of God from two

perspectives.

I. THE FIRST PERSPECTIVE: A Heavenly Perspective – 5:7

A. Delineated – "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word,

and the Holy Ghost."

1.The first person of the Trinity – "Father"

2.The second person of the Trinity – "Word"

3.The third person of the Trinity – "Holy Ghost"

B. Described – "and these three are one"

II. THE SECOND PERSPECTIVE: An Earthly Perspective – 5:8

A. Delineated – "And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the

water, and the blood."

1.The third person of the Trinity – "Spirit"

2.The second person of the Trinity—Jesus at his baptism—"water"

3.The first person of the Trinity—the blood of God shed on the cross—"blood"

B. Described – "and these three agree in one"

==APPENDIX A==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA—EARLY EVIDENCE FOR AND AGAINST===
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts = 5,000 +
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts that contain I John 5 = 498
Total examined extant Greek manuscripts hostile to I John 5:7-8 = 492

Historical Breakdown of Hostile Evidence
2/498 – 4th century (a, B) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
2/498 – 5th century (A, 048) = 0.4% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 6th century (0296) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
0/498 – 7th century = 0.0% of hostile evidence
1/498 – 8th century (Y+) = 0.2% of hostile evidence
8/498 – 9th century (K, L, P, 049, 1424+, 1841+, 1862, 1895) = 1.6% of hostile evidence
484/498 – post 9th century = 97.2% of hostile evidence
* 30 mss. – 10th century
* 80 mss. – 11th century
* 79 mss. – 12th century
* 98 mss. – 13th century
* 119 mss. – 14th century
* 55 mss. – 15th century
* 15 mss. –16th century
* 6 mss. – 17th century
* 1 mss. – 18th century

Historical Breakdown of Favorable Evidence
A.D. (ca.)
* 200 – Tertullian
* 250 – Cyprian
* 318 – Athanasius
* 350 – Idacius Clarus
* 380 – Priscillian
* 385 – Gregory of Nazanzius
* 390 – Jerome
* 450 – Contra Varimadum
* 450 – Latin mss. m
* 485 – Council of Carthage
* 485 – Victor of Vitensis
* 500 – Latin mss. r
* 527 – Fulgentius
* 570 – Cassiodorus
* 636 – Isidore of Seville
* 650 – Codex Pal Legionensus
* 700 – Jaqub of Edessa
* 735 – mss. used by Venerable Bede
* 850 – Codex Ulmensis

*In addition to the aforementioned favorable evidence, the Comma can be traced back through the Waldensian Church to the translation of the Old Italic in the 2nd century. Moreover, in the 7th century, at least 12 Old Latin mss contain the passage; at least 21 in the 8th century, and at least 189 in the 9th century. Over 6,000 Old Latin manuscripts remained unexamined to this day. It is also probable that the Comma was found in the Old Syriac tradition as far back as its translation. The Armenian and Slavonic versions bear witness to the Comma in several copies, and the German versions prior to Luther bear consistent testimony to it.

RESULT: The Johannine Comma enjoys at least 19 pieces of concrete favorable evidence
predating the ninth century; hostile witnesses, on the other hand, can only claim 14 Greek manuscripts and an argument from silence with regard to the patristic evidence. The external evidence is not as one-sided as critical scholars would have us to believe. In fact, critical scholars accept other readings on far less evidence (e.g. Matthew 11:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Or, consider Mark 16:9-20. Scholars rejects this passage as an emendation based upon 3 Greek mss. One of those witnesses, Vaticanus, is actually favorable to the reading because it exhibits a vacant space where the eleven verses should be.

==APPENDIX B==
===THE JOHANNINE COMMA AND THE SEVEN NOTES OF TRUTH===

Having refuted the customary arguments against the Johannine Comma, it becomes appropriate to evaluate the textual evidence. This is best done perhaps by applying Dean Burgon's "Seven Notes of Truth." Burgon, a contemporary of Westcott and Hort, believed that the science of textual criticism should be approached with an attitude of faith, for the Bible is an inspired Book; it should not be treated and evaluated like any other book. "The Bible is different because it is divine." Therefore, Burgon set forth seven tests of truth that he believed would best help a person evaluate the evidence for any given passage. Concerning these tests, he comments:
. . . although no doubt it is conceivable that any one of the seven might possibly in itself suffice to establish almost any reading practically this is never the case. And why? Because we never meet with any one of these Tests in the fullest possible measure. No test ever attains to perfection, or indeed can attain. An approximation to the Test is all that can be expected, or even desired. And sometimes we are obliged to put up with a very slight approximation indeed. Their strength lies in their cooperation.

For this cause, the author shall apply the "Seven Notes" to the Johannine Comma on a pass or fail basis. By their cooperation, it will be seen that a case can be constructed for the inclusion of this important passage within the text of Holy Scripture.

==The Test of Antiquity==

"The more ancient testimony is probably the better testimony." A word of caution, however, is in order. The "oldest is best" philosophy is sound only on the surface, for there is much more to judging the age of a reading than simply determining the age of any given manuscript. After all, the oldest reading is not necessarily found in the oldest manuscript. For example, although Codex Vaticanus (ca. 4th century) is far older than the few Greek mss that do contain the Comma, the passage is quoted by Cyprian, as noted, in the third century. In that respect, the reading of Comma is actually older than the oldest Greek manuscript which attests to I John 5.

When considering this test, one must not forget that the worst corruption to which the New Testament has perhaps ever been subjected originated within a hundred years or so after the originals were penned. According to Scrivener, the African Church corrupted the New Testament as far back as A.D. 150. Moreover, an ancient Western (Rome) Church Father by the name of Caius (2nd century) once wrote:

For this reason is it they have boldly laid their hands upon the divine Scriptures, alleging that they have corrected them. And that I do not state this against them falsely, any one who pleases may ascertain. For if any one should choose to collect and compare all their copies together, he would find many discrepancies among them . . . their disciples were very zealous in inserting the corrections, as they call them, i.e., the corruptions made by each of them . . . For one may compare those which were formerly prepared by them with those which have been afterwards corrupted with a special object, and many discrepancies will be found. And as to the great audacity implied in this offence, it is not likely that even they themselves can be ignorant of that. For either they do not believe that the divine Scriptures were dictated by the Holy Spirit, and are thus infidels; or they think themselves wiser than the Holy Spirit, and what are they then but demoniacs [emphasis is mine]? Nor can they deny that the crime is theirs, when the copies have been written with their own hand; nor did they receive such copies of the Scriptures from those by whom they were first instructed in the faith and they cannot produce copies from which these were transcribed.

The point of drawing attention to this fact is that it is not the oldest document for which one must search, but the oldest reading. Does the Johannine Comma represent an early reading? Tertullian and Cyprian cite the passage in the third century; it is utilized at the Council of Carthage in 485; and it can be traced back through the Old Latin of the Waldensian Church (The Old Itala was translated in the second century). In addition to this, one must consider that all extant Greek papyrii are silent to the issue. However, Tertullian, Cyprian, the African Bishops at Carthage, and the Waldenses had to get the reading from somewhere. Therefore, the Comma passes the test of antiquity.

==The Test of Consent of Witnessss==

By this, Burgon means number. Unfortunately, most modern textual critics argue that manuscripts should be weighed rather than counted. Burgon asserted that this maxim "may be said to embody much fundamental fallacy." The traditional text of the Textus Receptus, for the most part, is based upon the readings of the majority of manuscripts. However, these manuscripts are generally late (8th-11th centuries) and consequently discarded by modern critics such as the UBS editors. The question that such critics refuse to ask is where did this great number of manuscripts come from? They must have been copies of earlier uncials and/or papyri that were perhaps lost or destroyed. If ten students were asked to copy a paragraph off the chalkboard, and nine of the ten copies agreed, which best represents the true text? Logic is in favor of the nine copies as opposed to the one disparate copy. The same holds true for New Testament manuscripts. Logic is in favor of the great majority of witnesses. As convincing as this argument is, it must not be utilized as the sole test of truth, for there are several passages in the Textus Receptus that are not found in the great majority of witnesses (e.g. I John 5:7-8). Therefore, as James Borland argues, "Number must be considered as an important factor, but only as one of the tests of truth." Nonetheless, the Comma enjoys at least 19 witnesses prior to the ninth century and numerous witnesses thereafter. Granted, the number is a minority. Were there only two or three witnesses, the Comma could legitimately be said to have failed this test. However, 19 witnesses prior to the 9th century does not bespeak failure. I John 5:7-8 passes the test of consent of witnesses.

==The Test of Variety==

"The greater the variety of witnesses there are, the less chance there is for collusion or deceit to spring from the few." This, of course, can apply to both geographical location and kinds of witnesses. Burgon argues that this is the strongest ally that any reading can have. The Johannine Comma definitely has variety on its side, despite a weak attestation in extant Greek manuscripts. It is found in eight Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Old Syriac, various Waldensian Bibles, numerous German manuscripts, and a few Armenian and Slavonic copies. Moreover, it enjoys early patristic evidence (i.e. Cyprian, Tertullian, Council of Carthage, Cassiodorus, et. al.). These witnesses represent a wide geographical spread—North Africa, Italy, Asia Minor; Syria; the Caucasus; Russia; Germany; and even England (i.e. the work of Venerable Bede in the 8th century). The Comma passes the test of variety.

==The Test of Continuity==

A fourth test of truth considers the continuity or unbroken testimony of witnesses in favor of a particular reading. As Burgon argued, "this principle is often illustrated in the independent yet consentient testimony of the whole body of the cursives and the later uncials," not the so-called "oldest and best" readings of the modern Greek editions. For the most part, the readings contained in the Textus Receptus have continuity on their side. I John 5:7-8, for example, appears consistently throughout history from A.D. 200 to A.D. 1500 just prior to Erasmus' compiling of the first printed Greek edition. On that basis, the Comma again passes the test.

==The Test of Respectability of Witnesses==

Another test of truth involves weight or respectability. In other words, "if a manuscript proves itself to be erroneous on a frequent basis by a number of acceptable standards, then it loses its respectability." It is safe to say that both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not satisfy this category, for their differences from the majority of manuscripts as well as from each other are horrific. Therefore, they should be overlooked. Maybe modern critics should take a lesson from Erasmus when he was approached with readings from Vaticanus; he rejected them. With specific regard to the Comma, witnesses such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, orthodox African writers, the [[Vulgate]], and the Waldensian Bibles certainly stand out as respectable witnesses. Again, the text passes.

==The Test of the Evidence of the Entire Passage==

This test is concerned with the behavior of a certain witness in the immediate vicinity of the problem being considered. In other words, if a manuscript can be shown to be faulty in several instances in the context of a particular reading, then it is logical that "mistakes have a tendency to repeat themselves in the same or other shapes." With regard to the Comma, all of the above state witnesses exhibit unsullied integrity in the first few verses of I John 5.

==The Test of Internal Considerations==

This final test of truth focuses upon internal evidence, particularly of a grammatical and scientific nature. "If a particular reading is grammatically, geographically, scientifically, and historically impossible, then it must not be accepted if other readings do not present such problems." For example, the UBS4 accepts a variant reading in Luke 23:45 that is a scientific impossibility. Each of the synoptic Gospels contains the phrase "skotoV egeneto" (there was darkness) (cf. Matthew 27:45; Mark 15:33; Luke 23:44). However, Luke adds an additional phrase regarding the sun. The Textus Receptus reads "kai eskotisqh o hlioV" (and the sun was darkened) while the UBS4 reads "tou hliou eklipontoV" (The sun was eclipsed). Like the UBS's faulty readings in Matthew 1:7,10, this reading implies an error in Luke's original autograph: "A solar eclipse is impossible astronomically during the full moon of the Passover when sun and moon are 180 degrees apart in relation to the earth." Luke, being an astute physician, would not have made such a blundering mistake. This reading fails the test of reasonableness because it is scientifically impossible. Therefore, it needs to be added to the long list of corrupt readings found in the UBS4 that should be discarded.

The Johannine Comma, on the other hand, has much on its side in the area of internal considerations. It not only fits the structure, style, and immediate context of I John, but its omission presents a bald grammatical difficulty—three neuter nouns governed by a masculine participle. Let the Comma stand, and "the power of attraction" goes into effect. The Comma thus passes the seventh and final test.

==APPENDIX C==
===A NOTE ON BAPTIST HERITAGE AND THE RECEIVED TEXT===

The inseparable relationship that exists between the inspiration and preservation of Holy Scripture has been an important issue particularly in Baptist heritage. For example, the London Confession of 1644, a creed of the English Baptists reads:
The Rule of this Knowledge, Faith, and Obedience, concerning the worship and service of God, and all other Christian duties, is not mans inventions, opinions, devices, laws, constitutions, or traditions unwritten whatsoever, but only the word of God contained in the Canonical Scriptures . . . In this written Word God hath plainly revealed whatsoever he hath though needful for us to know . . .

It was clear to the English Baptists that God had plainly revealed to them His words in the Holy Scriptures which had been inspired and passed down through the ages as the absolute "Rule of Faith." Only through perfect preservation could this possibly have been true.

In 1833, the American Baptists drew up the New Hampshire Confession. Concerning the Scriptures, it reads,
We believe [that] the Holy bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter . . . and therefore is, and shall remain to the end of the world, the true centre of Christian union, and the supreme standard by which all human conduct, creeds, and opinions should be tried.

This could only be true if God's words had been inspired and perfectly preserved.
For Baptists to deny the perfect providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures is to defy their Baptist heritage as well as the general consensus of the Christian Church for most of history prior to the modern era. Unfortunately, this has occurred all to often as Baptist schools and seminaries are rejecting the doctrine of preservation in favor of naturalistic textual criticism. Michael Maynard, while speaking of Baptist scholars such as A.T. Robertson, J.A. Broadus, J.P. Boyce and D.A. Carson, all of whom regarded the Received Text as an inferior Greek text, argues that they "betrayed their Baptist heritage when they adopted the textual theories of the Anglican scholar F.J.A. Hort, the Presbyterian B.B. Warfield, and the Lutheran K. Tischendorf."

With regard to the Johannine Comma, Baptist views in favor of the passage have long been in print. John Gill (1748) and Andrew Fuller (1815), two Baptist scholars, argued for the authenticity of the Comma long before A.T. Robertson came along. When Robertson, however, did show up on the scene, he was completely oblivious to the views of his Baptist predecessors; he did not even acknowledge them in his works on textual criticism. All in all, Baptist heritage and the Johannine Comma goes all the way back to the Swiss Reformation, the Anabaptists, the Waldensians et. al. All of these groups have their place in the lineage of modern-day Baptists, and all of them held to the Received Text of Scripture which included I John 5:7-8 as it stands in an Authorized King James Bible. Therefore, to deny the authenticity of the Johannine Comma is in a sense to deny Baptist heritage.

==WORKS CONSULTED==
Aland, Barbara and [[Kurt Aland|Aland, Kurt]]. The Text of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, [[1987 AD|1987]].

Ankerberg, John and Weldon, John. The Facts on the King James Only Debate. Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996.

Ante-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971.

Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325. New
York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926.

Borger, Rykle. "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta." In Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3
(1987). 280-284.

Borland, James. A General Introduction to the New Testament. Lynchburg: VA: University
Book House, 1995.

. "Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate
Inerrancy." In Journal of the Evangelical Thelogical Society (December 4, 1982): 499-506.

Brown, R.E. The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Burgon, John W. "The Traditional Texts of the Holy Gospels." In Unholy Hands on the Bible. Ed. by Jay P. Green. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990.

Butler, Charles. "To Rev. Herbert Marsh." Horae Biblicae. London: W. Clarke & Sons, 1817.

Clarke, Adam. The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.

Combs, William. "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus." In Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1
(Spring 1996): 35-53.

Custer, Stewart, The Truth About the King James Version Controversy. Greenville, SC: BJU
University Press, 1981.

Dabney, Robert. The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek. Edinburgh:
Banner of Trust, 1967.

Dobbin, Orlando T. The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation. London: Bagster, 1854.

Ebrard, John. Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860.

Elliot, J.K. "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions." In A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of
the Greek New Testament. New York: E.J. Brill, 1987.

Erasmus, Desiderius. Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lee. (LB IX
199-284) [May, 1520]. Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980]: 381-389).

Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1983.

Forster, C. A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co., 1867.

Gill, John. An Exposition on the Old and New Testaments. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1980 [rep].

Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity. Vol. 1. San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984.

The Greek New Testament (4th Edition). Ed. by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994.

Greene, Oliver. The Epistles of John. Greenville. SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966.

Hayes, D.A. John and His Writings. New York: Methodist Book Concern, 1917.

Jaqub of Edessa. On The Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries. Translated by R.E. Brown in The
Anchor Bible; Epistles of John. New York: Doubleday & Co., 1982.

Jerome. The Canonical Epistles. Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate
Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

Jonge, Henk J. Personal Lettter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).

"Letter IX." In The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller. Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle
Publications, 1988.

Maynard, Michael. A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995.

McGlothlin, W.J. Baptist Confessions of Faith. Philadelphia, PA: American Baptist Publication
Society, 1911.

[[Bruce Metzger|Metzger, Bruce]]. The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission,
and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977.

. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd Edition). Germany: United
Bible Societies, 1993.

[[Jack Moorman|Moorman, Jack]]. Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. Collingswood, NJ: Bible for
Today, n.d.

."Principles of Bible Preservation." O Timothy Magazine. Vol. 9, Issue 8. Ed. by David
W. Cloud. Oak Harbor, WA: Way of Life Literature, 1992: 1-13.

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978.

Nolan, Frederick. Integrity of the Greek Vulgate. n.p., 1815.

Puckett, David. Class Notes—General Church History I. Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern
Seminary, 1998.

[[Gail Riplinger|Riplinger, Gail]]. New Age Bible Versions. Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

. Which Bible is God's Word? Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995.

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book
House, 1933.

[[Peter Ruckman|Ruckman, Peter]]. Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1998.

."James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible - Errors 6&7." In Bible Believer's
Bulletin (March, 1996): 1-5

Scott, Ernest. The Literature of the New Testament. New York: Columbia University Press,
1963.

Scrivener, F. H. A. A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 4th Edition.
London: G. Bell, 1984 (rep).

Tidwell, Josiah. John and His Five Books. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937.

Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today (2nd Edition). Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994.

Vedder, Henry. The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem. Philadelphia, PA: Griffith
and Rowland Press, n.d.

Victor of Vitensis. Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov. 2.82 in CSEL 7, 60. Translated by
Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8. Tempe, AZ: Comma
Publications, 1995. 43.

Wallace, Daniel. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996.

[[James White|White, James]]. The King James Only Controversy. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995.

[[Benjamin Wilkinson|Wilkinson, Benjamin]]. "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated." In Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller. Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975.

==Footnotes==

* [1] The author recognizes that much of the evidence presented is based upon internal considerations which are subjective by their very nature.What one may see as support for a given reading, another might view as an indictment against that very same reading.Nevertheless, the fact that support can be gleaned for the Comma from internal evidence shows that the issue is not a foregone conclusion.The internal evidence, which greatly supports the passage, serves to supplement what critics term a weak attestation in the realm of external evidence.
* [2] A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the Greek New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1933),6: 199.
* [3] Josiah Tidwell, John and His Five Books(Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing, 1937),90-92.
* [4] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John (Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1860),5.
* [5] The fact that this allusion was made less than two centuries after the completion of the New Testament serves as convincing external evidence for the authenticity of the Johannine Comma.
* [6] The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Church Fathers Down to A.D.325(New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926), 5:423.
* [7] Robertson,6:200.
* [8] David Puckett, Class Notes—General Church History I (Wake Forest, NC: Southeastern Seminary, 1998),10.Proponents of Gnosticism claimed to possess a superior knowledge (gnwsiV) and so were called Gnostics (Gnwstikoi).
* [9] I John 2:3, 5; 3:16, 19, 24; 4:2, 6, 13; 5:2.
* [10] Robertson,6:201
* [11] Ibid.
* [12] Justo Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1 (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 1984), 167.
* [13] D. A. Hayes, John and His Writings(New York: The Methodist Book Concern, 1917),161.
* [14] John Ebrard, Biblical Commentary on the Epistles of St. John(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1860),3.
* [15] Henry Vedder, The Johannine Writings and the Johannine Problem (Philadelphia, PA: Griffith and Rowland Press),99.
* [16] Ibid.,101.
* [17] Ernest Scott, The Literature of the New Testament(New York: Columbia University Press, 1963),260.
* [18] Vedder, 103-132
* [19] Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament(Stuttgart, Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994),649.
* [20] Robert Dabney, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek(Edinburgh: Banner of Trust, 1967),306.
* [21] In the Greek, the phrase reads, "oi treiV eiV to en eisin" which literally translates "and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One."
* [22] Dabney,307
* [23] The spelling of the word "Saviour" as retained in the Authorized Version is preferred by the author.The modern English translations remove the "u" from this title.As a result, a seven-letter word (7= the number of God) becomes a six-letter word (6=the number of man).
* [24] Dabney,307
* [25] Because the foundation of all accusations against I John 5:7-8 rests upon textual evidence and the interpretation of that evidence, this analysis will be more lengthy and complex than the others.
* [26] Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger (4th Edition), The Greek New Testament (Germany: United Bible Societies, 1994).
* [27] Ibid.,819; Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647-648.
* [28] Ibid.
* [29] Robertson,6:241.
* [30] Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament,647.
* [31] Oftentimes, the marginal readings are hastily dismissed.However, what are they doing in the margins?It makes more sense that someone would put them there because they recognized the passage to be missing.
* [32] The reading of the Comma found in Codex Britannicus is given byOrlando T. Dobbin in The Codex Monfortianus: A Collation (London: Bagster, 1854) on page 10.His source is Erasmus' Apologia ad Jacobum Stunicam (1522), reprinted in the Basle edition (1540) of Erasmus' works, pp. 238-296.Codex Britannicus reads: "7oti treiV eisin oi marturounteV en tw ouranw o pathr o logoV kai to pna 8kai outoi oi treiV en eisi, kai treiV eisin oi marturounteV en th gh to pna, to udwr, kai to aima kai oi treiV eiV to en eisi ei thn marturian twn anwn lambanomen."The underlined phrase is not found in Codex Monfortianus, so the two manuscripts cannot be the same.Furthermore, Erasmus could not have gotten the Comma from the Monfort Codex.
* [33] William Combs, "Erasmus and the Textus Receptus," in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 1 (Spring 1996), 49.
* [34] Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),76.
* [35] Desiderius Erasmus,Liber tertius quo respondet reliquis annotationibus Ed. Lei (LB IX 199-284) [May, 1520] . Translated by Henk J. de Jonge in "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum" (Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 [1980] , 381-389).
* [36] Henk J. de Jonge, Personal Letter Addressed to Michael Maynard (June 13, 1995).
* [37] The reading of the Comma found in the Monfort Codex could not have come from the Compultensian Polygot.Although this edition was first printed in 1514, Cardinal Ximenes did not get permission from Pope Leo X to publish the work until 1520.It was not until 1522 that this edition actually began to circulate and eventually come into Erasmus' hands.
* [38] Erasmus first included the Comma in his third edition which did not appear until 1522.The reading of the Comma as found in the Codex Monfort does not match Erasmus' reading in his third edition in several places.For example, the last clause (and these three agree in one) is not in the Monfort, but included in Erasmus' third edition.Furthermore, the six articles are omitted and agoin and pneuma are transposed.Erasmus included the articles and did not swap agion pneuma.
* [39] Peter Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"Bible Believer's Bulletin (March 1996),3.
* [40] Adam Clarke, The New Testament: A Commentary and Critical Notes (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, n.d.), 6: 928-929.
* [41] Charles Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, (Cambridge: Deighton Bell and Co., 1867), 126.
* [42] The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978),7: 323-324.
* [43] Maynard,41.A more thorough discussion of the syntactical problem that arises if the Comma is omitted can be found under the Syntactical Analysis.
* [44] Metzger, Textual Commentary to the Greek New Testament,648.
* [45] Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov, 2.82 [3.11] ; CSEL 7, 60.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 43.
* [46] Charles Butler, "To Rev. Herbert Marsh," in Horae Biblicae (London: W. Clarke and Sons, 1817), 403-406.
* [47] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the Greek New Testament,648.
* [48] F.H.A. Scrivener,A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th Edition
(London: G. Bell, 1984 [rep] ), 403.
* [49] Maynard,15-16.For a specific identification of these five Syriac editions, one should consult page 51* of the UBS4.
* [50] Jaqub of Edessa, On the Holy (Eucharistic) Mysteries, translated by R.E. Brown in The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),778.
* [51] Maynard,96.
* [52] Tremellius' words were provided and translated by Rykle Borger into German in "Das Comma Johanneum in der Peschitta," in Novum Testamentum XXXIX, 3 (1987) 280-284.Michael Maynard, in turn, translated Borger's German into English (A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 , 95).
* [53] Maynard,96.
* [54] Ruckman, "James White's Seven Errors in the King James Bible--Errors 6 & 7,"3.
* [55] Maynard,334-339
* [56] Tertullian, Against Praxeas, II-- Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1971),3: 598.
* [57] John Gill,An Exposition on the Old and New Testament(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1980 [rep.] ),907-908.
* [58] R.E. Brown, The Anchor Bible; Epistles of John (New York: Doubleday and Co., 1982),782.
* [59] Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1926),5:423.
* [60] Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament Text; Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977),285.
* [61] Maynard,62.
* [62] Metzger, Early Versions, 304.
* [63] Maynard,62.
* [64] J. K. Elliot, "Old Latin MSS in NT Editions," in A Survey of Manuscripts Used in Editions of the Greek New Testament(New York: E. J. Brill, 1987),280.
* [65] Maynard,62.
* [66] Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version.(Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today, n.d.),29.
* [67] Gail Riplinger, Which Bible is God's Word (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995),53.
* [68] Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated," in Which Bible?Ed. by David Otis Fuller (Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975),212.
* [69] Ibid.,210.
* [70] Ibid.
* [71] Ibid.,211.
* [72] Ibid. [emphasis mine] .
* [73] Ibid.
* [74] Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (n.p., 1815), xvii-xviii.
* [75] For a complete listing of Old Latin manuscripts which contain the Comma, one should consult Michael Maynard's A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (332-348).
* [76] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions,482.
* [77] Maynard,343-348.
* [78] Metzger, Textual Commentary of the New Testament, 648.
* [79] Jerome, The Canonical Epistles.Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8(Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995),41.
* [80] Scrivener,650.
* [81] Maynard,343.
* [82] Besides what has been mentioned in this brief textual analysis, there is a lot more evidence for the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 as retained in the Textus Receptus of the AV 1611 King James Bible.For more information, one should consult Michael Maynard's astounding work, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
* [83] Aland and Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), 281.
* [84] Stewart Custer made such claim in The Truth About the King James Version Controversy.(Greenville, SC: BJU University Press, 1981).He, however, argued that only 2 manuscripts contained the Comma out of 5000.Similar claims have been made in the classrooms of many colleges and universities across the country.
* [85] There are only 14 Greek manuscripts hostile to the Johannine Comma that predate the ninth century.They are as follows: a, A, B, Y, K, L, P, 048, 049, 0296, 1424, 1841, 1862, 1895.Maynard lists these in A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (pp. 333-335).
* [86] Maynard,286 [emphasis mine] .
* [87] Ibid.
* [88] Robertson,5:4.
* [89] oi treiV marturounteV
* [90] pneuma, udwr, aima
* [91] Dabney,306.
* [92] Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996),332.
* [93] Pater, LogoV92Agion Pneuma
* [95] The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, 7: 233-234.
* [96] Ebrard,41.
* [97] Oliver Greene, The Epistles of John(Greenville, SC: The Gospel Hour, 1966),191.
* [98] "Letter IX" in The Complete Works of the Rev. Andrew Fuller(Harrisonburg, VA: Sprinkle Publications, [[1988 AD|1988] ] ), 1: 708-709.
* [99] Millard Erickson,Christian Theology(Grand Rapids, MI:Baker Book House,1983),329.
* [100] [[Peter Ruckman] ] , [[1 John 5:7|I John 5:7] ] , Why We Retain It In The Authorized Version(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, n.d.),4.
* [101] [[James White] ] , The King James Only Controversy(Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers,1995),40.
* [102] John Ankerberg and John Weldon, The Facts on the King James Only Debate (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1996),8.
* [103] Erickson,327.
* [104] Ibid.[emphasis mine] .
* [105] Peter Ruckman, Biblical Scholarship(Pensacola, FL: Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988),105.
* [106] Jack Moorman, "Principles of Bible Preservation,"O Timothy Magazine(Vol. 9, Issue 8, 1992),2.
* [107] Elmer Towns, Theology for Today , 2nd Edition (Lynchburg, VA: University Press, 1994),49.
* [108] Some might criticize this perspective, claiming that inspiration cannot be equated with preservation.However, the two are inseparable.Preservation reflects inspiration.In other words, the words contained in the Received Text are inspired in the sense that they are preserved.
* [109] The "scholar" might go on to argue that no copies are perfect, so they cannot be inspired.Therefore, it is concluded that God's words are preserved in manuscript copies only as far as these copies agree with the original manuscripts.Such an argument is nonsense.When is the last time that anyone saw the original manuscripts?They passed out of existence almost 1900 years ago.Such a viewpoint essentially says that we cannot know God's very words because we do not have the inspired originals with which to compare manuscript copies to.This clearly goes against God's promise in Psalm 12:6-7 and downplays the absolute authority of Scripture.
* [110] Towns,49.
* [111] Of course, inspiration can only apply to translations that represent the pure line of Scripture.Modern versions represent a corrupt line of Scripture that was born in Egypt (a), moved to Rome (B), and eventually came to England (RSV) and America (ASV, NASV, NIV, NEB, LB, etc.).The pure line of text, on the other hand, originated in Antioch, is represented by the Old Latin, Old Syriac, German Bibles, the Textus Receptus, and the AV 1611 King James Bible.
* [112] Moorman, Principles of Biblical Preservation,4.
* [113] John Burgon, "The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels" in Unholy Hands On The Bible, Vol. 1, Including the Complete Works of John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester, Ed. by Jay P. Green(Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Trust Fund, 1990),A-7.
* [114] Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 511.

1 John 5:8

2011-01-19T20:58:12Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

{{Template:Verses in 1 John 5}}

'''1 John 5:8''' And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Some editions of the [[King James Version]] have “spirit” not “Spirit” here. The [[Pure Cambridge Edition]] of the [[KJV]] with or “Spirit” is more accurate.

==See Also==

* [[1 John 5:7]]
* [[Comma Johanneum]]
* [[Article: And These Three Are One by Will Kinney|And These Three Are One]] Article by [[Will Kinney]]
* [[Article:And These Three Are One by Jesse Boyd|And These Three Are One]] Article by [[Jesse Boyd]]

1 John 5:8

2011-01-19T20:57:31Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

John 5:8

2011-01-19T20:52:07Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''John 5:8''' Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

Some editions of the [[King James Version]] have “spirit” not “Spirit” here. The [[Pure Cambridge Edition]] of the [[KJV]] with or “Spirit” is more accurate.

Acts 11:28

2011-01-19T20:51:45Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the Spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar.

Some editions of the [[King James Version]] have “spirit” not “Spirit” here. The [[Pure Cambridge Edition]] of the [[KJV]] with or “Spirit” is more accurate.

Acts 11:28

2011-01-19T20:51:05Z

Textus Receptus Bible: New page: Some editions of the King James Version have “spirit” not “Spirit” here. The Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJV with or “Spirit” is more accurate.

Some editions of the [[King James Version]] have “spirit” not “Spirit” here. The [[Pure Cambridge Edition]] of the [[KJV]] with or “Spirit” is more accurate.

Mark 1:12

2011-01-19T20:50:31Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''Mark 1:12''' And immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness.

Some editions of the [[King James Version]] have “spirit” not “Spirit” here. The [[Pure Cambridge Edition]] of the [[KJV]] with or “Spirit” is more accurate.

Matthew 26:73

2011-01-19T20:49:34Z

Textus Receptus Bible:

'''Matthew 26:73''' And after a while came unto him they that stood by, and said to Peter, Surely thou also art one of them; for thy speech bewrayeth thee.

Some editions of the King James Version have “betrayeth” not “bewrayeth” here. The Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJV with or “bewrayeth” is more accurate.