Editing Johannine Comma (section)

===Doctrinal Issues, Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Arianism===

Theories of both authenticity and spuriousness often interweave doctrinal and Christology concerns as part of their analysis of 'Origins', how the verse developed and was either dropped or added to Bible lines.

[[John Guyse]] gave a summary in the [http://archive.org/stream/practicalexposit06guys#page/156/mode/2up Practical Expositor] that was a type of model for many of the later doctrinal expositions by those defending authenticity from a Trinitarian perspective.
:"the ''Trinitarians'' therefore had less occasion to interpolate this verse, than the ''Antitrinitarians'' had to take it out of the sacred canon, if any, on either side, can be supposed to be so very wicked as to make such an attempt ; and it is much more likely that (Guyse describes homoeoteleuton or other omission) than that any should be so daring as designedly to add it to the text".

Often those who oppose authenticity take the position that the Comma was included in the  [[Textus Receptus]] (TR) compiled by [[Erasmus of Rotterdam]] because of its doctrinal importance in supporting [[Trinitarianism]]. The passage is often viewed as an explicit reference to the [[Trinity]] of [[God the Father|Father]], [[Jesus|Son]] and [[Holy Spirit]], with notable exceptions.

The issue of whether Trinitarian doctrine is supported by, and dependent on, the heavenly witnesses is an ongoing dispute. Theophilus Lindsay, a Unitarian who opposed the authenticity of the verse, wrote:
:"passage of scripture ... the only one which can be brought for any shew or semblance of proof of a Trinity in Unity proof of a Trinity in Unity, of three persons being one God, is 1 John v. 7."

And some defenders of authenticity place doctrinal Christology issues as only auxiliary or secondary, considering the primary issue to be the integrity of scripture.  Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall wrote:
:The genuineness of I. John, v. 7, then, is here maintained, not to secure a proof-text of the doctrine of the Trinity, but to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. As a proof-text it would be less important than many others if it were wholly unquestioned. But as a part of Holy Scripture it is to be defended with all diligence ... it is rather the integrity of Holy Scripture than the doctrine of the Trinity that is involved in the question of the genuineness of I. John, v. 7 ...

====Euthymius Zigabenus====
The early 12th cent commentary on the Letters of John by Zigabenus did not read contain the Johannine Comma. 
[http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_11871_f003r] 
[https://e-homoreligiosus.blogspot.com/2012/01/manuscript-revision-in-harmony-with.html]
[https://e-homoreligiosus.blogspot.com/search/label/COMMA%20JOHANNEUM]