Johannine Comma Timeline - Revision history

Nick at 10:28, 7 October 2025

2025-10-07T10:28:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 7 October 2025
Line 73:		Line 73:
	\|		\|
	\|-		\|-
	<center>'''~~Tertullian~~'''</center>		\|[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]
	<center><small>~~200~~ ''[[Johannine Comma and ~~Tertullian~~]]</small></center		<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>
	\|		<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>
	\|		\|:Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ '''<u>τριῶν</u>''' '''<u>μαρτύρων</u>''', ἐπὶ '''<u>πατρὸς</u>''' καὶ '''<u>υἱοῦ</u>''' '''<u>καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος</u>''', ἐφ᾿ ὧν <u>μαρτύρων</u> [https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0555.tlg005.opp-grc1:13/?highlight](Clement)
	\|<center>210-219</center>		\|<center>210-219</center>
	\|		\|
	\|		\|
	\|-		\|-
	~~[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg~~\|~~100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]~~		\|
	~~<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>~~
	~~<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>~~
	\|		\|
	\|<center>220-229</center>		\|<center>220-229</center>
Line 1,178:		Line 1,176:
	<center><small>''[[The King James Version Defended]]''</small></center>		<center><small>''[[The King James Version Defended]]''</small></center>
	\|<center>[[Edward F. Hills]]</center>		\|<center>[[Edward F. Hills]]</center>
	\|		:"The first undisputed citations of the Johannine Comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops… In the 5th century the Johannine Comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who…were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy." "Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers."

			:In the first place, how did the Johannine Comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text?… Why does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Why does it exhibit the singular combination, never met with elsewhere, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit?

			:In the second place, the omission of the Johannine Comma seems to leave the passage incomplete. For it is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things, yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three transgressions and for four, of the prophet Amos… It is in accord with biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5.7–8 the formula, there are three that bear witness, will be repeated at least twice. When the Johannine Comma is included, the formula is repeated twice. When the Comma is omitted, the formula is repeated only once, which seems strange.

			:In the third place, the omission of the Johannine Comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine Comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5.8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is "personalized," and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore, since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine Comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine Comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.<sup>[2]</sup>

			Hills said:
			:“it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church.” <small>Hills, 1984, 213.</small>
	\|<center>1950-1959</center>		\|<center>1950-1959</center>
	\|		\|
Line 1,193:		Line 1,200:
	\|<center>1970-1979</center>		\|<center>1970-1979</center>
	\|<center>Metzger</center>		\|<center>Metzger</center>
			:"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript."

			:"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215."

			:(B) Internal Probabilities.
			:(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
			:(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.

	\|[[Image:Bruce_Metzger_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Bruce Metzger]]		\|[[Image:Bruce_Metzger_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Bruce Metzger]]
	<center>'''Bruce Metzger'''</center>		<center>'''Bruce Metzger'''</center>

Nick at 10:27, 7 October 2025

2025-10-07T10:27:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:27, 7 October 2025
Line 76:		Line 76:
	<center><small>200 ''[[Johannine Comma and Tertullian]]</small></center		<center><small>200 ''[[Johannine Comma and Tertullian]]</small></center
	\|		\|
	~~\|[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]~~
	~~<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>~~
	~~<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>~~
	\|		\|
	\|<center>210-219</center>		\|<center>210-219</center>
Line 84:		Line 81:
	\|		\|
	\|-		\|-
	\|		[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]
			<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>
			<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>
	\|		\|
	\|<center>220-229</center>		\|<center>220-229</center>

Nick at 10:26, 7 October 2025

2025-10-07T10:26:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:26, 7 October 2025
Line 75:		Line 75:
	<center>'''Tertullian'''</center>		<center>'''Tertullian'''</center>
	<center><small>200 ''[[Johannine Comma and Tertullian]]</small></center		<center><small>200 ''[[Johannine Comma and Tertullian]]</small></center
			\|
	\|[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]		\|[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]
	<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>		<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>

Nick at 10:25, 7 October 2025

2025-10-07T10:25:40Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:25, 7 October 2025
Line 76:		Line 76:
	<center><small>200 ''[[Johannine Comma and Tertullian]]</small></center		<center><small>200 ''[[Johannine Comma and Tertullian]]</small></center

	[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]		\|[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]
	<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>		<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>
	<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>		<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>

Nick at 10:25, 7 October 2025

2025-10-07T10:25:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:25, 7 October 2025
Line 73:		Line 73:
	\|		\|
	\|-		\|-
	\|
	<center>'''Tertullian'''</center>		<center>'''Tertullian'''</center>
	<center><small>200 ''[[Johannine Comma and Tertullian]]</small></center		<center><small>200 ''[[Johannine Comma and Tertullian]]</small></center

	\|[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]		[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]
	<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>		<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>
	<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>		<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>

Nick at 10:24, 7 October 2025

2025-10-07T10:24:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 7 October 2025
Line 73:		Line 73:
	\|		\|
	\|-		\|-
			\|
			<center>'''Tertullian'''</center>
			<center><small>200 ''[[Johannine Comma and Tertullian]]</small></center

	\|[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]		\|[[Image:Clement_of_Alexandria_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Clement of Alexandria]]
	<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>		<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>

Nick at 04:36, 10 March 2021

2021-03-10T04:36:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:36, 10 March 2021
Line 76:		Line 76:
	<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>		<center>'''Clement of Alexandria'''</center>
	<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>		<center><small>''[[Johannine Comma and Clement of Alexandria]]''</small></center>
	\|:Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ '''<u>τριῶν</u>''' '''<u>μαρτύρων</u>''', ἐπὶ '''<u>πατρὸς</u>''' καὶ '''<u>υἱοῦ</u>''' '''<u>καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος</u>''', ἐφ᾿ ὧν <u>μαρτύρων</u> [https://scaife.perseus.org/reader/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0555.tlg005.opp-grc1:13/?highlight](Clement)		\|
	\|<center>210-219</center>		\|<center>210-219</center>
	\|		\|
Line 1,176:		Line 1,176:
	<center><small>''[[The King James Version Defended]]''</small></center>		<center><small>''[[The King James Version Defended]]''</small></center>
	\|<center>[[Edward F. Hills]]</center>		\|<center>[[Edward F. Hills]]</center>
	:"The first undisputed citations of the Johannine Comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops… In the 5th century the Johannine Comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who…were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy." "Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers."		\|

	:In the first place, how did the Johannine Comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text?… Why does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Why does it exhibit the singular combination, never met with elsewhere, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit?

	:In the second place, the omission of the Johannine Comma seems to leave the passage incomplete. For it is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things, yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three transgressions and for four, of the prophet Amos… It is in accord with biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5.7–8 the formula, there are three that bear witness, will be repeated at least twice. When the Johannine Comma is included, the formula is repeated twice. When the Comma is omitted, the formula is repeated only once, which seems strange.

	:In the third place, the omission of the Johannine Comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine Comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5.8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is "personalized," and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore, since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine Comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine Comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.<sup>[2]</sup>

	~~Hills said:~~
	:“it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church.” <small>Hills, 1984, 213.</small>
	\|<center>1950-1959</center>		\|<center>1950-1959</center>
	\|		\|
Line 1,200:		Line 1,191:
	\|<center>1970-1979</center>		\|<center>1970-1979</center>
	\|<center>Metzger</center>		\|<center>Metzger</center>
	:"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript."

	:"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215."

	~~:(B) Internal Probabilities.~~
	:(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
	~~:(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.~~

	\|[[Image:Bruce_Metzger_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Bruce Metzger]]		\|[[Image:Bruce_Metzger_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Bruce Metzger]]
	<center>'''Bruce Metzger'''</center>		<center>'''Bruce Metzger'''</center>

Nick at 04:31, 10 March 2021

2021-03-10T04:31:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:31, 10 March 2021
Line 1,207:		Line 1,207:
	:(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.		:(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
	:(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.		:(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.


	\|[[Image:Bruce_Metzger_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Bruce Metzger]]		\|[[Image:Bruce_Metzger_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Bruce Metzger]]

Nick at 04:29, 10 March 2021

2021-03-10T04:29:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:29, 10 March 2021
Line 1,175:		Line 1,175:
	<center>'''[[Edward F. Hills]]'''</center>		<center>'''[[Edward F. Hills]]'''</center>
	<center><small>''[[The King James Version Defended]]''</small></center>		<center><small>''[[The King James Version Defended]]''</small></center>
	\|		\|<center>[[Edward F. Hills]]</center>
			:"The first undisputed citations of the Johannine Comma occur in the writing of two 4th-century Spanish bishops… In the 5th century the Johannine Comma was quoted by several orthodox African writers to defend the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals, who…were fanatically attached to the Arian heresy." "Evidence for the early existence of the Johannine Comma is found in the Latin versions and in the writings of the Latin Church Fathers."

			:In the first place, how did the Johannine Comma originate if it be not genuine, and how did it come to be interpolated into the Latin New Testament text?… Why does it not contain the usual trinitarian formula, namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Why does it exhibit the singular combination, never met with elsewhere, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit?

			:In the second place, the omission of the Johannine Comma seems to leave the passage incomplete. For it is a common scriptural usage to present solemn truths or warnings in groups of three or four, for example, the repeated Three things, yea four of Proverbs 30, and the constantly recurring refrain, for three transgressions and for four, of the prophet Amos… It is in accord with biblical usage, therefore, to expect that in 1 John 5.7–8 the formula, there are three that bear witness, will be repeated at least twice. When the Johannine Comma is included, the formula is repeated twice. When the Comma is omitted, the formula is repeated only once, which seems strange.

			:In the third place, the omission of the Johannine Comma involves a grammatical difficulty. The words spirit, water, and blood are neuter in gender, but in 1 John 5:8 they are treated as masculine. If the Johannine Comma is rejected, it is hard to explain this irregularity. It is usually said that in 1 John 5.8 the spirit, the water, and the blood are personalized and that this is the reason for the adoption of the masculine gender. But it is hard to see how such personalization would involve the change from the neuter to the masculine. For in verse 6 the word Spirit plainly refers to the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Trinity. Surely in this verse the word Spirit is "personalized," and yet the neuter gender is used. Therefore, since personalization did not bring about a change of gender in verse 6, it cannot fairly be pleaded as the reason for such a change in verse 8. If, however, the Johannine Comma is retained, a reason for placing the neuter nouns spirit, water, and blood in the masculine gender becomes readily apparent. It was due to the influence of the nouns Father and Word, which are masculine. Thus the hypothesis that the Johannine Comma is an interpolation is full of difficulties.<sup>[2]</sup>

			Hills said:
			:“it is not impossible that the Johannine comma was one of those few true readings of the Latin Vulgate not occurring in the Traditional Greek Text but incorporated into the Textus Receptus under the guiding providence of God. In these rare instances God called upon the usage of the Latin-speaking Church to correct the usage of the Greek speaking Church.” <small>Hills, 1984, 213.</small>
	\|<center>1950-1959</center>		\|<center>1950-1959</center>
	\|		\|

Nick at 04:26, 10 March 2021

2021-03-10T04:26:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:26, 10 March 2021
Line 1,189:		Line 1,189:
	\|		\|
	\|<center>1970-1979</center>		\|<center>1970-1979</center>
	\|		\|<center>Metzger</center>
			:"The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript."

			:"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215."

			:(B) Internal Probabilities.
			:(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
			:(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.


	\|[[Image:Bruce_Metzger_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Bruce Metzger]]		\|[[Image:Bruce_Metzger_Head.jpg\|100px\|center\|Bruce Metzger]]
	<center>'''Bruce Metzger'''</center>		<center>'''Bruce Metzger'''</center>