1 John 5:7
From Textus Receptus
- ΙΩΑΝΝΟΥ Α΄ 5:7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι·
- 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
- 1 John 5:7 Because there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.
|Strong's||Greek||Pronunciation||KJV 1611||KJV 1900||KJV 2016||Parts of speech||Case||Tense||Number||Gender||Person||Voice||Mood|
|1526||εἰσιν||estin||there are||there are||there are||Verb||-||-||-||-||-||-||-|
|3140||μαρτυροῦντες||mar-too-reh'-on-tes||that beare record||that bear record||that bear record||-||-||-||-||-||-||-||-|
The omission of the Comma Johanneum
See also Comma Johanneum
- (Much of the information for this page comes from the highly recommended (KJV Today Website)
The Comma Johanneum (also called Johannine Comma or the Heavenly Witnesses) is the technical name for a comma (a short clause) appearing in some translations’ rendering of 1 John 5:7-8. The text of the comma appears below in bold:
- 5:7 “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
- 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” (KJV).
Besides TR / KJV update versions such as the King James Version 2016 Edition, Revised Webster Update 1995, or the New King James Version of 1982 etc, no other modern English Bible includes this passage. Those who support the King James Version or Textus Receptus only position frequently cite this omission as conclusive proof that modern Bibles are removing the Trinity from the Bible and should be rejected on the grounds of Revelation 22:18-19. This Comma is omitted from most modern translations of the Bible because most Greek manuscripts do not have them.
The Comma Johanneum is one of the finest scriptures to use to support the doctrine of the Trinity. It is one of those few passages included in the Textus Receptus which has a weak attestation from Greek manuscripts. It must be remembered that we do not have all the manuscripts that ever have been in existence, and there have been concerted efforts to destroy manuscripts and bibles from many groups including Catholics and Muslims. Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian.
Because the Textus Receptus was basically unrivaled until the late 1900's, the Comma is found in the most widely used translations of the New Testament before 1881, when the Westcott and Hort Greek text along with the English Revised Version was published without the Comma; but, from the early 18th century onwards, several individual translators omitted it. Versions from this period which contain it include the Geneva Bible, the King James Version (KJV), Young's and both the Rheims New Testament and the Ronald Knox translations which are Roman Catholic.
Newer critical editions of the Greek text omit the Comma as not part of the original, and modern Bible translations based on them such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) either omit the Comma entirely, or place it in a footnote. In the Roman Catholic tradition, the Latin Nova Vulgata (New Vulgate), published in 1979 following the Second Vatican Council, primarily based upon the same Critical Text and approved for liturgical use, omits the Comma. Nor does the Catholic approved New American Bible include it.
The Comma Johanneum has been a major subject of debate from the 1500s to today. The debate on 1 John 5:7 has also been a primary focus of discussions on the integrity of the New Testament documents and scribal fealty to the Bible text. The varying doctrinal and Christological interpetations of the verse have been a major part of these debates. The Comma and the question of its authenticity have particular bearing on the development of the theological doctrine of the Trinity, which is central to most mainstream Christian denominations.
It stood basically unchallenged in English Bibles for four hundred years. It is the English ecclesiastical line for the past 500 years with first English Bible of John Wycliffe in 1380, William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, Coverdale’s Bible of 1535, in Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner’s Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and the King James Version of 1611. Trinitarianism is an orthodox position, and those who attack trinitarianism have rejected this verse. The fact that the very best of English translators, as well as many preachers, theologians, church leaders, editors, and the highest levels of scholarship have accepted the verse as well as many learned men who today still accept the Trinitarian statement in 1 John 5:7 needs to be acknowledged. Five centuries of English Christians acceptation of a verse that does not cause one to err or be deceived but rather enhances the doctrine of the trinity, should not quickly be rejected; let alone the many other language groups that have the verse, the huge amount of Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts containing it, and its mention by early church witnesses. In the seventeenth century the framers of the Westminster Confession of Faith accepted the inclusion of 1 John 5.7–8 and used it to defend the doctrine of the Trinity.
Greek Manuscript Evidence
1 John 5:7 is found in: Greek manuscript 61, codex Ravianus and Britannicus, it's also in the margins of 88 and 629, manuscript E (735 AD; has Acts 8:37).
Only 11 "late" Greek manuscripts contain the Comma, with 6 of them having it in the margin by an even later hand:
- Minuscule 629 (14th century)
- Minuscule 61 Codex Montfortianus (16th century)
- Minuscule 918 (16th century)
- Minuscule 2473 (17th century)
- Minuscule 2318 (18th century)
- Minuscule 221 margin (10th century, Comma added later)
- Minuscule 635 margin (11th century, Comma added later)
- Minuscule 88 margin (12th century, Comma added in 16th century)
- Minuscule 429 margin (14th century, Comma added later)
- Minuscule 636 margin (15th century, Comma added later)
- Minuscule 177 margin (11th century, Comma added later)
Over 90% Vulgate mss have the comma. The earliest Vulgate manuscript is about 545 AD, Fuldensis (first published in the 1800s).
It is also found in the old Latin manuscripts Codex Freisingensis (Latin "r", "Beuron 64"; AD *500*), leon 1 (various readings of 1 John 5:7-8; AD 913-923), leon 2 (margin, 930 AD; has Acts 8:37) harl 2 (AD 752), Codex Toletanus (988 AD; has Acts 8:37, 9:5, 9:6), Codex Demidovianus (1150 AD; has Acts 8:37), Codex Colbertinus (AD 1150), Codex Perpinianus (AD 1250; has Acts 8:37), and Speculum (Latin "m" AD *450*, within a century of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus)
It is found in 68mg(mg=margin), 636mg and 918. It is also found in omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318. It's in the Montfort MS and Codex Wizanburgens (8th century). It is found in the margin of Codex Ottobonianus (629, 14th century).
It is also found in the Ulmensis manuscript (AD 850), and Codex pal Legionensis (AD *650*). It is found in the German manuscript The Augsburger Bibelhandschrift (2 Cod 3)(AD 1350).
- The Comma appears in most Latin manuscripts, which are broadly classified into two groups: The Latin Vulgate & The Old Latin. The Latin Vulgate, translate by Jerome, is the more common Latin translation as it was commissioned by the Catholic church in the late 4th century. The Old Latin is a term used to describe the various Latin translations that existed before the Latin Vulgate. Old Latin translations were made since about the latter half of the 2nd century (F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the New Testament Textual Criticism, 4th Ed., Vol. 2, (New York: George Bell & Sons, 1894), p. 43).
- "Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coharentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus." (Against Praxeas XXV).
- "Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which three are one, not one [person], as it is said, "I and my Father are One.""
Cyprian of Carthage
- The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, "He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth." He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. 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." And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.
- “Dicit Dominus, ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus,’ et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: ‘Et tres unum sunt.’”
- “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one,” and again, it is written of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”
‘De Unitate Ecclesiae, (On the Unity of the Church)
Notice that Cyprian firstly said “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one,” and again.... obviously making the claim that the bible verse quoted again had as much weight as the first quotation. Secondly, confirms that it is scripture by saying it is written . The obvious conclusion is the Cyprian is quoting from scripture and believes the Comma to have the same authority as John's earlier quotation in his gospel.
- “surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read verse 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus that the holy bishop was merely putting upon verse 8 a spiritual meaning.”
Arthur Cleveland Coxe referenced Scrivener ..
- “it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read it in his copies, than to resort to,” etc., the usual explainings away.”
In 350 A.D. Athanasius quotes 1 John 5:7 three times in his writings.
In the 4th century, Theodorus writes in “A treatise on one God in the Trinity, from the Epistle of John the Evangelist’ the following,
- ‘…that John in his Epistle, presents God as a Trinity…’
In 380 AD in Spain Priscillian (or one of his associates) referred to the Comma:
- “Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt. Et tria sunt quae testimonium dicent in caelo: Pater Verbum et Spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.”
- “There are three that bear witness on earth: the water, in the flesh, and the blood: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
Eucherius of Lyons
Eucherius of Lyons (434 A.D.) in a tract that is titled ‘Formulae Spiritualis Intelligentiae’, verses 7 & 8 are quoted.
Contra Varimadum Arianum
Contra Varimadum Arianum (some claim was written by Idacius Clarus in Spain in the late 300’s, but others by Vigilius Tapsensis in North Africa in the late 400’s) has the following statement:
- “John the Evangelist, in his Epistle to the Parthians (i.e. 1 John), says there are three who afford testimony on earth: the water, the blood, and the flesh, and these three are in us; and there are three who afford testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.”
Vigilius Tapensis (484 A.D.) in his writings on the Trinity, quotes 1 John 5:7 in its entirety. This is found in his ‘Works of Athanasius’ and also in his tract against Varimadus the Arian under the name of Idacius Clarus.
Council of Carthage
Church Council of Carthage (485 A.D.) Eugenius was the spokesman for the bishops of Africa, Mauritania, Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearick Isles, these bishops numbered in the 300’s that stood in defense of the Trinity and used 1 John 5:7-8. Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ. The bishops used 1 John 5:7-8 against the Arians proving Jesus is God and God is a Trinity. ‘Victor of Vitensis, Historia persecutionis Africanae’
His words are recorded, :
- ‘…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’.
The North African Victor Vitensis attended the Council of Carthage in 484, after the Arian Vandal king Huneric had instructed the Trinitarian bishops of North Africa to meet there with Arian bishops to discuss the subject of the Trinity.
100 Trinitarian African bishops attended, led by Eugene of Carthage who intended to present a statement of faith at the council, and this manifesto was incorporated into Victor Vitensis’ account. It speaks of the Comma:
- “Et ut luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo: Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus et hi tres unum sunt.”
- “And as a shining light teaching the unity of the divinity of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the testimony of John the Evangelist demonstratively testifies: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’”
It is rather amazing to watch modern bible critics such as James White, Bart Ehrman, Dan Wallace and others, claim that the Comma simply originated from Erasmus. Victor Vitensis reveals that a prominent bishop was willing to use the Comma at a theological conference defending the Trinity. James White said in 2006: “...anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship... This brand of TR Onlyism/KJV Onlyism is defenseless apologetically...” I suppose White also rejects these 100 Trinitarian African bishops as KJV kooks also.
This is the reading of Codex Fuldensis one of the oldest Vulgate manuscripts from the 6th century. Although 1 John 5:7 text section omits the Comma Johanneum. However, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles includes a direct reference to the heavenly witnesses, with the Prologue written as a first-person note from Jerome to Eustocium. In this Prologue unfaithful translators are criticized for removal of the verse saying
- “much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words ‘water, blood and spirit’ in this edition, omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit.”
Codex Fuldensis includes the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles which directly chastises unfaithful translators who have omitted the verse:
- "Quae si ut ab eis digestae sunt ita quoque ab interpraetibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec sermonum se varietas inpugnaret illo praecipue loco ubi de unitate trinitatis in prima iohannis epistula (the place where it concerns the Trinity in the first epistle of John) positum legimus in qua est ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse fidei veritate conperimus trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione potentes et patri verbique ac spiritus (Father, the Word, and Spirit) testimonium omittentes."
While the text of 1 John 5:7 in Fuldensis does not have the Comma in 1 John and some critics dismiss Jerome's authorship, the Comma was certainly known to an Italian scribe who wrote the Prologue as early as in 546 AD.
Codex Legionensis, or manuscript l or 67 (7th century) contains the Comma with slight variation in wording (Nestle-Aland: Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th revised edition (2006)). These two are of the Old Latin versions.
- Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.
The Council of Carthage in 481 AD included hundreds of Bishops who specifically give the verse, with special emphasis, in the doctrinal battles contra the Arians under Huneric. In their situation they where they faced with persecution and would have been extra careful to stick with accepted scripture. In his Letters to Edward Gibbon (1785) George Travis points says:
- "That it may appear more clear than the light, that the divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, is one, see it proved by the Evangelist St. John, who writes thus: " There are three who bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one." 
There are a number of other references (Fulgentius .. book on Trinity to Felix Notarius contra Arians .. and the Greek writing on the disputation between Athanasius and Arius attributed to Maximus the Confessor are two. Plus the 400s-Carthage period actually has more than one source.)
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
Phoebadius in 359 AD quotes the Comma:
- "Sic alius a Filio Spiritus; sicut alius a patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu ut in Filio secunda persona, unus tamen omnia quia tres unum sunt" (Contra Arianos XXVII: 4)
- "The other Spirit comes from the Son just as the other Son comes from the Father. So the Spirit is the third as the Son is the second person. But the sum is one, for the three are one."
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
- A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
- B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
- C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
In his composition Complexiones in Epistolis Apostolorum, as follows:
- “Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria: aqua sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in coelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unus est Deus.”
- “And the three mysteries testify – on earth: water, blood and spirit. The fulfillment of which we read about in the passion of the Lord. And in heaven: Father and Son and Holy Spirit. And these three are one God.”
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
Jerome (382 A.D.) in his book, ‘Prologue to the Canonical Epistles’, quotes the following when discussing the Johannine Comma that,
- ‘…irresponsible translators left out this testimony in the Greek codices.’
He further adds the following,
- ‘…these Epistles I have restored to their proper order; which, if arranged agreeably to the original text, and faithfully interpreted in Latin diction, would neither cause perplexity to the readers, nor would the various readings contradict themselves, especially in that place where we read the unity of the Trinity laid down in the Epistle of John. In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which , above all places, the Divinity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one’.
Church Council of Charlemagne
During the Church Council of Charlemagne in the late 8th century, the Emperor Charlemagne assembled all the learned men to revise the manuscripts of the Bible by cleaning up the mistakes that had creep in. The end result, which was delivered by Alciunus, shows 1 John 5:7-8 as it appears in our King James Bible.
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
Fourth Lateran Council in 1215
The medieval Latin church was apparently cognizant of the controversy surrounding the authenticity of the Comma, as is demonstrated by the following excerpt from Canon 2 of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215:
- "For the faithful of Christ, he says, are not one in the sense that they are some one thing that is common to all, but in the sense that they constitute one Church by reason of the unity of the Catholic faith and one kingdom by reason of the union of indissoluble charity, as we read in the canonical Epistle of St. John: "There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one" (1 John 5: 7). And immediately it is added: "And there are three who give testimony on earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one" (1 John 5: 8), as it is found in some codices." (The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215)
Adam Clarke claimed to posses an Earlier English version of the bible than Wycliff that said:
- For three ben that geven witnessing in heven the Fadir, the Word or Sone and the Hooly Goost, and these three ben oon. And three ben that geven witnessing in erthe, the Spirit, Water, and Blood, and these three ben oon.
- ...both these readings are united in an ancient English manuscript of my own, which contains the Bible from the beginning of Proverbs to the end of the New Testament, written on thick strong vellum, and evidently prior to most of those copies attributed to Wiclif. See Also Adam Clarke on the Johanneum Comma
Wycliffe here reads “son” instead of “word.”
Adam Clarke said of Codex Montfortianus: The Codex Montfortii, or Codex Dubliniensis, cited by Erasmus, under the title of Codex Britannicus, in Trinity College, Dublin. This may be said to be the only genuine MS. which contains this text; as no advocate of the sacred doctrine contained in the disputed passage would wish to lay any stress whatever on such evidence as the two preceding ones afford. Michaelis roundly asserts, vol. iv., page 417, of his Introductory Lectures, that this MS. was written after the year 1500. This, I scruple not to affirm, is a perfectly unguarded assertion, and what no man can prove. ln 1790 I examined this MS. myself, and though I thought it to be comparatively modern, yet I had no doubt that it existed before the invention of printing, and was never written with an intention to deceive. I am rather inclined to think it the work of an unknown bold critic, who formed a text from one or more MSS. in conjunction with the Vulgate, and was by no means sparing of his own conjectural emendations; for it contains many various readings which exist in no other MS. yet discovered. But how far the writer has in any place faithfully copied the text of any ancient MS. is more than can be determined. To give the reader a fair view of this subject, I here subjoin what I hope I may call a perfect fac-simile of the seventh and eighth verses, as they exist in this MS., copied by the accurate hand of the Rev. Dr. Barrett, the present learned librarian of Trinity College.
Stunica, one of the Complutensian editors, published in 1520 Annotationes Iacobi Lopidis Stunicae contra Erasmum Roterodamum in defensionem tralationis Noui Testamenti, which included half of a page on the heavenly witnesses.
- “ ‘Sanctus Thomas in expositione secunde Decretalis de suma Trinitate et fide catholica tractans istum passum contra Abbatem Joachim ut tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo. Pater: Verbum: et Spiritus Sanctus: dicit ad litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur, Et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essentie unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perverse trahere volens ad unitatem charitatis et consensus inducebat consequentem auctoritatem. Nam subditur ibidem: Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, s. Spiritus: Aqua: et Sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur: Et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis Arrianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personarum. Hec beatus Thomas ubi supra.’*
The Comma Johanneum is missing in Erasmus' first edition of 1516, the Novum Instrumentum omne. He subsequently produced four more editions. The first two lacked the Comma, which was first included in the 1522 edition of his Greek New Testament. It subsequently appeared in every later edition of the Greek New Testament that came to be retroactively called Textus Receptus.
Although Erasmus did not include the Comma Johanneum in his first and second editions, he did include it in all versions of his Latin New Testament. So while Erasmus affirmed the authenticity of the verse in the Latin, the scholastic standards of the day compelled him to withhold it from the first two editions in the Greek. So, the verse was not disputed among the scholarly editions in Latin. This explains Erasmus behavior concerning the omission of the Greek Comma Johanneum until more Greek evidence emerged for the reading.
The usual claim by modern version supporters is that Erasmus omitted the Comma in his first Editions of the Greek New Testament, so the "Textus Receptus" (TR) stream already had this omission and therefore TR advocates are admitting that the verse was inserted due to the Churches pressure upon Erasmus to follow the Latin Vulgate. Many erroneously assume that because Erasmus' 1516 edition was the first New Testament published by the printing press, that it was also the first printed, but this is untrue. The Complutensian Polyglot had been printed 2 years earlier, but was not published until the Old Testament was completed in 1522. The Complutensian edition contains the Comma. So the claim that the first edition of the TR did not have the Comma is untrue.
Many arguments about Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum are out of date. Bruce Metzger (the father of modern textual criticism) was largely responsible for the stories of Erasmus being forced to include the Comma in the Textus Receptus stream. Yet in the 3rd and for 4th editions of Metzger's book "The Text of the New Testament" he retracted those statements. Metzger based his retraction on the work of H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands) and a recognised world authority on Eramus.
The conclusions in de Jonge’s writtings are as follows:
- (1) The current view that Erasmus promised to insert the Comma Johanneum if it could be shown to him in a single Greek manuscript, has no foundation in Erasmus' works Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the disputed passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.
- (2) It cannot be shown from Erasmus' works that he suspected the Codex Britannicus (Minuscule 61) of being written with a view to force him to include the Comma Johanneum.
Metzger justifies his retraction on the basis of advances in research in the last quarter of a century. Along side this new research is further strengthening of the validity of the Majority Text manuscripts and Textus Receptus mainly because of less disruption in the “transmission history” of the Byzantine Texts.
With the third edition of Erasmus' Greek text (1522) the Comma Johanneum was includedMany claim that this is because a single 16th-century Greek manuscript (Codex Montfortianus) had subsequently been found to contain it, though Erasmus had expressed doubt as to the authenticity of the passage in his Annotations. But this has been challenged by scholars such as William Sandell.  
- I never discuss this passage without testifying to the truth of what people gather from that passage: that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share the very same essence, lest anyone should suspect any trace of heresy. And if the slightest offence should arise from this, it comes from those who spin slander out of thin air, and drag into the open a question that ought to be discussed between scholars. — Erasmus, Defence against certain Spanish monks (1528)
Ratio Seu Methodus and Paraphrase
Erasmus included the Comma, with commentary, in his paraphrase edition, first published in 1520:
- "For the Spirit too is truth just as the Father and the Son are. The truth of all three is one, just as the nature of all three is one, just as the nature of all three is one. For there are three in heaven who furnish testimony to Christ: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. The Father, who not once but twice sent forth his voice from the sky and publicly testified that this was his uniquely beloved Son in whom he found no offence; the Word, who, by performing so many miracles and by dying and rising again, showed that he was the true Christ, both God and human alike, the reconciler of God and humankind; the holy Spirit, who descended on his head at baptism and after the resurrection glided down upon the disciples. The agreement of these three is absolute. The Father is the author, the Son the messenger, the Spirit the inspirer. There are likewise three things on earth which attest Christ: the human spirit which he laid down on the cross, the water, and the blood which flowed from his side in death. And these three witnesses are in agreement. They testify that he was a man. The first three declare him to be God." (p. 174) Collected Works of Erasmus – Paraphrase on the First Epistle of John Translator John J Bateman
And in "Ratio seu Methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam", first published in 1518, Erasmus included the Comma in the interpretation of John 12 and 13. Erasmian scholar John Jack Bateman, discussing the Paraphrase and the Ratio verae theologiae, says of these uses of the Comma that "Erasmus attributes some authority to it despite any doubts he had about its transmission in the Greek text."John Jack Bateman (1931–2011), editor. Opera omnia : recognita ed adnotatione critica instructa notisque illustrata, 1997, p. 252.
In 1520, Complutensian Polyglot editor Diego López de Zúñiga (Stunica) wrote to Erasmus concerning the Comma.
Annotationes Iacobi Lopidis Stunicae contra Erasmum Roterodamum in defensionem tralationis Noui Testamenti - Volume 1 of Diapositivas (Biblioteca Histórica UCM) 1520 by Diego López de Zúñiga y Sotomayor - Publisher per Arnaldum Guilielmum de Brocario. 116 pages
The Geneva Bible footnotes say of 1 John 5:7:
- Hee prooueth the excellencie of Christ, in whom onely all things are giuen vs[,] by sixe witnesses, three heauenly, and three earthly, which wholly and fully agree together. The heauenly witnesses are: the Father who sent the Sonne, the worde it selfe which became flesh, and the holy Ghost. The earthly witnesses are, water, (that is our sanctification) blood, (that is our iustification) the Spirit, (that is, acknowled[ging] of God the Father in Christ by faith through the testimonie of the holy Ghost.)
The Belgic Confession
The Belgic Confession of 1561 states,
- “The testimonies of the Holy Scriptures, which teach us to believe in this Holy Trinity, are written in many places of the Old Testament, which need not be enumerated but only chosen with discretion…
- “There are three who bear witness in heaven– the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit– and these three are one.”
- In all these passages we are fully taught that there are three persons in the one and only divine essence. And although this doctrine surpasses human understanding, we nevertheless believe it now, through the Word, waiting to know and enjoy it fully in heaven.” (The Belgic Confession, (CRTA), article 9.)
The Heidelberg Catechism
The Heidelberg Catechism of 1563 says,
- “Since there is but one only divine essence, why speakest thou of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost?
- Answer: Because God has so revealed himself in his word, [b] that these three distinct persons are the one only true and eternal God.”
Footnote b says,
- “…1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one…” (The Heidelberg Catechism, (CRTA), section 8.)
John Calvin on the Comma said:
- "However, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading."
- "There are three that bear record in heaven"
- ...And the meaning would be, that God, in order to confirm most abundantly our faith in Christ, testifies in three ways that we ought to acquiesce in him. For as our faith acknowledges three persons in the one divine essence, so it is called in so really ways to Christ that it may rest on him.
- When he says, These three are one, he refers not to essence, but on the contrary to consent; as though he had said that the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit harmoniously testify the same thing respecting Christ. Hence some copies have εἰς ἓν, "for one." But though you read ἓν εἰσιν, as in other copies, yet there is no doubt but that the Father, the Word and the Spirit are said to be one, in the same sense in which afterwards the blood and the water and the Spirit are said to agree in one.John Calvin, Commentaries on the catholic epistles, tr. and ed. by John Owen, 1855, p. 258.
- 7. There are three that bear record in heaven. The whole of this verse has been by some omitted. Jerome thinks that this has happened through design rather than through mistake, and that indeed only on the part of the Latins. But as even the Greek copies do not agree, I dare not assert any thing on the subject. Since, however, the passage flows better when this clause is added, and as I see that it is found in the best and most approved copies, I am inclined to receive it as the true reading.1 And the meaning would be, that God, in order to confirm most abundantly our faith in Christ, testifies in three ways that we ought to acquiesce in him. For as our faith acknowledges three persons in the one divine essence, so it is called in so many ways to Christ that it may rest on him. (Calvin, J., & Owen, J. (2010). Commentaries on the Catholic Epistles (pp. 257–258). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.)
The Clementine Vulgate of 1589 has the Comma:
- Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.
- Indeed there are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three who give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one.
The Westminster Confession of Faith
The Westminster Confession of Faith 1646 in Chapter II, Of God, and the Holy Trinity gives 1 John 5:7 as their first reference:
- III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding: the Son is eternally begotten of the Father: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.
- 1 John v. 7; Matt. iii. 16, 17; Matt. xxviii. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 14; John i. 14, 18; John xv. 26; Gal. iv. 6.
The London Baptist Confession of 1689 also specifically mentions 1 John 5:7 as being the first verse used to teach and support the doctrine of the Trinity. They certainly believed it was inspired Scripture. 
- "In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him. ( 1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6 ) 
Edward Stillingfleet 1635-1699, said in his reply to Roman Catholic John Sergeant (1622-1707) in 1688 concerning scripture and the Comma:
- I. We do utterly deny that it is in any Churches' Power to correct Original Texts, because they contradict the Sense of the present Church; or any Translations any farther, than they differ form the Originals. And I do not know any assertion that shakes more our Faith, as to the Scripture, than this of J.S. (John Sergeant) doth.
- II. The early Appeals made to Scripture in Matters of Faith, by the Writers of the Christian Church, make us Certain that there could be no such Alterations or Corrections of the Texts, according to the sense of the Correctors. As the Instance, we find the Places produced against the Arians used before against the Samosatenians and Artemonites.
- If it be said, They might correct the Fathers to I answer, that there is no imaginable Ground for any such suspicion; because the Fathers lived in distant Places and Countries, and therefore when their Testimonies agree about some places of Scripture alleged by them, there can be no Reason to suspect any Corruption or Alteration of the Text. As for Instance, no one Text of the whole New Testament, hath been more suspected than that of I S. John 5.7. There are three that bear Record in Heaven, &c. And it cannot be denied that there hath been great variety, both in the Greek and Latin Manuscripts about it; yea, there was so in S. Jeroms' time, as it appears as by his Preface to the Canonical Epistles; who charges the leaving it out to the unfaithfulness of the Translators. S. Jerom is cried out upon as a Party in this Controversie, and therefore it is said on the other side, that he put it in as favouring his own Opinion. But his Integrity is vindicated herein, because S. Cyprian so long before the Arian Controversie produced this Place. (S. Cyrpian. Ad Jubaianum. Epistle 73) So that our Certainty as to Scripture doth not depend upon the mere Letter, but upon comparing the best and most ancient Copies, with the Writings of the Fathers, who still made use of the Scriptures in all Discourses and Debates about Matters of Faith.
Edward Stillingflee 1635-1699 in A discourse concerning the nature and grounds of the certainty of faith in answer to J. S. [Sergeant, John, -- 1622-1707], his Catholick letters / by Edw. Stillingfleet London: Printed for Henry Mortlock, 1688 (p.89, 90)
John Gill - commenting on 1 John 5:7:
- "As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom[e], has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters."
- "And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephen's, nine of them had it."
- "And yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius, in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerome, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."
- "We are stopped in our course by the contest there is about the genuineness of v. 7. It is alleged that many old Greek manuscripts have it not. It should seem that the critics are not agreed what manuscripts have it and what not; nor do they sufficiently inform us of the integrity and value of the manuscripts they peruse...There are some rational surmises that seem to support the present text and reading."
- "The seventh verse is very agreeable to the style and the theology of our apostle...Facundus acknowledges that Cyprian says that of his three it is written, Et hi tres unum sunt—and these three are one. NOW THESE ARE THE WORDS, NOT OF V. 8, BUT OF V. 7. They are not used concerning the three on earth, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; but the three in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Ghost...If all the Greek manuscripts and ancient versions say concerning the Spirit, the water, and the blood, that in unum sunt—they agree in one, then it was not of them that Cyprian spoke, whatever variety there might be in the copies in his time, when he said it is written, unum sunt—they are one. And therefore Cyprian's words seem still to be a firm testimony to V. 7."
- "It was far more easy for a transcriber, by turning away his eye, or by the obscurity of the copy, it being obliterated or defaced on the top or bottom of a page, or worn away in such materials as the ancients had to write upon, to lose and omit the passage, than for an interpolator to devise and insert it. He must be very bold and impudent who could hope to escape detection and shame; and profane too, who durst venture to make an addition to a supposed sacred book."
- "I think, in the book of God,... the text is worthy of all acceptation."
Francis Turretin noted that Erasmus had located the passage in a "most ancient British codex" and that "most praiseworthy editions, the Complutensian, the Antwerp, Arias Montanus, R. Stephanus, and Walton, which have all utilized the best codices, have the phrase.
In his disputation on the three heavenly witnesses (first published 1661), François Turrettini (1623-1687) reviewed the manuscript evidence for the passage:
- “Erasmus, declares that [the comma] is found in the very ancient British Codex, which he considered so authoritative that he restored this verse, omitted from his previous editions, in the later editions, which he revised with utmost care, as he himself says.”
- “Erasmus fatetur [hunc versum] extare in Codice Britannico vetustissimo, qui tantæ fuit apud ipsum authoritatis, ut versiculum istum in prioribus Editionibus omissum, in posterioribus accuratissima cura, ut ipse scribit, recognitis, restitueret. Laudatissimæ Editiones, Complutensis, Regia Antuerpiensis, Ariæ Montani, Rob. Stephani, Eliæ Hutteri, Valtoni, quæ probatissimis et vetustissimis Codicibus usæ sunt, retinent. Unde si in quibusdam desideratur, hoc fraudi et dolo malo Arianorum adscribendum est, qui textum hunc eraserunt, quia punctim transfigebat eorum hæresim; ut Hieronymus testatur.” (175 Turrettini, 1847-1848, IV:290)
- " I would insist only on the direct words, unexplained, just as they lie in the text: "There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: And these three are one."
- "As they lie in the text :" -- but here arises a question: Is that text genuine? Was it originally written by the Apostle, or inserted in later ages? Many have doubted of this; and, in particular, the great light of the Christian church, lately removed to the Church above, Bengelius, -- the most pious, the most judicious, and the most laborious, of all the modern Commentators on the New Testament. For some time he stood in doubt of its authenticity, because it is wanting in many of the ancient copies. But his doubts were removed by three considerations: (1.) That though it is wanting in many copies, yet it is found in more; and those copies of the greatest authority: -- ( 2.) That it is cited by a whole gain of ancient writers, from the time of St. John to that of Constantine. This argument is conclusive: For they could not have cited it, had it not been in the sacred canon: -- (3.) That we can easily account for its being, after that time, wanting in many copies, when we remember that Constantine's successor was a zealous Arian, who used every means to promote his bad cause, to spread Arianism throughout the empire; in particular the erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands. And he so far prevailed, that the age in which he lived is commonly styled, Seculum Aranium, -- "the Arian age;" there being then only one eminent man who opposed him at the peril of his life. So that it was a proverb, Athanasius contra mundum: "Athanasius against the world."
- "'instead of "the Father, Word, and Spirit,' the remaining passage would have been direct concessions to the Gnostics and Sabellians, who, in denying the personal difference of the Father and the Son, were equally obnoxious to those avowed adversaries, the Catholics and the Arians. Nor did the orthodox require these verses for the support of their cause; they had other passages which would accomplish all that they could effect; and without their aid, they maintained and established their tenents."3
Nolan gives two reasons why 1 John 5:7 is seemingly scanty in reference to quotations from the church fathers: One - The passage in I John 5:7 is among those like 1 Timothy 3:16 and Acts 20:28 that have all been tampered with in the manuscript tradition, all three having to do with the deity of Christ as "God." Two - That the major reason for not quoting 1 John 5:7 was based on its wording, chiefly, purporting Jesus Christ as the "Word" instead of the "Son." Hence, with the Sabellian heresy being debated that Jesus Christ is the Father with no distinction, 1 John 5:7 would further propagate that notion. Therefore it wasn't quoted.
The reader will observe that in Nos. 2, 4, and 5, the eighth verse is put before the seventh, and that 3 and 4 have filius instead of verbum. But both these readings are united in an ancient English manuscript of my own, which contains the Bible from the beginning of Proverbs to the end of the New Testament, written on thick strong vellum, and evidently prior to most of those copies attributed to Wiclif.
For three ben that geven witnessing in heven the Fadir, the Word or Sone and the Hooly Goost, and these three ben oon. And three ben that geven witnessing in erthe, the Spirit, Water, and Blood, and these three ben oon.
See Also Adam Clarke on the Johanneum Comma
Darby made several notes about the Comma in Darby's annotations on Diatribe In Locum 1 Joann v. 7, 8.
Robert Lewis Dabney
- 'The oft-contested text in 1John 5:7 also furnishes us a good instance of the value of that internal evidence which the recent critics profess to discard.........The internal evidence against this excision, then, is in the following strong points:
- First, if it be made, the masculine article, numeral, and particle......are made to agree directly with three neuters- an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one neuter noun......where, according to a well-known rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender connected with them......
- Second, if the excision is made, the eighth verse coming next to the sixth, gives us a very bald and awkward, and apparently meaningless, repitition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession.
- Third, if the excision is made, then the proposition at the end of the eighth verse [and these three agree in one], contains an unintelligible reference......"And these three agree to that (aforesaid) one,".......What is the aforesaid unity to which these three agree? If the seventh verse is excinded, there is none.....Let the seventh verse stand, and all is clear: the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word, and Spirit constitute...........
- There is a coherency in the whole which presents a very strong internal evidence for the genuineness of the Received Text.'
10 years later Dabney reviews the revisors work to date on the revison (which complete revision--OT/NT the Americans subsequently rejected in favor of their own labors, resulting in the ASV of 1901). Here is what he writes re. the comma, p. 395:
- So slight were the modifications [of earlier revisors] in its [TRs] readings clearly determined by the vast collations made by the critics of the immediately preceding generation (collations embracing every one of the boasted unicals, except the Sinai MS.), that of all the important various readings only one (1 John v.7,) has been given up to excision by a unanimous consent of competent critics. (Dabney, vol. 1, beginning p. 377) is from an article dated April 1871 (S.P.R.) "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the N.T. Greek".
Dabney was prepared to allow that "unanimous consent of competent critics" had let the comma go, whilst retaining the TR's readings in virtually every other significant place. Dabney was quite unsatisfied with the latest revision, thinking it loaded with changes for the sake of change, with little else to commend them. The spirit of innovation in the revisors was stronger than the spirit of cautious progress.
1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible
The 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, which is found in the New Testament Octapla, and which is the base text of the Zondervan KJV Study Bible and many of their other recent KJVs, throws the words in question into italics. This is reflected in the detail below from the original edition of CPB, 1873; by the New Testament Octapla's reproduction of Scrivener's CPB text, and by Scrivener’s book The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives [Cambridge, 1884, p. 69] which verifies that this was a deliberate change that Scrivener made on his own authority. The Zondervan reprints, however, silently reverse Scrivener's decision and put the words back into regular type. The prefaces to these reprints give no indication regarding this change, although other changes regarding spelling are acknowledged.
UBS Greek Editions
Many critical text proponants erroneously assert that this text originated close to the time of Erasmus. However, even the UBS Greek NT (4th ed.) notes that the Comma Johanneum is attested by the Latin church fathers (Cyprian) (d. 258), (Pseudo-Cyprian) (4th century), (Priscillian) (d. 385), the Speculum (5th century), Varimadum (UBS date "445/480"), Pseudo-Vigilius (4th or 5th century), and Fulgentius (d. 533), as well as a few manuscripts.
Edward F. Hills
Edward F. Hills said:
- "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.
Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones
- "As of 1997, the following cursive manuscripts are known to include the passage: 34, 88 (margin) 99, 105, 110, 162, 173, 181, 190, 193, 219, 220, 221, 298, 429, 629 (margin) 635, 636, and 918. Thus the list of Greek mss known to contain the "Comma" is not long, but it is longer (and growing) than many of us would have believed. It was part of the text of a 2nd century Old Latin Bible. It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, and in a confession of faith drawn up by Eusebius, Bishop of Carthage, in 484."
The New King James Version does contain the verse, but contains the footnote:
- NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.
Dr. Arthur Farstad, who served as General Editor of the New King James Version (1982) and co-editor of The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text believed the Comma was not part of the original text:
- Dr. Arthur Farstad: The Trinitarian controversy with the Arian heretics, they would have adored this verse if it had been in their text. It would be a clear verse for the Trinity and they never once mentioned it. So if they had had it, you can see…
- Ankerberg: So the first councils back there in the 300s or 400s would have loved this verse.
- Farstad: They would have adored it. And, you know, we believe in the Trinity.
- Ankerberg: But they didn’t quote it.
- Farstad: They didn’t quote it because they didn’t have it. It showed up first in the Latin and then years later it was put in the margin.
(Excerpted from The John Ankerberg Show series entitled: “Which English Translation of the Bible is Best for Christians to Use Today?”)
Charles Taze Russell
- "the spurious words were no doubt interpolated by some over-zealous monk, who felt sure of the (Trinity) doctrine himself, and thought that the holy spirit had blundered in not stating the matter in the Scriptures: his intention, no doubt, was to help God and the truth out of a difficulty by perpetrating a fraud."Charles Taze Russell The Fact and Philophy of the Atonement, 1899, p. 61.
- "Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or made to order." (Bruce Metzger)
In the 3rd edition of his book. Bruce Metzger retracted his false accusations against Erasmus. He had claimed that Erasmus said he would only include the verse if he found a Greek manuscript that contained it. Then almost made one to order.
- "What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion." Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 291 fn 2.
H.J. de Jonge
In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger's view on Erasmus' promise "has no foundation in Erasmus' work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise."
In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:
- "I have checked again Erasmus' words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus' Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Erasmus (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee's reproach of negligence and impiety. '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.'
- "From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. 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.
- "In short, Rummel's interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject" (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard, p. 383).
David Cloud said:
- The first myth is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if a Greek manuscript were produced. This is stated as follows by Bruce Metzger: “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or made to order” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1st and 2nd editions).
- The second myth is that Erasmus challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript that included 1 John 5:7. This originated with Erika Rummel in 1986 in her book Erasmus’ Annotations and was repeated by James White in 1995 (The Truth about the KJV-Only Controversy).
- In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), has refuted both myths. de Jonge, a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise “has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.” He has also refuted the new myth of a challenge (which Rummel devised in reaction to the burial of the promise myth). In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:
- I have checked again Erasmus’ words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus’ Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of negligence and impiety.
- ‘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.’
- From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. 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.
- In short, Rummel’s interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from Maynard, p. 383).
- Jeffrey Khoo observes further: “Yale professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jonge, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called ‘promise’ but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome’” (Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages, 2001, p. 88).
- Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard, testifies: “...it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church” (Hills, The King James Version Defended).
- In the 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament Bruce Metzger corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2). The problem is that this myth continues to be paraded as truth by modern version defenders.
- "..this is a verse that was added to the bible in 1522.."
Yet, 1514 the Complutensian Polyglot, which was printed in Spain and written from many unknown Greek manuscripts, contains the verse. Wallace mentions a conspiracy theory about Erasmus and how he inserted the verse into the text due to "church pressure." His conspiracy fails when one breifly looks at the Complutensian manuscripts. In 450 AD, Jerome cites it in his epistle to Eustochium and wants to know why it was excluded.
Amazingly, Wallace in an article at bible.org, denies that Cyprian is actually quoting the Comma. To support this, Wallace must assume that for Cyprian, "the three witnesses [in KJV's v. 8] refer to the Trinity." How "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood" can be matched convincingly with Cyprian's "the Father...the Son, and...the Holy Spirit" does not immediately appear; Wallace is reduced to asserting that "Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers)." However, while Wallace makes allowances for this "common indulgence" of the church fathers, he afterwards asserts that "One would expect [Cyprian] to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain"--not allowing the similarly common indulgences of paraphrase and loose citation to Cyprian where they are inconvenient to his argument.
Wallace avoids the point that Cyprian said, “it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” He also ignores the fact that Fulgentius Ruspensis, who lived in the 6th century and who directly quoted from the Comma word for word, quoted Cyprian’s quotation of it! Also, the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament, openly states that Cyprian quoted from the Comma. In the footnotes of 1 John 5:7, the UBS Greek Text lists Cyprian as the first on its list of church fathers who quoted the Comma ("The Greek New Testament", (Stuttgart: Bibelgesellschaft, 2010), p. 819.). The conclusion is that despite Wallace's anti Textus Receptus bias, Cyprian really did quote from the Comma, as many other scholars can honestly admit.
- . . . If indeed the Comma was a part of the original writing of the apostle John, we are forced to conclude that entire passages, rich in theological meaning, can disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition without leaving a single trace. In reality, the KJV Only advocate is arguing for a radical viewpoint on the New Testament text, a viewpoint that utterly denies the very tenacity that we discussed in chapter 3. Even "liberal" scholars will admit the outstanding purity of the NT text and the validity of the belief in the tenacity of that text . . . . (p. 62;)
But clearly we can see the traces of the Comma, even as early as the 3rd century in the church fathers. But because White already knows this, he restricts evidence for the witness in this passage to "the Greek manuscript tradition," glossing over the fact that we have a reading at 1 John 5:7 attested to by Cyprian in the third century, and many other witnesses. That some of these variants are the result of deliberate alterations is evident from certain citations of the church fathers (especially Tertullian, who went so far as to say that the Marcionites "are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us" [Against Marcion, Book IV, ch. 5]). Given that the "Comma," whether or not it is authentic, is the clearest notice in the New Testament of the Oneness of the Three Persons of the Trinity, it would not be hard to envision a scenario in which this passage was authentic but was removed by those who disbelieved in the Trinity.
White considers this a "radical viewpoint" on this verse, but it was clearly embraced by the translators of the reformation period. For, although Tyndale had placed the debated passage in italics and parentheses, both Geneva and the KJV offer not a shred of doubt in their presentations of this passage (either in the main text or the margin) that it was in the original manuscript of the apostle John. In doing so, one surmises that they felt that, in the words of Thomas Scott, it was:
- . . . somewhat more likely that the Arians or Anti-Trinitarians [in the early church] should silently omit in their copies a testimony which was so decisive against them, or that it should be left out by the mistake of some ancient transcriber, than that the Trinitarians should directly forge and insert it. The Trinitarian, in fact, would be deprived only of one argument out of very many, with which he might attempt the conviction of his opponent, if this text were wholly regarded as spurious; for his doctrine is supported by other Scriptures: but if this testimony were admitted as the unerring word of GOD; all the ingenuity and diligence of opponents, would scarcely suffice to explain it away, or to avoid the inference, which must naturally be drawn from it.
In other words, the Geneva and KJV men presumably felt that such an omission was made to grind a "doctrinal axe" in the early days of the church, and that the original text read with the passage included. In fact, John Wesley accused the Roman Emperor Julian ("the Apostate") of "erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands" in order to promote Arianism (Sermon 55, "On the Trinity"). Whatever we may think of Wesley's identification of the culprit, a clear motive for the "erasing this text" appears from Scott's remarks above.
- "[W]hile I disagree with Byzantine priority, etc., at least that position can put together some form of defense of its position. But I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship... This brand of TR Onlyism/KJV Onlyism is defenseless apologetically..." (04 March 2006, "The Comma Johanneum Again")
In this statement, White is saying that John Calvin, Theodore Beza, the Westminster Assembly, Francis Turretin, Matthew Poole, the 1689 Baptist Assembly, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, Robert L. Dabney, and Edward F. Hills are all to be considered "outside the realm of meaningful scholarship."
Robert Lewis Dabney
J. K. Elliott
J. K. Elliott a modern textual critic says:
- "By using criteria such as the above the critic may reach a conclusion in discussing textual variants and be able to say which variant is the original reading. However, it is legitimate to ask: can a reading be accepted as genuine if it is supported by only one ms.? There is no reason why an original reading should not have been preserved in only one ms. but obviously a reading can be accepted with greater confidence, when it has stronger support" Even Kurt Aland says: "Theoretically, the original readings can be hidden in a single ms. thus standing alone against the rest of tradition," and Tasker has a similar comment: "The possibility must be left open that in some cases the true reading may have been preserved in only a few witnesses or even in a single relatively late witness." - The Effect of Recent Textual Criticism upon New Testament Studies," The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1956)
NIV Study Bible
The NIV Study Bible states:
- 1 John 5:7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
- You will notice that the following phrase (Johannine Comma) is removed from their translation, ‘in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth:’.
This phrase appears in the marginal notes with this comment,
- ‘not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century’.
In the footnote section of their Bible they have the following comment,
- ‘…some older English versions add the words found in the NIV text note. But the addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or New Testament translation prior to the fourteenth century.’
Richard Muller who holds the P. J. Zondervan Chair for Doctoral Studies as professor of historical theology at Calvin Theological Seminary, and has a Ph.D. from Duke University, talks about the Johannine Comma, the text of 1 John 5:5-8. Here are sentences in favor of this trinitarian text:
Of the early sixteenth-century editions of the Greek text of the New Testament, the Complutensian Polyglott (1504-1514) includes the phrase. . . . Later editions [of Erasmus] (1527 and 1536) also include the "comma." Erasmus' third edition was followed on this point by both Stephanus (1546, 1549, 1550) and Beza (1565; with annotations, 1582). . . . Reformed theologians, following out the line of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza, tended to accept the text as genuine and, indeed, to use it as an integral part of their trinitarian theology. . . . In the theological works of the seventeenth-century orthodox---on the model provided by Calvin and Beza---the Johannine "comma" appears frequently, without question or comment, as one Johannine text among others cited in a catena of texts from the Gospel, the Apocalypse, and the epistles as grounds of the doctrine of the Trinity. Often the phrase is simply cited without comment as a supporting text, while some of the high orthodox writers note that it was cited by Cyprian---thus, by implication, refuting the arguments concerning its extremely late date. . . . Turretin noted that Erasmus had located the passage in a "most ancient British codex" and that "most praiseworthy editions, the Complutensian, the Antwerp, Arias Montanus, R. Stephanus, and Walton, which have all utilized the best codices, have the phrase. Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology.
Modern Versions that omit the Comma
- “Because those who testify are three:” (A Conservative Version)
- “Because three are the Ones testifying:” (Analytical-Literal Translation)
- “For there are three who give their testimony [about Jesus]:” (An Understandable Version-The New Testament)
- “And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” (American Standard Version)
- “And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true.” (Bible Basic English)
- “In fact, there are three who tell about it.” (Contemporary English Version)
- “There are three witnesses -” (The Complete Jewish Bible)
- “And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” (Common Edition, New Testament)
- “For they that bear witness are three:” (Darby)
- “For there are three that bear witness:” (English Majority Text Version)
- “For there are three that testify:” (English Standard Version)
- “There are three witnesses:” (Good News Bible)
- “There are three witnesses:” (God's Word)
- “For there are three that testify:” (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
- “For there are three who testify:” (The Hebrew Names Version)
- “For there are three witnesses-” (International Standard Version)
- “And it is the Spirit who testified; because the Spirit is the truth.” (Living Oracles New Testament)
- “A triple testimony:” (The Message)
- “For there are three that testify:” (New American Standard Bible)
- “So there are three witnesses that tell us about Jesus:” (New Century Version)
- “For there are three that testify,” (NET Bible)
- “There are three that give witness about Jesus.” (New International Reader's Version)
- “For there are three that testify:” (New International Version)
- “So we have these three witnesses -” (New Living Translation)
- “There are three that testify:” (New Revised Standard Version Bible)
- “And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” (Revised Standard Version)
- “And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth.” (Revised Version)
- “Because there are three who bear witness:” (The Scriptures 1998)
- “It is a three-fold testimony--” (Twentieth Century New Testament)
- “For there are three who bear witness,” (Updated Bible Version)
- “For there are three who testify:” (World English Bible)
- 1514 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν/οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν/τῷ οὐρανῷ,/ὁ πατήρ, καὶ/ὁ λόγος, καὶ/τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ/οἱ τρεῖς εῖς/τὸ ἕν εἰσι· Complutensian Polyglot Bible
- 1516 (omitted) (Erasmus 1st Novum Instrumentum omne)
- 1519 (omitted) (Erasmus 2nd)
- 1522 (Erasmus 3rd Novum Testamentum omne)
- 1527 (Erasmus 4th)
- 1535 (Erasmus 5th)
- 1534 (Colinæus)
- 1546 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 1st)
- 1549 (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 2nd)
- 1550 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 3rd)
- 1551 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν (Robert Estienne (Stephanus) 4th)
- 1565 (Beza 1st)
- 1565 (Beza Octavo 1st)
- 1567 (Beza Octavo 2nd)
- 1580 (Beza Octavo 3rd)
- 1582 (Beza 2nd)
- 1598 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ |μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι· (Beza)
- 1604 (Beza Octavo 5th)
- 1894 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν(Scrivener)
- 1859 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰμί ὁ μαρτυρέω (Novum Testamentum Graece. editio octava critica maior Tischendorf) based on Codex Sinaiticus.
- 1881 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, (Westcott & Hort)
- 1904 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. (Greek Orthodox (Greek New Testament of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople by B. Antoniades))
- 1904 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, (Nestle)
- 1395 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in heuene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre ben oon. (Wycliffe Bible)
- 1534 (For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one) (Tyndale Bible)
- 1535 (For there are thre which beare recorde in heauen: the father, the worde, and the holy goost, & these thre are one.) (Coverdale)
- 1540 - (The Great Bible - also called Cranmer Bible, Miles Coverdale editor)
- 1549 (For there are thre which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holye Ghoste. And these thre are one.) Matthew's Bible by John Rogers
- 1568 For there are three which beare recorde in heauen, the father, the worde, and the holy ghost, and these three are one. (The Bishops' Bible)
- 1587 For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one. Geneva Bible by William Whittingham
- 1611 For there are three that beare record in heauen, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one. (Authorized Version)
- 1769 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (Authorized Version)
- For there are three that bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. (Websters)
- 1855 He who testifies, inasmuch as the Spirit is truth. For there are three who testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (Calvin Bible)
- 1890 For they that bear witness are three: (Darby Version)
- 1898 because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one; (YLT)
- 1901 And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. (American Standard Version)
- 1999 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (American King James Version)
Foreign Language Translations
- Në qoftë se ne pranojmë dëshminë e njerëzve, dëshmia e Perëndisë është më e madhe, sepse kjo është dëshmia e Perëndisë që ai dha për Birin e tij. 1 Gjonit 5:7
- Արդարեւ երե՛ք են՝ որ կը վկայեն երկինքի մէջ.- Հայրը, Խօսքը եւ Սուրբ Հոգին, ու այս երեքը մէկ են:
فان الذين يشهدون في السماء هم ثلاثة الآب والكلمة والروح القدس وهؤلاء الثلاثة هم واحد. ﻳﻮﺣﻨﺎ ﺍﻻﻭﻝ 5:7 Smith & Van Dyke
Ecen hirur dirade testificatzen dutenac ceruän, Aita, Hitza, eta Spiritu saindua: eta hauc hirurac bat dirade. 1 S. Ioannec. 5:7 Basque (Navarro-Labourdin)
и Духът е, който свидетелствува, понеже Духът е истината.
Gen yo twa k'ap di Jezi se moun ki te vini an. (1_Jan 5:7 Haitian Creole Bible)
- Jer troje je što svjedoči:
- 1613 Nebo tři jsou, kteříž svědectví vydávají na nebi: Otec, Slovo, a Duch Svatý, a ti tři jedno jsou. bible of Kralice
- Thi tre ere de, som vidne:
- Want Drie zijn er, Die getuigen in den hemel, de Vader, het Woord en de Heilige Geest; en deze Drie zijn Een. (Johannes 5:7 Dutch Staten Vertaling)
Kaj la Spirito estas la atestanto, cxar la Spirito estas la vero. (De Johano 1 5:7)
- 1776 Sillä kolme ovat, jotka todistavat taivaassa: Isä, Sana ja Pyhä Henki, ja ne kolme yksi ovat: (Toinen Johanneksen kirje 5:7)
- 1535 Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit: et ces trois sont un. (Olivetan Bible)
- 1707 Car il y en a trois dans le Ciel qui rendent témoignage, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint Esprit: et ces trois-là ne sont qu'un. (Martin)
- 1744 Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage dans le ciel, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit, et ces trois-là sont un. (Ostervald)
- 1744 Car il y en a trois dans le Ciel qui rendent témoignage, le Père, la Parole, et le Saint-Esprit; et ces trois-là ne sont qu'un. (Martin)
- car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage: (Darby)
- 1864 (Augustin Crampon)
- 1910 Car il y en a trois qui rendent témoignage: (Louis Segond)
- 1545 Denn drei sind, die da zeugen im Himmel: der Vater, das Wort und der Heilige Geist; und diese drei sind eins. (Luther)
- 1871 Denn drei sind, die da zeugen: (Elberfelder)
- 1912 Denn drei sind, die da zeugen: der Geist und das Wasser und das Blut; (Luther)
Mert hárman vannak, a kik bizonyságot tesznek a mennyben, az Atya, az Íge és a Szent Lélek: és ez a három egy. (1 János 5:7 Hungarian: Karoli)
- Karena tiga yang menjadi saksi di surga, yaitu Bapa dan Firman dan Rohulkudus, maka ketiga-Nya itu menjadi Satu; 1 YOH 5:7 Indonesian - Terjemahan Lama (TL)
- 1613 Perciocchè tre son quelli che testimoniano nel cielo: il Padre, e la Parola, e lo Spirito Santo; e questi tre sono una stessa cosa. (1 Giovanni 5:7 Giovanni Diodati Bible)
- 1927 Poiché tre son quelli che rendon testimonianza: (Riveduta Bible)
- Ṛṛuḥ iqedsen, aman d idammen, di tlata yid-sen beggnen-d tideț-agi.
- Jo trīs ir, kas dod liecību debesīs: Tēvs, Vārds un Svētais Gars; un šie trīs ir viens. Jāņa 1 vēstule 5:7
- Mat yra trys liudytojai danguje: Tėvas, Žodis ir Šventoji Dvasia; ir šitie trys yra viena. (Pirmasis Jono laiðkas 5:7)
- Tokotoru hoki nga kaiwhakaatu i te rangi, ko te Matua, ko te Kupu, ko te Wairua Tapu: kotahi ano enei tokotoru.
- 1930 For de er tre som vidner: (1 Johannes 5:7 Det Norsk Bibelselskap)
- Albowiem trzej są, którzy świadczą na niebie: Ojciec, Słowo i Duch Święty, a ci trzej jedno są. (Biblia Gdanska)
E o Espírito é o que dá testemunho, porque o Espírito é a verdade. (1 João 5:7)
(Căci trei sînt cari mărturisesc în cer: Tatăl, Cuvîntul şi Duhul Sfînt, şi aceşti trei una sînt.) (1 Ioan 5:7 Cornilescu)
- Russian Transliteration of the Greek
- (Church Slavonic)
- 1569 Porque tres son los que dan testimonio del cielo: el Padre, la Palabra y el Espíritu Santo; y estos tres son uno. (1 Juan Sagradas Escrituras)
- 1909 Porque tres son los que dan testimonio en el cielo, el Padre, el Verbo, y el Espíritu Santo: y estos tres son uno. (1 Juan Reina Valera)
- 1917 Ty tre äro de som vittna: (1 Johannesbrevet 5:7)
- Basi, wako mashahidi watatu: (1 Yohana 5:7)
- 1905 At ang Espiritu ang nagpapatotoo, sapagka't ang Espiritu ay katotohanan. (1 Juan 5:7 Ang Dating Biblia)
- Şöyle ki, tanıklık edenler üçtür: Ruh, su ve kan. Bunların üçü de uyum içindedir. (1 Yuhanna 5:7)
- Бо три їх, що сьвідкують на небі: Отець, Слово і сьвятий Дух, і сї три - одно. (1 Йоаново 5:7)
ấy là Ðức Thánh Linh đã làm chứng, vì Ðức Thánh Linh tức là lẽ thật. (1 Giaêng 5:7)
- 1 John 5:8
- Comma Johanneum
- Codex Montfortianus
- Codex Toletanus
- Frisingensia Fragmenta
- Codex Sangallensis 63
- Minuscule 88
- Minuscule 629
- Textual criticism
- David Martin (French divine) – the French Bible translator who also defended the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.
- And These Three Are One Article by Will Kinney
- And These Three Are One Article by Jesse Boyd
- 1. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, Iowa, USA: The Christian Research Press, 1984), pp.209–10.
- 2. Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, Iowa, USA: The Christian Research Press, 1984),pp. 210–12.
- 3. Which Version is the Bible? by Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones
- 4. An Inquiry Into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, Rev. Frederick Nolan, 1815, pg. 278-279
- KJV Today: 1 John 5:7 A fuller picture of 1 John 5:6-7. (Includes photographs of manuscripts and other visual aids)
- And These Three Are One by Will Kinney
- James White Dishonors the Lord Jesus Christ by Will Kinney YouTube Video
- A complete list of New Testament manuscripts that verify 1 John 5:7
- Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7 by Martin A. Shue
- The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7) by Martin A. Shue
- Anonymous Author on 1 John 5:7
- Wikipedia Article on Comma Johanneum
- Confessional Bibliology Follow Up: Codex Montfortianus, Erasmus, and 1 John 5:7
- Erasmian Myths: Revelation Back Translated from the Vulgate? by Chris Thomas
- Erasmian Myths: The Comma Wager by William Sandell
- Erasmian Myths: Codex Vaticanus by Chris Thomas
- 1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma) - "These Three Are One" An excerpt from Dr. Thomas Holland's Crowned With Glory.
- An Email Debate between Dr. Gregory S. Neal and Dr. Thomas Holland
- Defence of the Johannine Comma - Setting the Record Straight on I John 5:7-8
- Dedending 1 John 5:7 by David Cloud Way of Life Literature 1995
- 1 John 5:7 - KJV "Errors"
- http://kjv.landmarkbiblebaptist.net/1John5-7Henry.html "The Johannine Comma" (1 John 5:7-8) Is It Inspired Scripture? by John Henry September 5, 1999 Updated October 8, 2013
- The Johannine Comma First John 5:6-8 by Floyd Jones
- Johannine Comma - 1 John 5:7-8 by Jeffrey Khoo
- Scion of Zion Article on 1 John 5:7-8
- 1 John 5:7 by Thomas Golda
- “And These Three Are One” Part 1 by Jesse M. Boyd
- “And These Three Are One” Part 2 by Jesse M. Boyd
- Manuscript Differences 05-1John 5:7-8 by Scott G MacLeod
- http://www.scionofzion.com/why_1_john_5_7_8.htm (Source: Trinitarian Bible Society)
- http://fpgm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/IJohn5.7.pdf (PDF)
- Does 1 John 5:7 belong in the Bible? by Peter Ruckman
- Richard Muller and the History of the Preservation of Scripture pt. 1
- YouTube Video of Daniel Wallace making false claims that Erasmus added 1 John 5:7 to the bible in 1522
- Wallace on the Comma
- Wallace actually denies that Cyprian quoted the Comma
- The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript by Daniel B. Wallace 7/2/2010