Johannine Comma and Dean Burgon

Dean Burgon mentions the Comma in passing in his book The revision revised while defending 1 Tim 3:16. Burgon mentions 1 John 5:7 but does not defend its authenticity, in fact he used it as a parallel to the flimsy evidence used by critics of the 'God' reading who favored the 'who' reading at 1 Timothy 3:16:

And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,—and (I venture to predict) will go out,—with the present century. My only wonder is how an exhibition of 1 Tim. iii. 16, so feebly attested—so almost without attestation—can have come to be seriously entertained by any. "Si,"—(as Griesbach remarks concerning 1 John v. 7)—"si tam pauci .... testes .... sufficerent ad demonstrandam lectionis cujusdam genuinitatem, licet obstent tam multa tamque gravia et testimonia et argumenta; nullum prorsus superesset in re critica veri falsique criterium, et textus Novi Testamenti universus plane incertus esset atque dubius." *

Yet this is the reading which you, my Lord Bishop, not only stiffly maintain, but which you insist is no longer so much as "open to reconsideration." You are, it seems, for introducing the cloture into textual debate. But in fact you are for inflicting pains and penalties as well on those who have the misfortune to differ in opinion from yourself. You discharge all the vials of the united sees of Gloucester and Bristol on me for my presumption in daring to challenge the verdict of "the textual criticism of the last fifty years,"—of the Revisers,—and of yourself;—my folly, in venturing to believe that the traditional reading of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (which you admit is at least 1,530 years old), is the right reading after all. You hold me up to public indignation. "He has made" (you say) "an elaborate effort to shake conclusions about which no professed scholar has any doubt whatever; but which an ordinary reader (and to such we address ourselves) might regard as still open to reconsideration."—"Moreover" (you proceed), "this case is of great importance as an example. It illustrates in a striking manner the complete isolation of the reviewer's position. If he is right, all other critics are wrong." * [1]

While Burgon shows how strongly he felt about 1 Timothy 3:16, he revealed that he saw 1 John 5:7 as spurious. When Burgon says: "And this exhausts the evidence for a reading which came in,—and (I venture to predict) will go out,—with the present century." he means: "The evidence for 'Who was manifested in the flesh' is so weak that I believe this reading is merely a nineteenth-century scholarly fashion that will eventually disappear." In other words, he predicts that future scholars will abandon the modern critical reading and return to "God was manifested in the flesh."

Burgon then quotes Johann Jakob Griesbach speaking about 1 John 5:7:

"If so few witnesses were sufficient to establish the genuineness of a reading, despite so many and such weighty testimonies and arguments against it, then no criterion of truth and falsehood would remain in textual criticism, and the entire text of the New Testament would become uncertain and doubtful."

Burgon's point is ironic. Griesbach used that argument against the Comma Johanneum. Burgon turns it around and says: "The same criticism applies to your reading of 1 Timothy 3:16." He is essentially saying: "You are accepting a reading based on a tiny handful of manuscripts while rejecting the overwhelming mass of evidence." When Burgon says: "You are, it seems, for introducing the cloture into Textual debate." "Cloture" is a parliamentary term meaning to end debate and force a vote. Burgon is accusing the Bishop of saying: "The matter is settled. Discussion is over." Burgon objects because he thinks the evidence overwhelmingly favors the traditional reading. He says: "which you admit is at least 1530 years old," meaning the reading "God was manifested in the flesh" is extremely ancient. It is the reading of the vast majority of manuscripts. It is supported by patristic evidence. Therefore it should not be discarded merely because a few early manuscripts differ. So is attacking the position of Charles John Ellicott and, more broadly, the textual approach associated with Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. Burgon believes they have elevated a few manuscripts—especially Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus—above the united testimony of the rest of the manuscript tradition.

Many modern TR advocates quote this section because Burgon sounds very much like a defender of the Textus Receptus, but he was actually defending what he called the Traditional Text, which is more like a Majority Text or Byzantine Priority position. However, Burgon himself would not have accepted the logic being applied to every TR reading. So while Burgon defended "God" in 1 Timothy 3:16 because he believed it had massive manuscript support. But he did not defend the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5:7 with the same confidence. He regarded the evidence for the Comma as much weaker than the evidence for 1 Timothy 3:16. So for the Comma Burgon is not arguing for the Textus Receptus as such. He is arguing that the traditional reading of 1 Timothy 3:16 is overwhelmingly better attested than the modern critical reading and that the evidence of the critics is a weak as the evidence for 1 John 5:7. He stated: "If so few witnesses are enough to overthrow so many and such weighty testimonies, then the entire text of the New Testament becomes uncertain." Showing he was a advocate for the Majority Text and not the Textus Receptus.

𝔓¹ · 𝔓² · 𝔓³ · 𝔓⁴ · 𝔓⁵ · 𝔓⁶ · 𝔓⁷ · 𝔓⁸ · 𝔓⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹ · 𝔓¹² · 𝔓¹³ · 𝔓¹⁴ · 𝔓¹⁵ · 𝔓¹⁶ · 𝔓¹⁷ · 𝔓¹⁸ · 𝔓¹⁹ · 𝔓²⁰ · 𝔓²¹ · 𝔓²² · 𝔓²³ · 𝔓²⁴ · 𝔓²⁵ · 𝔓²⁶ · 𝔓²⁷ · 𝔓²⁸ · 𝔓²⁹ · 𝔓³⁰ · 𝔓³¹ · 𝔓³² · 𝔓³³ · 𝔓³⁴ · 𝔓³⁵ · 𝔓³⁶ · 𝔓³⁷ · 𝔓³⁸ · 𝔓³⁹ · 𝔓⁴⁰ · 𝔓⁴¹ · 𝔓⁴² · 𝔓⁴³ · 𝔓⁴⁴ · 𝔓⁴⁵ · 𝔓⁴⁶ · 𝔓⁴⁷ · 𝔓⁴⁸ · 𝔓⁴⁹ · 𝔓⁵⁰ · 𝔓⁵¹ · 𝔓⁵² · 𝔓⁵³ · 𝔓⁵⁴ · 𝔓⁵⁵ · 𝔓⁵⁶ · 𝔓⁵⁷ · 𝔓⁵⁸ · 𝔓⁵⁹ · 𝔓⁶⁰ · 𝔓⁶¹ · 𝔓⁶² · 𝔓⁶³ · 𝔓⁶⁴ · 𝔓⁶⁵ · 𝔓⁶⁶ · 𝔓⁶⁷ · 𝔓⁶⁸ · 𝔓⁶⁹ · 𝔓⁷⁰ · 𝔓⁷¹ · 𝔓⁷² · 𝔓⁷³ · 𝔓⁷⁴ · 𝔓⁷⁵ · 𝔓⁷⁶ · 𝔓⁷⁷ · 𝔓⁷⁸ · 𝔓⁷⁹ · 𝔓⁸⁰ · 𝔓⁸¹ · 𝔓⁸² · 𝔓⁸³ · 𝔓⁸⁴ · 𝔓⁸⁵ · 𝔓⁸⁶ · 𝔓⁸⁷ · 𝔓⁸⁸ · 𝔓⁸⁹ · 𝔓⁹⁰ · 𝔓⁹¹ · 𝔓⁹² · 𝔓⁹³ · 𝔓⁹⁴ · 𝔓⁹⁵ · 𝔓⁹⁶ · 𝔓⁹⁷ · 𝔓⁹⁸ · 𝔓⁹⁹ · 𝔓¹⁰⁰ · 𝔓¹⁰¹ · 𝔓¹⁰² · 𝔓¹⁰³ · 𝔓¹⁰⁴ · 𝔓¹⁰⁵ · 𝔓¹⁰⁶ · 𝔓¹⁰⁷ · 𝔓¹⁰⁸ · 𝔓¹⁰⁹ · 𝔓¹¹⁰ · 𝔓¹¹¹ · 𝔓¹¹² · 𝔓¹¹³ · 𝔓¹¹⁴ · 𝔓¹¹⁵ · 𝔓¹¹⁶ · 𝔓¹¹⁷ · 𝔓¹¹⁸ · 𝔓¹¹⁹ · 𝔓¹²⁰ · 𝔓¹²¹ · 𝔓¹²² · 𝔓¹²³ · 𝔓¹²⁴ · 𝔓¹²⁵ · 𝔓¹²⁶ · 𝔓¹²⁷ · 𝔓¹²⁸ · 𝔓¹²⁹ · 𝔓¹³⁰ · 𝔓¹³¹ · 𝔓¹³² · 𝔓¹³³ · 𝔓¹³⁴ · 𝔓¹³⁵ · 𝔓¹³⁶ · 𝔓¹³⁷ · 𝔓¹³⁸ · 𝔓¹³⁹ · 𝔓¹⁴⁰ ·