Johannine Comma and Thomas Middleton

From Textus Receptus

This page is a branch of a lager article, see Johannine Comma

(This is a work in progress and will contain errors until it is completed)

CHAP. V.

Vv. 7, 8. Τρεῖς εἰσιν of μαρτυροῦντες [ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. Every one knows of how much controversy this passage has been the subject, and that the words which I have enclosed in brackets are now pretty generally abandoned as spurious. It is foreign from my undertaking to detail the arguments by which this decision has been established; and as little is it my purpose to call in question their justness and solidity. He who would see the controyersy briefly, yet clearly, stated, may consult the Preface to Mr. Marsh’s Letters to Mr. Travis, and an Appendix to the second volume of Mr. Butler's Horæ Biblicæ: and if he wish to enter more fully into the inquiry, the same Appendix will direct him to almost every thing of importance which has appeared on the subject. The probable result will be, that he will close the examination with a firm belief that the passage is spurious; more especially if he be of opinion that it rather obscures than elucidates the reasoning.

It has, however, been insisted, that the omission of the rejected passage rather embarrasses the context: Bengel regards the two verses as being connected “adamantinâ cohærentiâ” and yet, it must be allowed, that among the various interpretations there are some which will at least endure the absence of the seventh verse. But the difficulty to which the present undertaking has directed my attention, is of another kind: it respects the Article in εἰς τὸ ἕν in the final clause of the eighth verse: if the seventh verse had not been spurious, nothing could have been plainer than that TO ἕν of verse 8, referred to ἕν of verse 7: as the case now stands, I do not perceive the force or meaning of the Article; and the same difliculty is briefly noticed by Wolfius. In order to prove that this is not merely nodum in scirpo quærere, I think it right to examine, at some length, what are the occasions on which, before εἷς, the Article may be inserted.

The Article, when prefixed to εἷς, is not used in any peculiar manner, but is, as in all other cases, subservient to the purpose either of reference or of hypothesis.

(Done to here)

The passages of the N. 'T.-in-which εἷς or. ἕν occurs with the Article, are somewhat more than twenty; without the Article, it is extremely common. Of its hypothetic use, I have ob- served no instance: in the way of reference, we find it opposed to ὃ ἕτερος, Matt. vi. 24. Luke xviii. 10: sometimes to ὁ ἄλλος, Rev. xvii. 10: sometimes to εἷς, 1 Thess. v. 11: also to ὁ εἷς, Matt. xxiv. 40. Rom. v. 15. We find also ὁ εἷς used for one of two, Luke xxiv. 18. In like manner, in an Inscription preserved by Gruter, Ὁ. ccce. 1st ed. we have προ- ἕενιαν ἀναγραψαι εἰς χαλκωματα δυο καὶ TO ἑν Sovvat, k. τ. X. In these and similar instances, it is obvious that ὁ εἷς is pro- perly used in reference to some one other person; for where three or more persons or things are in question, there the Article is omitted: so Mark iv. 8. and xiv. 10: unless, indeed, in such instances as Herod. lib. iv. p. 152. ed. 1570, where, in speaking of a quadrangular temple, he observes, τὰ piv τρία τῶν κώλων ἐστὶν ἀπότομα, κατὰ δὲ TO ἕν ἐπιβατόν : here three sides are spoken of together, and thus we revert to the case in which only two things are mentioned.—The Article may like- wise be prefixed to εἷς where one person or thing has been recently mentioned: so Matt. xxv. 18. TO ἕν, the one talent . mentioned in ver. 15; 1 Cor. xii. 11. TO ἕν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, though some MSS. omit the former Article: in ver. 12. we have τὸ σῶμα ἕν ἐστι followed by TOY σώματος TOY ἑνός, though here several authorities omit τοῦ ἑνός : 1 Cor. x. 17. we have εἷς ἄρτος followed by ἐκ TOY ἑνὸς ἄρτου. Τὸ ἕν φρο- νοῦντες, Philipp. 11, 2. I have explained ad loc. From some of these instances, it is evident that, had the seventh verse been authentic, the usage would have allowed us to refer TO ἕν of ver. 8. to ἕν of ver. 7. and the meaning would have been, that the three earthly witnesses concurred in testifying the one thing testified by the heavenly witnesses. Since, however, the interpolation of the seventh verse has been proved, the difli-

6

CHAPTER V. 4-43

culty remains, and it is not diminished by a comparison of the present with the other passages of the N. T., which most nearly resemble it: for in them we shall perceive that the Article is uniformly omitted. These passages are to be found principally in the Gospel of the Writer of this Epistle: for the phrase ἕν εἶναι see John x. 30; xvii. 11. 21, 22. 1 Cor. 3.8; and probably Gal. iii. 28. for there the authorities differ : for sic ἕν see John xi. 52. ἵνα συναγάγῃ εἰς ἕν; xvii. 23. ἵνα ὦσιν τετελειωμένοι cic ἕν. If more examples of this kind be required, as being more exactly to the purpose than are the former, I will observe that five instances of συνάγειν, or ἀθροίζειν εἰς ἕν, collected from Plato, Aristoph., Dion. Hal. and Plotinus, have been adduced by Wetstein, on John xi. 52; to which may be added, Plato, vol. iii. 8vo. p. 255. συντιθέμενα εἰς ἕν δηλοῖ τὴν φύσιν Tov Θεοῦ. Xenophon, Athen. Polit. Opera, 1681, p. 405. ταῦτα πάντα εἰς ἕν ἠθροῖσθαι. Apost. Const. cap. ill. τὰς τρίχας ποιεῖν εἰς ἕν. St. Basil, vol. i. p- 620. εἰς ἐν συγκολλώμενοι. Suidas, (voce ἕνωσις), ἕνωσις δὲ εἴρηται διὰ τὸ εἰς ἕν συνωθεῖσθαι τὰ πράγματα" he instances ten kinds, among which are ἐπὶ τών ὑποστάσεων and ἐπὶ τῶν γνωμῶν. And this I believe to be uniformly the usage, where the reason of the case does not require that the Article should be inserted. |

It is manifest, however, that I suppose ἕν εἶναι in ver. 7. to be expressive only of consent or unanimity, and not of the con- substantiality of the Divine Persons; for otherwise τὸ ἕν of ver. 8. could not be imagined to have any reference to ἕν in ver. 7; I mean here and throughout the Note, on the assump- tion of the authenticity of that verse. Now that ἕν εἶναι in the supposed ver. 7. would not bear any other sense, has been admitted by very zealous Trinitarians; of which number was the late Bishop Horsley. But not to argue from authority, let it be considered how the phrase ἕν εἶναι is elsewhere used inthe N.T. In 1 Cor, ii. 8. ἕν εἶναι is affirmed of him that planteth, and him that watereth: where nothing more than unity of purpose is conceivable. With St. John ἕν εἶναι was, as we have seen, a favourite phrase: in John xvii, 22. Christ prays to the Father, that the Disciples ἕν ὦσιν, καθὼς ἡμεῖς ἕν ἐσμεν. These passages, 1 think, decide the import of the ex- pression in John x. 30., and whereyer else it occurs in the

4

441: I. JOHN,

N. T. That some of the Fathers used it in the other sense, does not affect my argument.

I have asserted above, that of the hypothetic use of the Arti- cle before ἕν, I have seen no instance in the N.'T. In the phi- losophical Writers, especially in the Metaphysics of Aristotle, and in the Parmenides of Plato, this use is extremely common : so Arist. Met. lib. iv. cap. 15. τὸ πολλαπλάσιον πρὸς τὸ ἕν, that which is manifold, to that which is (supposed to be) only one, or Unity. That τὸ ἕν in this verse is not found in the LXX. the Reader will readily believe: if I may rely on the Concordance of 7rommius, there is not a single instance of τὸ ἕν, where the Article is not subservient to reference of some kind or other. The only passage at all deserving notice in the present inquiry is Exod. xxxvi. 18. καὶ ἐγένετο ἝΝ, applied to the various parts of the Tabernacle, forming one whole. The Hebrew of Job xxii. 13. TTN2 NW promises a very important illustration: but there the LX X. in alia omnia abeunt: and in the remains of the Hexapla the passage is not preserved. )

Out of τὸ ἕν, supposing the Article to be employed as in Part i. Chap. iil. Sect. i. § 6. seems to have arisen the use of the term as a philosophical name of the Deity. We are told by Maximus, the scholiast on the Pseudo-Dionysius the Areo- pagite, vol. i. p. 701. ed. 1634, that “EN ὠνόμασαν τὸν Θεὸν of πάλαι and we know that the Platonic Trinity had for its Hypostases ro ἕν or τἀγαθόν, Nove, and Ψυχή. This also is a sense of ro ἕν, which the Reader will hardly expect to find in the N. T. I was compelled, however, to notice it, as will be evident from what follows.

The Complut. edition reads, ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν of μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ Kal ὁ λόγος καὶ TO ἅγιον πνεῦμα" καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν Eilat’ καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα. The final close of ver. 8. is wanting. Mr. Porson (Letters to Mr. Travis, p- 51.) gives it as his opinion, that the Complutensian Editors “ trans- planted the clause καὶ of τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι to the end of the seventh verse.” And (p. 53.) he observes, in answer to an objection of Mr. Travis, “ to me, I confess, the Complutensian εἰς τὸ ἕν appears full as orthodox as the more common ἕν alone; and may be thus paraphrased: of TPEIS τὸ ‘EN

CHAPTER V. 445.

ΘΕΙΟΝ ἅμα συντελοῦσιν, hi TRES conjuncti UNUM efficient DEUM; in the same manner as ἔσονται οἱ AYO εἰς σάρκα MIAN is exactly synonymous with οὐκέτι εἰσὶ AYO, ἀλλὰ σὰρξ MIA: Matt. xix. 5, 6.” That the Preposition makes no alteration in the sense, is well known; this usage is a common Hebraism; but, perhaps, it may still be doubted in what way we are to explain the Complutensian TO ἕν: Mr. Porson says, by supplying Θεῖον. But here two questions may be asked: viz. In ro ἕν, the name of the Deity, is Θεῖον the Noun usually understood? And further, Is it in the man- ner of the Sacred Writers to employ such an Ellipsis? To the affirmative of the former, the origin of the term may not seem to be very favourable ; and to that of the latter it may be objected, that τὸ Θεῖον, a Pagan appellation of God, is not found at all in the LX X., and only once in the N. T. Acts xvii. 29. where St. Paul, in addressing the philosophers of Athens, adopted their own phraseology. Neither does the term τὸ ἕν, whatever Noun be understood in it, (and in this respect I should have thought that it differed not from ro πρέ- πον, τὸ ἀγαθόν, τὸ ὄν, &c.) appear to have been very familiar to the Writers of the N. T. nor to the LXX.: for though they speak of God some thousands of times, and. of his Unity in particular very frequently, they no where call Him ro ἕν: they say of Him, that he is εἷς Θεός : the Fathers do the same ; they say also μία θεότης.

But the point with which I am immediately concerned is, whether the Professor meant to give this explanation of εἰς τὸ ἕν, as it now stands in ver. 8. On this head I am justified in expressing a doubt, from his having alleged, that the clause which he thus interprets was transplanted from the eighth verse. At the same time, I am disposed to believe that Mr. Porson intended this explanation to apply to the seventh verse only, as we find it in the Complutensian, because, applied to ver. 8. of the common editions, it would require us to understand the Spirit and the Water and the Blood of the three Persons of the Trinity, a mystical interpretation adopted by some of the Fathers, but unwarranted by Scripture, and discountenanced, I think, by Mr. Porson. At any rate, if this explanation of εἰς τὸ ἕν in ver. 8. and of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood be admitted, the rejected passage was never worth con-

448 I. JOHN,

tending for, inasmuch as the eighth verse will thus affirm all which Athanasius himself could have desired.

There are, however, a few passages in the Fathers and else- where, which bear some resemblance to the final clause of ver. 8: they have usually been adduced as citations of the seventh verse; they are now brought forward in order to ascertain the probability whether or not St. John would have written εἰς TO ν in ver. 8. supposing the seventh verse not-to have pre- ceded. The assumptions which I mean to make are, that as many of these passages as have τὸ ἕν, and are admitted, or can be shown, to be citations of the final clause of ver. 8. (for the seventh verse is here out of the question,) afford evidence only of the antiquity of the reading to which I object, not of the propriety or legitimacy of the phrase; because citations from Scripture are intended to be literal: and that as many as, without being citations, affirm three to be one, or any thing similar to it, yet omit the Article before ἕν, are evidence that the εἰς TO ἕν of St. John (supposing that there is no reference) is a deviation from the ordinary usage. If a third class exist, i. 6. if there be well authenticated instances, differing from — those last mentioned only in having TO ἕν, I admit that they — invalidate my objection.—In examining the passages I will adhere to the order observed in Letter 1X. of Mr. Porson.

The first Greek authority examined by Mr. Porson is the Synopsis printed with Athanasius; by appealing to which Mr. Travis certainly did not serve his cause, since neither τρεῖς nor ἕν occurs in it, neither does τριὰς nor any thing of the kind. It is, therefore, no more to my purpose than it was to Mr, Travis’s; except, indeed, as it affords me an opportunity of expressing my surprise, that in default of the seventh verse no use was made of the mystical interpretation of the eighth.— The next also of the cited passages is found among the spu- rious works ascribed to Athanasius. The words are πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσι Iwavyne packet, Kat of τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσι. Mr. Por- son says, that it is found in the Dialogue between an Athana- sian and an Arian, and that Cave believes it to be the compo- sition of some doating monk: ‘in general,” adds the Professor, ‘it is attributed to Maximus, who lived in the seventh cen- tury.” In the works of Athanasius, 2 vol. fol. Paris, 1627, there is a Dialogue in five parts between an Athanasian and an

CHAPTER V. 447

Arian, in which, indeed, the passage does not appear; I find it, however, in the ‘* Disputation in the Nicene Council against Arius,” a work, of which Cave has actually said, that it is

figmentum monachi cujusdam delirantis.” This, therefore,

should seem to be the Treatise alluded to; and yet, on the other hand, of the Dialogue between the Athanasian and the Arian, Maximus is named by Cave as being possibly the au- thor. In whatever way this apparent contradiction be ac- counted for, we have here plainly a citation of ver. 7. or of ver. 8, though, as Mr. Porson remarks, it is not in the exact words of either: he says, that it more nearly resembles those of the eighth; that the Preposition has been absorbed by τρεῖς ; and that the same omission has happened in the copies of Cyril, of Euthym. Zigab. and of Dionys. Alex. 'The Reader should know, that πρὸς τούτοις in the Disputation is precéded by an allusion to the baptismal formula at the conclusion of St. Matthew: hence it is evident that the Writer is speaking of the Trinity: still he might be one of those, who adopted the mystical interpretation; and in that case the eighth verse might be the passage, which he had in view. On this supposi- ‘tion, the citation will show to a certain degree, that in the time of Maximus or of “‘ the doating monk” the final clause of the eighth verse existed nearly in its present form. I say, to a certain degree; for it is well known that such writers do not always cite Scripture very accurately, not to insist on the incorrectness, which some of them owe to the Copyists.

Mr. Porson next considers a passage from EKuthym. Zigab. who has said τὸ ἕν ἐπὶ τῶν ὁμοουσίων λέγεται, ἔνθα ταυτότης μὲν φύσεως, ἑτερότης δὲ τῶν ὑποστάσεων, ὡς τὸ Καὶ τὰ τρία ἕν. Mr. Porson grants, that if this passage be a quotation from Scripture, it is from 1 John ν. 7. He discovered, however, that Euthymius took it from Greg. Nazianzen, who had said, “Ev γὰρ ἐν τρισὶν ἡ θεότης, KAI TA TPIA ‘EN. My infer- ence is, that Greg. Nazianzen, who confessedly is speaking of the Trinity, but does not cite St. John, considered ἕν without the Article, to be the natural expression of his meaning. He uses ἕν, it is true, of consubstantiality: but I do not perceive that, if it had been used of consent as in ver. 8. the Article could have been more wanted.

The passage, which is next to be examined, is also from

448 I. JOHN,

Euthym. Zigab. where that Writer has given the seventh and eighth verses entire, as they stand in our common editions. Mr. Porson, however, objects, that Euthymius’s reasoning proves him to have been ignorant of the seventh verse, for that his argument derives all its force from the close connection of verses 6, 8, and 9. Euthymius, as translated by Mr. Porson, reasons thus: ‘* See now again how the Preacher of truth calls the Spirit by nature God and of God; for having said that it is the Spirit of God that witnesses, a little onward he adds, the witness of God is greater: how then is he a creature,” &c. So far as | understand Kuthymius’s argument, I do not perceive that he has made more use of the eighth verse, than he has of the seventh. Euthymius, however, derived all these argu- ments and testimonies from Cyril's Thesaurus; where Mr. Porson ‘‘ saw with his own eyes not a word more than, For there are three that bear record, the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, and the three are one.” I can corroborate the accuracy of Mr. Porson’s statement as to the point, which he was con- sidering, viz. the absence of the seventh verse. It is, however, observable, that the words of Cyril are ὅτι OI τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ

μαρτυροῦντες, 80 that the rendering should be, “ for the three

are they who bear record:” the three are in reference to ver. 6. where Cyril has the reading of some extant MSS. δ ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος KAI TINEYMATO®X. This instance, therefore, is totally distinct from that which follows; for Cyril in this place has εἰς τὸ ἕν. In those words he appears to have cited accu- rately what he found in his copy; while in οἱ τρεῖς he wrote as from himself. It may be inferred, however, from Gries- bach, that even in the final clause of ver. 8. Cyril sometimes shook off the yoke, which the MSS. imposed on him, and wrote not merely TO ἕν, which is just as exceptionable, and in which, as Mr. Porson supposes, the Preposition might be absorbed in the preceding τρεῖς, but sometimes simply “EN : that is to say, Cyril has sometimes so far forgotten or disre- garded the precise words of Scripture, as, in quoting them, to have expressed himself according to the common usage.

The Apostolos, which comes next in order, requires no .

notice. The passage from Basil is, | imagine, for Mr. Porson has given only the Latin, that which I find advers. Eunom. lib. v.

— ee

CHAPTER V. 449.

πιστεύουσιν sic Θεὸν καὶ λόγον καὶ πνεῦμα μίαν οὖσαν Θεότητα. On this I would merely observe, that μία Θεότης and εἷς Θεός, predicated of the Three Persons, are so common in all Trea- tises on the Trinity, that it is improbable that the Fathers had any knowledge of τὸ ἕν for τὸ ἕν Θεῖον as being a Scripture phrase.

The Scholion ἐλεεινὰ to Origen, on Psalm exxiii. 2. εὐνᾶς with οἱ γὰρ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν᾽ and nothing is more evident, than that this is a citation from the eighth verse: the Writer had just said τὰ δὲ τρία (viz. the Spirit, the Body, and the Soul) κύριος ὃ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστι he immediately subjoins ΟἹ TAP ΤΡΕΙ͂Σ, &c. the sudden change of the Gender and the γὰρ together demonstrate, that the words were borrowed by way of proof. These Scholia, though imputed to Origen, are gene- rally allowed to be sequioris evi. Many of them, like the pre- sent, are models of mysticism and absurdity.

We next learn, that Andreas Cretensis has from Greg. Nazianzen the words τὰ τρία εἷς Θεός : and that the Nomo- canon, published by Cotelerius, has ἕν ταῦτα τὰ τρία, not TO ἕν. » Lastly, the Author of the Philopatris, published with Lucian, has said, in ridicule of the faith cf his Christian con- temporaries, ἕν τρία, τρία ἕν.

Supposing, then, that these are all the Greek passages, which have any similitude to the controverted verse, (and if there were many more, the controversy could not easily have failed to bring them to light,) I think I may state it as the general result, that they belong either to the first or to the second of the classes above described: they are either citations of the words of St. John, and therefore afford no other evi- dence affecting my inquiry than that of the antiquity of the reading; or else they are instances tending to prove that the reading of the eighth verse, on the supposition that the seventh is spurious, is not authorized by ordinary usage. Of the third class, consisting of passages similar to the final clause of the eighth verse, not being citations of that clause, yet having τὸ ἕν so used as to form a vindication of the Article in the clause, I have not found any example. There is, however, in Origen, as quoted by Griesbach, Symb. Crit. vol. ii. p. 611. a passage, which is remarkable, as tending to show what would have been the meaning of εἰς TO ἕν in ver 8. if the seventh had not been

Gg

4δ0 I. JOHN,

spurious. I transcribe Griesbach. “ Origenes, in transfigura- tione, ait, Christi, postquam ipse discipules attigisset, hi non viderunt, nisi Jesum solum. “EN μονον yeyove μωσης (ὃ νομος) kat ἤλιας (ἡ προφητεια)ὴ incov (τῳ εὐαγγελιῳ.) καὶ οὐχ ὥσπερ ἦσαν προτερον τρεῖς, οὕτω μεμενηκασιν, ἀλλα γεγονασιν οἱ τρεις εἰς ΤῸ ἕν." According to this account Moses and Elias, respectively emblematic of the Law and of Prophecy, became one with Jesus or the Gospel: there were no longer three, but the three were transformed into the one (before mentioned).

The reference of the Article in τὸ ἕν is here as evident as it is

in οἱ τρεῖς of the same passage. ι

The difficulty, then, attending the final clause of ver. 8. re- mains thus far not only unobviated, but in some degree con- firmed ; and I do not perceive how the present reading is to be reconciled with the extermination of ver. 7. The only alternative left us, is the possibility, that the Article in εἰς τὸ ἕν may be spurious, or even that the whole final clause of ver. 8. may be an interpolation. All the evidence, with which I am able to support the former of these conjectures, consists in the reading of the Vienna MS. published by Alter, which has εἰς ἕν, in a var. reading of Cyril (ἕν for εἰς τὸ ἕν) already alluded to, as noticed by Griesbach ad loc. and in the same var. reading in the MS. of Euthym. Zigab. which once be- longed to Chrysanthus, as cited by Matthii. That MS. omits the rejected passage, and says of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι : such also is the reading (accord- ing to Griesbach) of the Armenian, and in one place of Gicu- menius. There is likewise a passage in Origen in his Com- mentary on St. John’s Gospel, which I give on the authority of Griesbach, Symb. Crit. ii. 610: ‘‘ Joannes τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ kal τὸ αἷμα ἀνέγραψε, τὰ τρία EIS ‘EN γενόμενα." Lam not, perhaps, entitled to consider this also as a var. reading, because it seems to be intended to express the sense rather than the exact words of St. John: it is important, however, in another point of view, as it shows in common with some other instances already noticed, that εἰς ἕν, and not εἰς TO ἕν, is, where there is no reference, the natural phraseology.

De Missy, in-his MS. Notes on his copy of Mill’s Test. pre- served in the British Museum, has a conjecture, which may be noticed in this place. Commenting on the words of Tertul-

ἡ ee a «ιν

CHAPTER V. 451

han, ““ Qui tres UNUM sunt, non UNUS,” he supposes that Father to reject the reading of Some MSS. in which was δέ tres unus sunt: which, he says, might have arisen from the Greek καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἷς εἰσιν: for supposing such a reading in some copies, the rest admits a probable solution. Somebody, dissatisfied, for the same cause as Tertullian, with cic, wrote in the margin ἕν, either from authority or from conjecture: thence came the reading of the Lateran Council οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν, by adopting ἕν for εἷς : in other copies, for the sake of emphasis, TO might be added: hence the reading of the Author of the ““ Disputation at the Council of Nice” repre- sents this part of the text to be καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. Others, lastly, changing the accent and breathing of cic, out of the three readings made a fourth, or, if you will, restored the true one, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. See Mr. Beloe’s Anecdotes of Literature, vol. i. p. 116. The best argument which I have to offer in support of this theory, is the variety of readings in the clause: for in addition to those which my immediate purpose required me to notice, three or four au- thorities have οἱ τρεῖς ro ἕν εἰσι, thus omitting the Preposi- tion: it is not, however, at all evident that the passage of Tertullian, which is the basis of the whole, is to be so explained: nor has any extant MS. εἷς.

It is, then, barely possible that the Article may be spuri- ous: the authorities are, in general, hostile to this supposi- tion.

The other conjecture, that the whole clause may be spuri- ous, is scarcely more defensible; and indeed, if the last cited passage from Origen be authentic, (and, so far as I know, it has not ever been suspected,) it will, as does the Syr. Version, prove the clause to have existed at an early period. On the other hand, of the Latin MSS., which are the principal sup- port of the seventh verse, many omit the final clause of the eighth. Mr. Porson (p. 139.) has given us his collation of fifty MSS. of the Vulgate: ““ of this number,” he informs us,

- thirty-two omit the final clause of the eighth verse: eighteen ©

retain it, but one has it in the text underlined with red lead, two in the margin, one from the first, the other from a second hand,” Further on, however, (p. 155.) the Professor has as follows: ‘‘ Abbot Joachim compared the final clauses of the

Gg2

452 . I. JOHN,

seventh and eighth verses, whence he inferred, that the same expression ought.to be interpreted in the same manner. Since, therefore, said he, nothing more than unity of testimony and consent can be meant by tres wnum sunt in the eighth verse, nothing more.than unity of testimony and consent is meant in the seventh. This opinion the Lateran Council and Thomas Aquinas confuted, by cutting out that clause in the eighth verse. Thomas tells us, that it was not extant im the true copies, but that it was said to be added by the Arian heretics, to pervert the sound understanding of the foregoing authority.” What is here said of the Lateran Council derives some con- firmation from what the Professor has asserted, (p. 152.) that twenty-nine Latin MSS., ‘‘in general the fairest, the oldest, and the most correct,” have the clause of ver. 8.—Grotius sup- posed the clause to be spurious: in his Commentary, he speaks of a very ancient MS. in which it is wanting: this MS., how- ever, was no other than the Alexandrian, in which the words are found: see Mr. Porson, p. 71. It is wanting in Bryen- nius and in the Correctorium Biblicum.—I do not know whe- ther any inference can be drawn from a citation of the verse

by Greg. Nazianz, Orat. xxxvii. p. 603. though the final.

clause is there omitted. He is arguing against a sophism which turned on the difference between connumeration and

subnumeration: it was contended, that persons or. things~

equal in dignity and homousian are connumerated; 6. δ: we say three men three Gods: whereas things unequal and. not homousian are enumerated, and that, which as being the lowest in dignity is placed last, was said to be subnumerated > thus from the formula, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the ob- jectors inferred the inferiority of the last named Person, With this explanation the passage from Gregory will be intelligible:

‘‘ What, then, are we to say of John, when in his Catholic

Kpistles he affirms, that there are three, who bear witness, the Spirit, the Blood, the Water? Does he appear to you to write nonsense, in having in the first place ventured to connu- merate things not homousian, which you allow to be done only in things homousian? For who will pretend, that these are of the.same substance?” It may here be urged, that Gregory omitted the clause purposely, as not contributing to strengthen his argument. ‘The same may be alleged of a similar passage

a EE eee Eee —

CHAPTER V. 4.53

in Nicetas, the Commentator on Gregory, as adduced by Mat- thai: Nicetas is there illustrating a different part of his author; but has evidently borrowed his reasoning, and almost his words, from that which I have translated. He too omits the final clause.—At any rate it is remarkable, that the clause in ques- . tion appears so seldom in the writings of the Fathers: con- nected with the sentence preceding, it was capable of being converted to some use by persons, who knew the mystical in- terpretation of Spirit, Blood, and Water, and who for the most part were not averse from that kind of exposition. If it be said, that the clause existed in the time of Origen and of the Syr. Translator, the little use, which has been made of it, will still leave a presumption, that some copies were without _ it: and when we remark in reading the Fathers, that in order to illustrate the Trinity in Unity they have collected all ima- ginable instances, in which three things in any manner coalesce in one, it becomes matter of surprise, leaving the mystical interpretation out of the question, that a Triad, the unity of which in some sense or other was asserted in Scripture, should not have been more frequently insisted on.

In concluding this Note, I think it right to offer something towards its vindication. Iam not ignorant, that in the rejec- tion of the controverted passage learned and good men are now, for the most part, agreed; and I contemplate with ad- miration and delight the gigantic exertions of intellect, which have established this acquiescence: the objection, however, which has given rise to this discussion, I could not consistently with my plan suppress. On the whole I am led to suspect, that though so much labour and critical acuteness have been bestowed on these celebrated verses, more is yet to be done, before the mystery, in which they are involved, can be wholly developed.

Johannine Comma

1 John 5:7

1 John 5:8

Pure Bible Forum

KJV Today

1 John 5:7 and Modern Criticism by Taylor Desoto

Codex Montfortianus, Erasmus, and 1 John 5:7

Erasmian Myths: The Comma Wager

Erasmian Myths: Codex Vaticanus

1 Jn.5:7,8 Establishing the Authenticity

Defense D. A. Waite

And These Three Are One

Manuscript Differences

“And These Three Are One” Part 1

Riddle Review of McDonald book

Hixson, the CJ, and Roman Catholic Provenance

Riddle on Hixson Part 1

Riddle on Hixson Part 2

Riddle on Hixson Part 3

Riddle - Internal Argument

Riddle - Papyrus

KJV Asia Scams

KJV Asia

KJV Asia Manuscripts

Setting the Record Straight

Dedending 1 John 5:7 by David Cloud

KJV "Errors"

(1 John 5:7-8) Is It Inspired Scripture?

First John 5:6-8 by Floyd Jones

Scion of Zion Article

Trinitarian Bible Society on Johannine Comma

1 John 5:7-8 by Jeffrey Khoo

1 John 5:7 by Thomas Golda

David Cloud Articles

Email Debate Gregory S. Neal and Thomas Holland

“And These Three Are One” Part 2

Links to Books

Frederick Nolan - An Inquiry

SS(ancti) apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae 1782 [1]

Joseph Bryennios Comma Quotation

New criticisms Knittle

13 Sermons - Doctrine of the Trinity Edmund Calamy

Raising the Ghost of Arius by Grantley McDonald

Letters To Edward Gibbon George Travis 1785

A Vindication...of Porson Thomas Turton 1827

Memoir of the Controversy. William Orme

A Vindication of 1st John v. 7 Thomas Burgess Web

Ben David

William Craig Brownlee 1825 Part 1

William Craig Brownlee 1825 Part 2

Theopneustia - François Samuel R. Louis Gaussen, 1841

New plea for the authenticity - Charles Forster 1867 [2][3]

Deux dissertations (French) English Martin

The doctrine of the Greek article - Thomas Middleton

Richard Porson I John v 7, 1790

The King James Version 2023 Edition New Testament is now complete and in print format here.

Internal Links

Old Testament - New Testament KJV 1900

New Testament KJV 2016

Scrivener's 1894 Textus Receptus

2016 Urdu New Testament (TR Based)

Russian Synodal Version (TR Based)

Reina Valera Gómez Spanish (TR Based)

Marginal Notes in the 1611 Authorized Version

Ephesians 3:9

Why We Should Not Passover Easter 1, 2, & 3

Will Kinney

List of TR/KJV based foreign bibles

List of New Testament minuscules

List of New Testament lectionaries

List of New Testament Papyri

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 ·