The Comma Johanneum revisited

Transcription

1 The Comma Johanneum revisited A Theology bachelor thesis which explores on textcritical and exegetical basis the possibility that the Comma Johanneum is original. June 2017 Thesis supervisor: Prof. dr. G.H. van Kooten By Jeroen Beekhuizen

2 Table of Contents Introduction... 3 An introduction to the Comma s location... 4 Chapter 1 Textcritical evaluation Introduction First argument: the Greek manuscripts Second argument: the Greek Fathers Third argument: the earliest Latin versions Fourth argument: the Comma as allegorical gloss Conclusion and explanation of the Comma s disappearance... 9 Chapter 2 - Exegetical evaluation Introduction Witnesses and testifying in the Johannine literature The Spirit, the water and the blood these three are unto one The Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit these three are one Unity in the Johannine literature these three are (unto) one In heaven and on earth testimony of men and of God Two noteworthy parallels: John 5:31-40 and John 8: Conclusion Conclusion Bibliography

3 Introduction Before the art of printing was invented textual criticism was not totally absent, yet it was necessarily limited to individual manuscripts. With the possibility to print and thus to produce a universally available standard text, textual criticism evolved from a personal quest of the interested individual into a vital part of theological science. With this evolution trouble started for the Comma Johanneum, a verse in 1 John 5 which was part of the Latin tradition but now appeared to be absent from the Greek. Erasmus first decided to omit it, but others dared not to follow his example and ultimately it was included in the so called Textus Receptus. In recent times these facts have found widely different evaluations. In scholarship the general trend is to blame Erasmus for eventually yielding to the pressure, thence subjecting objective textual criticism to orthodox feeling. 1 The contrasting position is the opinion of some conservative Christians who regard it as the special providence of God that the Comma found its way into the Textus Receptus (a position few scholars would openly take today). Thus the Comma Johanneum has become a symbol of the battle between science and dogma, between the right to relentlessly doubt even holy things and the boldness of faith to reject scholarly opinion. This has led to the unfavourable situation where defending the Comma is de facto regarded as based on dogmatic preference so that the assumption is almost anonymously that it cannot be defended by solid scientific argument. Being both honestly concerned with textual criticism and of the opinion that the Comma belongs in the text I found myself inclined to consider the entire case of the Comma myself and see whether it could be defended on scholarly level. To do this within the narrow limits of a bachelor thesis I have attempted to select the most important arguments and thoroughly discuss those rather than superficially treating every possible argument. If this will be enough to ensure that the Comma is no longer (scholarly) regarded as indefensible then I will be abundantly satisfied. Nevertheless, whatever the result, writing my thesis about the Comma Johanneum has been very satisfying to me. Not because I was so eager to defend its authenticity, for I have sometimes seriously doubted its authenticity (mainly due to its weak textcritical position). No, it has been satisfying because investigating into the Comma Johanneum has been an investigation into the entire history of the Church and of Textual Criticism. What is more, it proved to be an investigation into the very essence of John s Gospel. Even if the case I make proves terribly unconvincing (which I do not think it will), for me personally it was completely worth the effort. Bible quotations will be from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) and Patristic quotations will be in my own translation. In the first chapter I will evaluate the Comma textcritically putting forward my own perspective on the question of its originality. In the second chapter I will evaluate the Comma exegetically by considering its explanation in light of the Gospel of John and his letters, which will in this thesis be designated as the Johannine literature (leaving the Apocalypse of John out of the picture). 1 Most explicitly in David M. Whitford, Yielding to the Prejudices of His Times: Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum, Church History and Religious Culture 95 (2015):

4 An introduction to the Comma s location Before entering into the textcritical evaluation it will be good to observe the exact location of the Comma. Although this anticipates on the exegetical chapter, it will be helpful in evaluating the textcritical arguments. What are the textual peculiarities of the Comma, to be looked for in Church Father quotations, and what are those of its absence? Such questions cannot be answered without a semi-thorough knowledge of the content of the passage concerned. This is my translation of 1 John 5:5-9 with and without Comma: Who is it that conquers the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water alone, but in the water and in the blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who testify the Spirit, the water and the blood, and these three are unto one (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν). If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son. Who is it that conquers the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water alone, but in the water and in the blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who testify in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one (καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν). And there are three who testify on earth the Spirit, the water and the blood, and these three are unto one (καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν). If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son. Important for textcritical purposes is the observation that there is repetition of there are three who testify which opens the possibility of the Comma being dropped out by homoeoarcton: the scribes eye jumped from the first to the second clause because they open with the same words. The only objection to this is that in this case on earth should have been present in the remaining manuscripts, which is not the case. This is a true objection, though on earth may have been dropped out secondarily as it made no sense without the preceding in heaven. Apart from this, no transcriptional reasons can be imagined for either omitting or adding the Comma accidentally it must have been intentional. From this perspective the argument can go either way and the textual critic must consider which variant has the oldest and most reliable testimonies and what may be the origin of the unoriginal variant. Some exegetical observations will also be helpful for this purpose: 1. The subject of the passage is faith in Jesus the Son of God. 2. He is emphasised to have come not only through water but also through blood. Water, as will become apparent, can symbolise a human birth or body and blood can symbolise human suffering or a human soul. 3. The testimony of the Comma is of Father, Word and Holy Spirit, not Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 4. All witnesses are said to be in some sense one. With this passage and these observations in mind, the topic of the first chapter will be textual criticism. 4

5 Chapter 1 Textcritical evaluation 1.1 Introduction The textcritical arguments against the authenticity of the Comma can be found in almost every commentary on 1 John and often with little variation. Unfortunately these arguments cannot be said to be presented in a fair and balanced manner; misleading statements and exaggeration is not uncommon. Since most of these commentaries derive their arguments from the work of Bruce M. Metzger 2 the best method to proceed will be to closely evaluate his arguments while assessing the evidence. In short words Metzger s argument is that the Comma is (1) absent from far most of the Greek manuscripts, (2) not quoted by the Greek Fathers, (3) absent from all ancient versions including the earliest Latin versions, (4) can be explained as allegorical gloss, (5) no good reason can be found for its omission were it original and finally (6) it makes an awkward break in the sense of 1 John 5. 3 Whether the last argument is correct will be explored in chapter 2, but the other arguments will one by one be tested on their validity in this chapter. Certainly, if Metzger is correct then defending the Comma will indeed hardly be worth the effort, yet it will become apparent that these arguments are not what they seem. 1.2 First argument: the Greek manuscripts The argument that the Comma is absent in all Greek manuscripts but nine is the best and most sound argument and in my opinion the only relevant one. Although Metzger speaks of eight manuscripts (and lists seven), 4 nine manuscripts are listed in NA28 that do contain the Comma. To put this in perspective, however, it is necessary to consider how many manuscripts contain the passage in question (1 John 5:6-8). The statement of Raymond E. Brown that it concerns nine manuscripts out of some five thousand is utterly misleading. 5 It is certain that only several hundred Greek manuscripts contain 1 John and still less contain 1 John 5. Without this information, which Metzger does not provide, there is no way to assess the strength of his argument. After some research I at last found an exact number of manuscripts: 509 Greek manuscripts have 1 John 5:6-8 and in 500 of those the Comma is absent. 6 This is much less than Brown states, but it is still a great majority. This remains therefore a strong argument against the Comma. 1.3 Second argument: the Greek Fathers Metzger s second argument consists of two parts: first that none of the Greek Fathers quotes the Comma and that it does not appear in Greek before 1215 and second that the Comma would most certainly have been quoted in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian) had it been in their manuscripts. 7 Again, this argument should be put in perspective. The first part of the argument is an argument ex silentio and must therefore be carefully tested as to its strength. In the entire TLG database I have only found 13 quotations of these verses of 1 John. This is telling: if in the existing Greek texts of fourteen centuries these verses (be it with or without Comma) are only 13 times 2 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2 nd edition; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2002). 3 Idem, , the quoted words in Idem, In the ECM, curiously, six manuscripts are listed. 5 Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, vol. 30 of The Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), Klaus Wachtel, Der Byzantinische Text der Katholischen Briefe: eine Untersuchung zur entstehung der Koine des Neuen Testaments, ANTF 24 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), Metzger, Textual Commentary,

6 quoted, then lack of quotation can never be an argument against the Comma. 8 What is more, there are no Greek quotations without the Comma before the fifth century. This is still not all. Contrary to Metger s argument, the Comma is actually quoted by Greek Fathers: 1. Origen 9 (third century) quotes the Comma in his commentary on Psalm 123:2. This verse reads in the Septuagint: Look, as the eyes of servants look to the hand of their lords, as the eyes of a maid to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the Lord our God. Triggered by the facts that servants with lords is masculine plural and maid with mistress is added in the feminine singular and a comparison is drawn with the Lord our God in the singular, Origen cannot but think that this is a reference to the mystery of the Trinity. He explains: The servants of the Lords Father and Son are spirit and body; the maid of the Mistress Holy Spirit is the soul. These Three are the Lord our God, for the Three are One (Τὰ δὲ τρία Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐστιν οἱ γὰρ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.). To grasp how Origen is here actually quoting the Comma two things must be especially noted. (1) With spirit, body and soul Origen alludes to the spirit, water and blood of 1 John 5:8 (blood commonly symbolises the soul, Lv. 17:11). Note that he is careful to stick to the order of the words in 1 John 5:8 and connects these three to the other Three Witnesses of 1 John 5:7. (2) Especially noteworthy is the switch in grammatical gender. After stating that these Three are the singular (not plural) Lord our God in neuter (τὰ τρία), he confirms it through a reference to Scripture (γὰρ) which says that the Three (οἱ τρεῖς, masculine) are One. He switches to masculine gender in order to stick to the precise wording of the Comma, just as he sticks to the precise order of the witnesses before. 2. Athanasius 10 (fourth century) brings it forward in his disputation against Arius in the same words. On the provocation of Arius who said: Nowhere it is written that the Holy Spirit should be honoured as the Father and the Son. Athanasius answers with Scriptural quotations from Isaiah, Moses, Elijah and Paul concluding with: And on top of all these, John says: And the Three are One (Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν). This is a quotation of the Comma beyond all doubt. 3. Eusebius 11 (fourth century) has an interesting passage which may be a reference to the Comma. In his Ecclesiastical Theology where he refutes some Sabellian opinions of Marcellus he says: [To say] that the Father is the same as the Word inside him, and that his Son is the Word inside him is the mark of the heresy of Sabellius. So again also the saying that the Three are One (τὸ λέγειν τὰ τρία <ἓν> εἶναι), the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for this is also of Sabellius (Σαβελλίου γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο). Although I am not claiming that Eusebius quotes the Comma here, his phraseology is remarkable. He could have said saying that the Three are One is also of Sabellius, but now he adds his last clause in a way that puts special emphasis on the saying that the Three are One for this is also of Sabellius. Whether Eusebius had the Comma in mind or not, it is clear that the language of the Comma could be regarded as Sabellian. This brings me to the second part of Metzger s argument: had the Greek Fathers known the Comma they would most certainly have quoted it in Trinitarian (Sabellian and Arian) debates. Apart from the fact that the passages above show that it was quoted, it is wrong to think that the Comma was of much use in these debates. The point in question was not so much that the Three are One, for it was clear enough from Scripture that certain three divine Persons were in a sense united. The number three was not contested nor was the unity contested, but the debate was about in what aspect these three differed and in what aspect they were united. 12 As it did not address this question of the how, the Comma was not much helpful and could even be regarded as heretical (i.e. Sabellian). 8 If Greek translations of Latin works are included it will be a little more than 13 quotations. Those do have the Comma, however, so it makes no difference for my argument. 9 Origen, Selecta in Psalmos: Psalmos 122 (PG 12:1633c). 10 Athanasius of Alexandria (Sp.), Disputatio Contra Arium (PG 28: c). 11 Eusebius of Caesarea, De Ecclesiastica Theologia (PG 24: c). 12 B. Studer, Trinity, in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo di Berardino (ebook: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 3:837-3:838. 6

7 1.4 Third argument: the earliest Latin versions That the Comma is absent from all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic) I will currently not contest (although I believe it could be contested), but that it is not found in the earliest Latin versions is certainly not true. Ironically Metzger states that the Comma is not found in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), 13 but actually Tertullian and Cyprian do quote the Comma. The quotation of Tertullian is less explicit, wherefore it has been neglected by critics. However, if considered in context, I am confident that it is a direct quotation of the Comma. In Adversus Praxean Tertullian 14 ( AD) is primarily concerned with proving that the Father and the Son are distinct from each other although they are one, for Praxeas holds that they are one and the same. The Holy Spirit is only incidentally involved in this discussion; he was not the primary focus for Praxeas nor for Tertullian in writing this tract. This is evident from the fact that almost every chapter elaborates extensively on the relationship between the Father and the Son, but their relationship to the Holy Spirit is only fragmentarily discussed. The Comma Johanneum is in the centre of such a fragment. In the chapters immediately before the passage concerned, Tertullian has made heavy use of the Gospel of John to show how the Son is distinct from the Father despite their unity. He has also taken special notice of Praxeas favourite text I and the Father are One (Jh. 10:30), arguing that far from supporting Praxeas view this text opposes it. Are not two Persons mentioned, I and the Father? Is the verb not plural, are? Nay even more, this text says that the Son and the Father are one Thing (unum, neuter), not one Person (unus, masculine), denoting unity of essence, not of number. In a short digression, Tertullian wants to connect his arguments about the Son in a few words to the Holy Spirit also in order to complete the Trinity. The Comma can do exactly that. Therefore, after introducing the Paraclete with short Scriptural arguments, Tertullian continues: Thus the connection of the Father in the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete produces three coherent Persons, another coming from another. These Three are One, not one Person (Qui tres unum sunt, non unus), in the same way as it is written: I and the Father are One (unum), denoting unity of substance, not singularity of number. 15 Immediately after saying this, Tertullian moves again to the relationship between the Father and the Son and forgets the Paraclete until the end of the tract; it was only a digression. Three considerations will clarify that Tertullian actually quotes the Comma: (1) Tertullian s arguments about the Paraclete preceding this are all imitations of his more extensive arguments about the Son, applying it in a short summary to the Paraclete through a quotation of Scripture. Here also, he imitates his former argument about the word unum (saying: quomodo, in the same way ), applying it to the Paraclete by quoting the Comma. (2) None of the quotations of Scripture concerning the Paraclete preceding this are strict, word by word quotations; but Tertullian loosely paraphrases the text. It is therefore not surprising that the Comma is not explicitly quoted. (3) If Tertullian did not know the Comma he would have been content to say abstractly they are one in essence, not in number without the unum/unus remark. He speaks in this general way elsewhere (cf. chapters 1-3 of this tract). But here his purpose is to bolster his argument with Scripture and for this purpose he quotes the Comma. Look, is the argument of Tertullian, how the Paraclete must be in the same way distinct and united with the Father and Son as I have just shown that they two are both distinct and united, for Scripture speaks of this mystery in the same words (i.e. unum sunt). 13 Metzger, Textual Commentary, Tertullian, Adversus Praxean 25 (PL 2: c). 15 In Latin: Ita connexus patris in filio et filii in paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes, alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est: ego et pater unum sumus, ad substantiae unitatem, non ad numeri singularitatem. 7

8 Cyprian s quotation is more straightforward and although I could likewise point to its context, merely citing it will be sufficient. In De Unitate Ecclesiae Cyprian 16 ( AD) writes: The Lord says: I and the Father are One, and again of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written (scriptum est): And the Three are One (et tres unum sunt). To enter into the debate of the other Patristic evidences either in favour of or against the Comma would be too much for these few pages. The quotations above I trust to be sufficient to prove that there are very old testimonies in favour of the Comma wherefore it cannot simply be discarded as impossibly original or as a late addition. That the Comma is not in the earliest manuscripts of the Vulgate 17 is also a misleading representation of the facts. It is true that it is absent from the codex Fuldensis (copied AD ), but what Metzger does not say is that the same codex includes a preface of Jerome to the Canonical Epistles complaining of unfaithful translators (infidelibus translatoribus) who left out the Comma. 18 This is indeed a perplexing contradiction within the same codex Fourth argument: the Comma as allegorical gloss Metzger s fourth argument enters a different category. All the textual evidence now being exhausted, this argument is about transcriptional probability about giving a plausible explanation. It is actually combined with his next argument and consists of two parts: first, that there is a plausible theory for the Comma s addition to an original text without the Comma and second that there is no plausible theory for the Comma s omission from an original text with the Comma. In this paragraph I will evaluate the common theory for its addition. According to this theory of the (presumed late) appearance of the Comma, it arose very early (already for Tertullian and Cyprian) as an allegorical explanation of the Spirit, water and blood these three symbolising the Trinity. This was first put in the margin as an explanatory note, but afterwards included by some in the Latin text and thus eventually made its way into the majority of Latin manuscripts. Apart from the fact that it is wrong to put aside the attestations of Tertullian and Cyprian in this manner (for there is no trace of allegory), I have several objections to this theory. The first is that it makes quite a clumsy allegory; the Spirit must symbolise the Father, the water the Holy Spirit and the blood the Son. This makes a Trinity of Father, Holy Spirit and Son even though it is repeatedly and consistently used in an argument where the Holy Spirit is presented as the third Person and the Son as second Person of the divinity. 20 It can hardly be imagined that such an awkward allegory would be quoted without some explanation for the wrong order of the divine Persons. The second is that were this theory true then the Comma would probably read the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit and not the Word. In every single reference of the Church Fathers to this verse or to the Trinity they call the second Person the Son. Was it therefore indeed an allegorical explanation then the note in the margin would have been Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The third is that the Comma also contrasts between heaven and earth which requires explanation were it an allegorical gloss. This theory is therefore inconsistent with the facts and can at best explain only part of the addition story. The other part of the argument, the plausibility of the Comma s omission were it original, will I consider in combination with this chapter s conclusion. 16 Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae 6 (PL 4:504c). 17 Metzger, Textual Commentary, Ernestus Ranke ed., Codex Fuldensis: Novum Testamentum Latine Interprete Hieronymo (Marburg 1868), This symbolises very well, in my opinion, the entire history of and debate about the Comma. It is perplexing to see how it appears, disappears and again reappears in history and even within the corpus of one author. 20 As an example one could look at the allegorical quote of Origen mentioned before. Origen sticks to the order of the words when he explains the water as the body (connected to the Son) and the blood as the soul (connected to the Holy Spirit); otherwise the allegory would not work. 8

9 1.6 Conclusion and explanation of the Comma s disappearance The arguments against the Comma which seem strong at first glance lose their weight when put in perspective. This is mainly because they are ex silentio arguments; it is generally agreed that such argumentation is dubious. The main arguments against the Comma are these: 1. It is absent from the vast majority of Greek manuscripts. 2. There is no evidence of the Comma s existence before the late fourth century. Both these arguments have been turned around. About the first argument Metzger himself articulates the general axiom of textual critics that witnesses are to be weighed rather than counted. 21 The weight of the early date Church Father quotations above is more than the weight of those hundreds of (quite to very) late date manuscripts. Counter to the second argument I have not only shown that there is evidence of the Comma s existence in the early third century, but even that there is actually no evidence in Greek of the existence of a text without Comma before the fourth century. The ex silentio arguments therefore, far from pleading against the Comma s originality should rather be favourable to it. In my argument the quotation of Origen occupies a central place. The quotations of Tertullian and Cyprian are of early date, but they are part of the Latin tradition and that the Comma has been dominant there was already evident. But with Origen s quotation there is also an ancient Greek testimony to the Comma. In every way this is a convenient quotation, for the existence of the Comma is presupposed in Origen s entire thought process it is interwoven in the passage. Furthermore it can in no way be explained as a Trinitarian reflection on the Spirit, water and blood for Origen takes these to signify the human spirit, body and soul. These attestations are of such weight because the oldest manuscripts in the time of Origen and Tertullian may still have been direct copies of the original. On top of these early evidences, the common theory of the Comma originating as Trinitarian reflection on 1 John 5:8 does not reflect the facts. Even Origen and Tertullian mention the Son instead of the Word in their paraphrases. What a theory either of addition or omission should look like if based on the facts, I will show in the remainder of this conclusion. The opponents of the Comma have generally concluded that in the first stages of textual transmission all manuscripts lacked the Comma: therefore it was not original. Defenders of the Comma have tried to conclude the opposite that the Comma was in all manuscripts at some point in time: therefore it was original. I think this is the wrong way to proceed and that this is the cause that lately virtually no one dares to defend the Comma anymore. The spirited quest for the original reading has, in my view, obscured the nature of textual criticism: which is not to move backward in time but rather forward. Starting at the source it observes how the history of textual transmission reflects scribal activity. The facts regarding the Comma point rather in a different direction than either of the above conclusions. The best explanation of the uncovered facts seems to be that from the earliest stage of the textual transmission manuscripts have existed both with and without the Comma. It was either omitted by accident (homoeoarcton) or intentional in an early stage or it was intentionally added early on. Thus it was present in some manuscripts and absent in others a fact which may have confounded scribes and Church Fathers who compared manuscripts. Encountering both versions, some decided to leave it out of their copy and others included it. In the course of time this naturally brought about geographical, but also linguistic condensation: in one area (or language) the Comma was found in more manuscripts than in another wherefore more scribes in their turn decided to include it in the one area than in the other. This would explain how the Comma could with full confidence be quoted in a confession of faith representing hundreds of bishops (thus, in a sense, hundreds of manuscripts) against the Arians in 484 AD: 21 Metzger, Textual Commentary, 12. 9

10 And so that we may teach more clearly than the light that the Holy Spirit is of one divinity with the Father and Son, it is confirmed by the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: There are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 22 This testimony clearly shows that the Comma was of much (I would say centuries) earlier date than 484 AD; otherwise it could not with conviction be quoted as Scripture by so many bishops. It must also have been present in some of their Greek manuscipts. Being a confession of faith in Carthage it concerns the same area as the attestations of Tertullian and Cyprian. At the same time my theory would explain the absence of the Comma in an equally important confession of the same time period. The Tome of Leo the Great which he sent to the council of Chalcedon in 451 AD quotes and explains 1 John 5:6-8 without the Comma: This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in water only, but in water and blood. And it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that testify, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and the three are one. This denotes the Spirit of sanctification, the blood of redemption and the water of baptism, which three are one and remain undivided and not one of them is disjoined from connection with the others; for the Catholic Church lives and advances by this faith, that [in Jesus Christ] the humanity is not believed separate from the true divinity, nor the divinity separate from the true humanity. 23 It seems that by this time the Comma had been preserved in the Latin speaking world (specifically North Africa) where it was also maintained in the Greek manuscripts (Jerome s Prologue suggests support of Greek manuscripts), but in the Greek speaking world scribes had preferred the shorter text and the Comma had practically disappeared. Furthermore, just as the Latin Christians were more concerned with condemning Arianism 24 so the Greek were more concerned with condemning Sabellianism 25 and Nestorianism. 26 The Comma was useful against the Arians and had little danger of being misunderstood in the Latin West, but in the Greek East the passage without the Comma was conveniently understood as attesting to the unity of the divine and human nature in Christ a vital point of Eastern debates. The quotation of Eusebius shows that the Comma could easily be understood as Sabellian and many Eastern bishops, including Eusebius, were actually sympathetic to Arian doctrine. 27 This same Eusebius was in charge of preparing many Greek manuscripts for Contantine. 28 These centuries of debate and systematisation further fuelled the linguistic condensation of Comma and non-comma manuscripts to create the peculiar situation that today the Comma is present in the Latin manuscripts, but is missing in the majority of the Greek. 22 In Latin: Et ut adhuc luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum sanctum doceamus, Joannis evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt. Victor of Vita, De Persecutione Vandalica 3.11 (PL 58: c). It deserves notice that the Comma seems to be exclusively used to prove the divinity of the Holy Spirit. 23 Eduardus Schwartz ed., Acta Conciliorum Oecumenicorum (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1933), 18: οὗτος ὁ ἐρχόμενος δι ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, οὐκ ἐν τῶι ὕδατι μόνον, ἀλλ ἐν ὕδατι καὶ αἵματι, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ἐπειδὴ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. τρεῖς γάρ εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντεςτὸ πνεῦ μα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν, τὸ πνεῦμα δηλονότι τοῦ ἁγιασμοῦ καὶ τὸ αἷμα τῆς λυτρώσ εως καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, ἅπερ τὰ τρία ἕν ἐστιν καὶ ἀμέριστα μένει καὶ οὐδὲν αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἑαυτῶν χωρίζεται συναφείας, ἐπειδήπερ ἡ καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία ἐν ταύτηι ζῆι καὶ προκόπτει τῆι πίστει, ἵνα μήτε δίχα τῆς ἀληθοῦς θεότητος ἡ ἀνθρωπότης μήτε δίχα τῆς ἀληθοῦς ἀνθρωπότητος ἡ θεότης πιστεύηται. 24 M. Simonetti, Arius Arianism, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, 1:237-1: M. Simonetti, Sabellius Sabellianism, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, 3: M. Simonetti, Nestorius Nestorianism, Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, 2:907-2: C. Curti, Eusebius of Caesarea (Palestine), Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, 1:872-1:873, 1:876: In trinitarian matters, Eusebius s convictions are permeated with Arianism.. 28 Eusebius of Caesarea, De Vita Constantini (PG 20: c). 10

11 Chapter 2 - Exegetical evaluation 2.1 Introduction In the last chapter it has become clear that even through textual criticism an argument can be made for the Comma s originality. Though not everyone may accept my argument, it should at least be admitted that even with a textcritical preference for the text without the Comma due weight should be given to exegetical arguments in light of the textcritical evidence in favour of it. This will be the topic of this chapter. In order to judge whether the passage with the Comma is more likely to be original than the passage without the Comma it is necessary to consider 1 John 5:6-8 in the context of John s argument in 1 John 5 and in the context of his Gospel, whereupon his first epistle evidently builds. Although John s letter is one continuous argument summarised in its last few verses, the most meaningful and manageable demarcation of the section around the Comma is 1 John 5:5-10. My own translation of these verses with the Comma in square brackets runs as follows: Who is it that conquers the world, but he who believes (ὁ πιστεύων) that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he who came through water and blood, Jesus Christ, not in the water alone, but in the water and in the blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, for the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who testify [in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three who testify on earth] the Spirit, the water and the blood, and these three are unto one (εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν). If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has testified to his Son (περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ). Who believes (ὁ πιστεύων) in the Son of God has the testimony within himself; who does not believe God (ὁ μὴ πιστεύων τῷ θεῷ) has made him a liar, for he has not believed in the testimony which God has testified to his Son (περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ). The end and starting verse highlight the theme of 1 John 5:6-9, for it is introduced by a question which emphasises the importance of faith in Jesus as Son of God and this same theme is continued in verse 10 after the testimonies. That this is the context of the testimonies is important to keep in mind: the goal of the testimony in 1 John 5 is that one becomes a believer (ὁ πιστεύων), namely a believer in the Son of God (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ). Regarding the Comma six observations will clarify the question of its originality: (1) The central importance of witnesses and testimony in this passage. (2) The three witnesses in the passage without the Comma. (3) The three witnesses of the Comma. (4) The unity of the witnesses. (5) The contrast the Comma introduces between heaven and earth. (6) The contrast in verse 9 between the testimony of men and of God. These observations will each be explored paragraph by paragraph, noting shortly their parallels, explanation and significance. The results of this investigation will then be further established through closely examining two especially noteworthy parallels. After this I can conclude whether the passage with or without Comma is more likely to be original from an exegetical perspective. 11

12 2.2 Witnesses and testifying in the Johannine literature. As has been noted, the thought of a testifying (μαρτυρέω) witness (μαρτυρία) is central to the passage where the Comma is located. That this thought is also central to the Johannine literature in general and the Johannine Gospel in particular will be clear in light of the following consideration: Out of the 133 occurrences in the New Testament of the words μαρτυρία, μαρτυρέω and μαρτύρομαι, 70 are in the Johannine literature (Gospel and letters) and 51 John s Gospel. 29 Thus, more than half of the occurrences of these words in the entire New Testament are in the Johannine literature. It will therefore be fruitful to investigate their meaning in John s Gospel. Who are the witnesses? What is their testimony? And why does this occupy such an important place? The first time John uses the word μαρτυρία and combines it with μαρτυρέω immediately sheds light on their meaning. John 1:6-7 reads: There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness to testify (ἵνα μαρτυρήσῃ) to the light (περὶ τοῦ φωτός), so that all may believe through him. Three things are to be noted: 1. The origin of the witness is clearly indicated: John was sent from God. 2. It is also clearly indicated what John testifies to: John came to testify to the Light, also identified as the Word (Jh. 1:1) and Jesus Christ (Jh. 1:17). 3. The goal of this testimony is just as clearly stated: so that all may believe. These are particularly important observations as it will become clear that these three elements are the key components of testimony in John s Gospel. 30 In the introduction I noted that the testimony was invoked in the context of faith. In combination with this passage three conclusions can be drawn on the link between the testimony and believing: 1. Faith is the fruit of the testimony. 2. Faith is based on the testimony. 3. Faith is based on the reliability of the witness that gives the testimony. The content of the testimony, therefore, must be identical with the content of faith. This explains why witnesses and testimony are so central to John s thought, for faith is absolutely indispensable. Faith gives eternal life (Jh. 20:31), makes one a child of God (Jh. 1:12), conquers the world (1 Jh. 5:4) and does many other wonderful things, but those who do not believe will perish (Jh. 3:18, 36). So in order to adequately explain the witnesses that John introduces in 1 John 5, this question should be answered: What is the content of faith, which is also the content of the testimony? This is a very important question, whereupon a large portion of the exegesis depends. In the Johannine literature there are two things which must particularly be believed, which are nonetheless inseparable from each other. The first is that Jesus is fully God, the second that he is fully human. I cannot use many words in this thesis to prove this, but it has long been recognized by commentators that John is in much higher degree concerned to confirm both these aspects than the other Evangelists. 31 The 29 μαρτυρία has 37 occurrences in the New Testament and 21 of those are in John s Gospel and letters. μαρτυρέω has 76 occurrences in the New Testament and 43 of those are in John s Gospel and letters. μαρτύρομαι has 20 occurrences in the Testament and 6 of those are in John s Gospel and letters. 30 Enough examples of this can be found in the passages I will quote elsewhere. Here are, however, some references: the importance of the witness reliability or origin and faith as proper fruit of reliable testimony returns in Jh. 3:11-13, 3:31-34, 5:31-39, 8:13-18, 19:35, 21:24 and in innumerable passages where Jesus emphasises that he was sent by the Father. In the same passages it will be apparent that the testimony is about Jesus, that he is the Christ and the Son of God. 31 For instance, Ben Witherington III, The Trinity in the Johannine Literature, in The Oxford Handbook of the Trinity, ed. Gilles Emery and Matthew Levering (Ebook: Oxford Handbooks, 2012), 69 says first: Even from the earliest commentaries on the Fourth Gospel (e.g. Origen s) it was recognized that this Gospel had much more to say about topics as varied as: (1) the pre-existence of the Son of God; (2) the deity of the Logos; (3) the Incarnation of the Logos; (4) the personhood of the Holy Spirit and then idem, 70 gives his own opinion: The same Evangelist who stresses that in order to know who Jesus is, one must know where he has come from (namely from heaven as the divine Logos), is the Evangelist who places strong stress on the humanness of Jesus, who gets thirsty and tired (Jn 4), or angry (Jn 11), and who manifests a sort of dependency on the Father that can provide a paradigm for his disciples to follow. There is a balance in the portrayal of Jesus as human 12

13 importance of these two truths is reflected by the two characteristic names of Jesus: Son of God and Son of Man, and it is their combination that constitutes the core of the Gospel according to John. This can be nicely demonstrated by 1 John 4. In this chapter which precedes the Comma, John summarises the Gospel and points to its core. He commences in 1 John 4:1-3 with: Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming; and now it is already in the world. If the confession that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is the criterion for judging between the Spirit of God and of the antichrist, it must touch the Gospel s core. Both aforementioned aspects can be discerned here for John says that Jesus Christ has come, which means that he was in existence before he decided to come in the flesh, and John says that he has come in the flesh. Nevertheless Jesus humanity, his being in the flesh, bears the emphasis. In 1 John 4:7-10 John continues by explaining why this confession is so important: Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son (τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν μονογενῆ ἀπέσταλκεν) into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. To realise that God sent his only-born Son into the world to atone for our sins results in the true knowledge of God. By this one learns that God is love which leads in turn to ourselves becoming loving, being born of God. It is evident that in this passage Jesus divinity, being God s only-born, bears the emphasis. Yet his humanity is also not left untouched, for it is as human that he was the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Finally, to fully confirm the importance of this confession, John repeats himself in 1 John 4:14-16: And we have seen and do testify (μαρτυροῦμεν) that the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world. God abides in those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God, and they abide in God. So we have known and believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them. It merits special notice that John in this passage also speaks of testimony; it is therefore natural to link it to the Comma. Furthermore John clearly links the content of the testimony and of faith: he testifies that the Father has sent his Son, through which God s love is recognised and believed. Throughout this chapter it is clear that the essence of Christianity for John is the fact that Jesus (who was in the flesh) was the Son of God himself. Only through recognising this one can know the love of God and without this God cannot be truly know, for God is Love without this one cannot be a true Christian. This, along with the general testimony of commentators, has been sufficient to prove the point. In his Gospel and letters John is much concerned to prove simultaneously Jesus pure divinity and his pure humanity. These remarks on the content of the testimony and the earlier remarks on the nature of and yet clearly more than merely mortal. E. Kasemann s old cliché about Jesus bestriding the stage in this Gospel like a god is of course true, but only part of the truth about the portrayal of the Son in this Gospel. The Incarnation is real: Jesus does not merely appear to be human or pantomime human behaviour, but really tabernacles with humankind in the flesh. Clearer testimony than this could not be given to state my point. 13

14 the witnesses should be kept in mind when reading the next paragraphs. The importance of witnesses and testimony will keep coming back in every argument regarding the Comma. We have already seen that the passage of the Comma itself is introduced by a question which emphasises faith in Jesus as Son of God (1 Jh. 5:5). In light of the uncovered aspects of faith and testimony this raises a series of questions: Who are the witnesses? Are they reliable? And what is the content of their testimony? These questions will be addressed in the following paragraphs, but an interim conclusion can already be put forward. Since this truth (that Jesus is God s Son come in the flesh) is so important to John s thought and both strong and reliable testimony is crucial for the upholding of faith, then the variant that provides both stronger and more reliable testimony definitely fits better into the context of the Johannine literature. Without doubt this consideration pleads in favour of the Comma, as it provides the most reliable testimony through heavenly Witnesses and also the strongest by providing more and independent (heaven and earth) witnesses. 2.3 The Spirit, the water and the blood these three are unto one. The meaning of the Spirit, the water and the blood as three witnesses, not merely separate, but intimately linked as one is a question that has troubled many exegetes and it is also a question that cannot be ignored when investigating the Comma. The only other chapter where these three words all occur is John 19, but even there the spirit (Jh. 19:30) is standing quite on its own (water and blood in Jh. 19:34). That these three words do not even occur together in any other chapter, let alone in one or two verses, shows how sudden and remarkable this combination is in 1 John 5. Although the combination of water and Spirit is less uncommon (Jh. 1:33, Jh. 3:3-8, Jh. 7:38-39), water and blood are only combined in John 19:34 and Spirit and blood are never linked. Spirit plays a key role in the Johannine literature, 32 water is also not an uncommon term, 33 but blood has only a marginal place. 34 Thus, the first question to answer is why John introduces the blood as an indispensable (1 Jh. 5:6) and important witness (1 Jh. 5:8) in 1 John 5. The few passages where the word αἷμα, blood, is found provide some clues as to its meaning for John. The first occurrence is John 1:13 which should be considered in context, John 1:11-14: He [the Word] came to what was his own, and his own people did not accept him. But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us etc. Faith in his name makes one a child of God, which means one is born of God. To this John adds that this birth is not one of blood (e.g. physical) nor by human will (e.g. by one s own choosing). Blood is thus connected to one s physical, human birth a consideration which will return. After absence in a couple of chapters the theme of blood suddenly reoccurs in John 6, again in combination with flesh, John 6:52-56: The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? So Jesus said to them, Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my flesh is true food and my blood is true drink. Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I in them etc. 32 πνεῦμα has 36 occurrences in John s Gospel and letters. 33 ὕδωρ has 25 occurrences in John s Gospel and letters. 34 αἷμα has only 10 occurrences in John s Gospel and letters, 3 of which are in 1 John 5. 14

15 There is no reason to assume that Jesus refers here to anything else than his physical reality by flesh and blood, just like other New Testament authors use flesh and blood to refer to the physically born human nature (Mat. 16:17, 1 Cor. 15:50, Gal. 1:16, Ef. 6:12 as opposed to a new birth and nature through faith). In what sense this should be eaten and drunk is not important for our current purpose. In combination with the former, however, this passage sufficiently shows that blood has a ready connotation with human nature, i.e. with true humanity, for John. There is, nevertheless, another passage worthy to consider which is the only other passage with αἷμα, blood. John says in 1 John 1:7: But if we walk in the light as he [God] himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. Here blood is not in the first place a symbol of Jesus humanity, but of the fruit of his suffering. That Jesus blood cleanses the believer from sin is in agreement with the designation of Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jh. 1:29, 1:36 a designation also present in the Apocalypse of John) referring to the sacrificial lambs whose blood pertained to atoning for sins. We must note, however, that this does not exclude that the blood is also a symbol of Jesus humanity; nay I think it even confirms it. Like the fact that God has sent his only begotten Son in human flesh is the core of the Gospel for John (as noted above), so it was indeed fully human blood which was necessary to expiate our sins (1 Jh. 4:10). It is therefore not without reason that Jesus places eternal life in drinking his blood in the passage above, putting further emphasis on his humanity by calling himself Son of Man. Thus in order to have significance as a symbol of atonement, the significance of the blood as a symbol of Jesus humanity must first be recognised; it is presupposed. Before considering the combination water and blood in John 19:34, it is necessary to investigate the meaning of ὕδωρ, water, for John. John talks about water in two different though interconnected ways. Firstly there are two passages where he talks about the Holy Spirit under the symbol of water (Jh. 4:7-15, Jh. 7:37-39) and in John 1 the baptism of John is contrasted with that of Jesus: John baptises with water and Jesus baptises with the Holy Spirit (Jh. 1:33-34). Baptism with water is thus represented as the mere symbol of the real baptism with the Holy Spirit. This means that the Holy Spirit is symbolised by water. Secondly both water and Spirit are connected to birth in John 3:3-6: Jesus answered him, Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without being born from above. Nicodemus said to him, How can anyone be born after having grown old? Can one enter a second time into the mother s womb and be born? Jesus answered, Very truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit. This water and Spirit has often been interpreted as Jesus putting the symbol (water) next to the invisible reality (Spirit) as a clarification. And although this interpretation is certainly warranted in light of the passages mentioned above, some have recently given it another interpretation which corresponds nicely with John 19 and also 1 John In this interpretation water refers to the water of the mother s womb and natural birth, so that Jesus clarifies his statement to Nicodemus by incorporating Nicodemus own reference to natural birth. To be born of water and Spirit thus means that one s first, human birth is indeed of water connected to the mother s womb but of the second birth Nicodemus should not entertain such thoughts; the second birth is of Spirit and is like the course of the wind: man cannot understand it (Jh. 3:7-8). This means that water, as symbol of birth, also bears potential as a symbol of humanity. 35 For the most concise discussion of this with elaborate treatment of 1 John 5:6-10 in particular see idem, For a more thorough discussion with references see Ben Witherington III, The Waters of Birth: John 3. 5 and 1 John , NTS 35 (1989): Further credits go to my thesis supervisor G.H. van Kooten who first suggested this interpretation of John 3:5 to me. 15