*Editor’s Note: The following post is part of Dr. Timothy Decker’s series “A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7-8.” Click the following numbers to read the other parts of this series.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

A Worthy Inclusion? The Johannine Comma of 1 John 5:7–8

Part 7: The Comma among the Textus Receptus Tradition 

It is not irresponsible to ask those adherents of the Textus Receptus or the Received Text, “Which TR?”[1] Though the TR is a fairly stable tradition in itself, its rendering of the Comma reinforces the question of which edition of the TR is to be the purest. This is not meant as a blight on the TR tradition per se. Rather, it calls into question even more so the validity of the Comma’s inclusion in 1 John 5:7–8. If the TR, as the primary tradition of the Greek NT that accepts the reading of the Comma, is itself unstable, then that should call into question the Comma itself.

It has been proven already that the Comma is on very shaky ground according to the external evidence (see part 2). And its historical pedigree is not much better, restricting it to one locale and language tradition (see part 3). Even the arguments for its inclusion from the internal evidence is not convincing, at least not demanding the external evidence be overturned (see part 4 and 5). And if there is disagreement as to both its meaning and its legitimacy throughout history (part 6), perhaps there is good reason to exclude the Comma from our Bibles, as Erasmus believed and Luther did in his German translation.

Having collated 30 editions of the TR tradition in the Johannine epistles, I would like to share the results of that collation to 1 John 5:7–8 specifically. I’ll make use of two different formats to display these results. The first is how the TR would appear if it was in a critical edition which displayed all of its variants in a textual apparatus. I have patterned this presentation after the sigla of the NA^28th edition. Secondly, I will use a line-by-line method similar to Reuben Swanson in order to present the various readings among the TR tradition according to each unique variant, of which there are eight (!). These two displays will demonstrate just how unstable the TR tradition is at 1 John 5:7–8.

The Critical Apparatus Display

The brilliance of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece editions is that it developed a system of sigla or signs to indicate a vast amount of information in a very small space. The sigla represents both the existence of a variant as well as the kind of variant. Whether you are able to interpret the sigla or not, this will give a sense of the TR’s instability.

NA^28th Edition w/ Critical Apparatus

7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες⸂, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν⸃.

–––––––––––

7/8 ⸂ in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis (+ et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Iesu vg^mss; Spec). et tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum (filius 1 vg^mss) et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt (+ in Christo Iesu 1 vg^mss) 1 r vg^mss; Spec (Prisc Fulg)

¦ εν τω ουρανω πατηρ λογος και πνευμα αγιον και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη πνευμα υδωρ και αιμα 61 (629)

¦ εν τω ουρανω ο πατηρ (+ και 88^v.l.) ο λογος και το αγιον πνευμα και ουτοι οι τρεις εν εισιν και τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες εν τη γη το πνευμα και το υδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρεις εις το εν εισιν 88^v.l. 221^v.l. 2318. 2473. (429^v.l. 636^v.l. 918) vg^cl

Though the text is fairly clean with only a few sigla, the information in the apparatus looks congested, which it is. The NA^28th is simply displaying the variants highlighted in part 2 of this series. Truth be told, it only includes the general details of the various Greek manuscripts and their readings. It does not demonstrate the differences of readings of each witness, only that there are various readings by the “v.l.” superscripts. It also spends a lot more time than usual on the various Latin renderings. If we were only comparing the sigla in the main text of both, then the NA^28th has only one siglum indicating a textual variant—the ⸂ and ⸃ which indicates different words used, namely the Comma. Now compare this with the TR tradition if it had a critical apparatus much like the NA^28th.

Textus Receptus Tradition with Critical Apparatus[2]

7 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ⸋¹ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ⸂¹ ὁ πατήρ, ⸆ ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα⸃· ⸂² καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι⸃.

8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσὶν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ⸂³ ἐν τῇ γῇ⸃,⸌ ⸂⁴ τὸ Πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα⸃· ⸋² καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν⸀.⸌

–––––––––––

7-8 ⸋¹ E^{1 2} Ald Ger Köp Col | ⸂¹ 2 4 5 8 7 E³ Beb Ses ¦ 1–6 8 7 E^{4 5} Bry Bas ¦ 1–4 6 5 7 8 St¹ ¦ text St^{2 3* 4} Bz^Lat1557 Bz^F1–4* Bz ^{O1 2} Elz^{1624 1633} Oxf¹⁸⁷³ | ⸆ καὶ CP Bz^O3–5 | ⸂² καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν CP | ⸂³ επι της γης CP | ⸂⁴ πνεῦμα, καὶ ὕδωρ, καὶ αἷμα E^3–5 Beb Ses Bry Bas | ⸋² CP | ⸀εἰσι St^{1 2 3*}

text St⁴ B^F1–4* Bz ^{O1 2} Elz^{1624 1633} Ox¹⁸⁷³

Unlike the NA^28th text, there are a total of eight sigla to indicate varition units among the witnesses. They include long omissions (⸋), different words or word order (⸂ and ⸃), an insertion (⸆), and a different spelling (εἰσιν⸀)[3]. And among the variant unit marked ⸂¹, there are four different renderings of that phrase. The convenience of such an apparatus is that it marks a lot of variant readings in such a small amount of space. Nevertheless, it is a highly congested and disheveled two verses. As will be displayed below, the TR tradition has actually produced eight total variations of the Comma!

When I say that the tradition evolved or developed, I mean that very literally.^[4] Among the TR tradition, the well-known phrase would not appear exactly as it does in Scrivener’s final TR form until Stephanus’s fourth and final 1551 edition. And even then, later editions, such as some of Beza’s, would revert. Now if we were to ignore the final variation of the last word of v. 8 (a final nu), then we could move this earlier to the second edition of Stephanus (1549).

Most notably, the inclusion of the comma did not begin until Erasmus’s 3rd edition of 1522. And even then, it reads almost perfectly with the Latin Vulgate, omitting the articles (Latin has no articles!) and following the Latin word order. In his 4th and 5th editions, he would include the Greek articles, but still maintain the Latin word order. However, Aldine, Gerbelius, Köpfel, Colinaeus do not include the Trinitarian formula at all! The first Stephanus edition (1546) would transpose a couple of the words. The final three minor/octavo editions of Beza would add a word. And the Complutensian Polyglot traversed its own unique path.

Now I readily admit that the variations among the 30+ editions of the TR that I consulted are very minor. Most differences are omissions of the Greek article, changing word order for “Holy Spirit,” or adding “and” to the list of heavenly witnesses. Yet these differences reflect the likelihood that the Johannine Comma developed over time and actually arose from the Latin text handed down from the Western church.

But the point here is, again, one of stability. It is more than fair to say that the inclusion of the “heavenly witnesses” in this Trinitarian formula is a staple to the TR tradition. Even the small variations among the various TR editions that depart from the common TR reading are extremely minor in terms of meaning and translation. I only include them here to be thorough and to show that the TR is not as uniform as is so often claimed.^[5] And like nearly all printed Greek New Testaments, there is development and change over time, with the goal of getting the text right.

Calvin believed this to be the case as he himself likely changed GNTs over time. He would say of this passage’s inclusion, “[I]t is found in the best and most approved copies,”^[6] likely meaning printed editions. Some have argued that Calvin was dissatisfied with the 1534 text of Colinaeus (which omitted the Johannine Comma) and would switch to either Erasmus’s 4th edition or Stephanus’s 1546 (first) edition.^[7] If that is the case, then Calvin commented on a general form of the Comma Johanneum, but not its final form as found in the Scrivener TR, inconsequential as these earlier editions may differ. Not only that, but he pursued a printed GNT that reflects what he felt was a better text. Should we not also do likewise? Now let us display an interpretation of the above text and apparatus with a format inspired by Reuben Swanson’s display of the Greek text.[8]

A Horizontal Display of the TR Tradition

Similar to the display of the 10 Greek manuscripts that included the Comma in part 2 of this series, we will render 30 different editions of the TR in a way to point out every unique reading.

Admittedly, many editions are very near identical to Scrivener’s final form. Beza’s three octavo editions only add “and” in v. 7. Even closer is the first three Stephanus editions that leave out the final nu at the very end of v. 8. This is a small detail, yet they are the only three that do this. This is relevant because the TR is known for “cleaning up” spelling and grammar (like “an apple” vs “a apple”). Leaving off the final nu at the end of v. 8 with v. 9 beginning with a vowel, sets up slight spelling error. This is probably why the fourth edition of Stephanus cleaned it up further. From then on, it stuck.

Nevertheless, very early on in the tradition and before influences and motivations set in, the TR tradition excluded the Comma (see reading #2) and read just like our modern Greek New Testaments (NA^28th, UBS^6th, SBLGNT, THGNT, Robinson & Pierpont Byzantine Textform, & Hodges and Farstad Majority Text). Perhaps most unique is the Complutensian Polyglot’s version, the rendering of which is very similar to GA 629 but without the Latinizations.

What I hope to demonstrate is the variety within the TR tradition. Scrivener followed Beza’s final folio edition of 1598. But there are seven other choices among the TR tradition. Why is Beza’s deemed the best? Only one of the Greek manuscripts reads identically with Scrivener’s. What makes GA 2318, an 18^th century manuscript (!), the best of the ten?

Comparing the TR editions with the Ten Greek Manuscripts

Those on both sides of the Comma’s authenticity have claimed that three of the ten Greek manuscripts that include the Comma match Stephanus 1550 and Scrivener (221^marg, 2318 and 2473).[9] Having just worked through the variations among the TR editions above, I disagree with both of them.

In my own examination of 221^marg, 2318 and 2473, I have concluded that only manuscript 2318 (written in the 18^th century!) is an identical match to the commonly standardized modern edition of the TR by Scrivener (1881). While 2473 was close, it was missing the final nu (or what I jokingly call in my Greek class “the rarely absent nu”). This small spelling variation (explained above) is helpful to determine from which of the TR editions it was likely copied: probably the famous and very popular Stephanus’s Editio Regia of 1550. GA 2473 was dated to 1634, after Beza, the KJV, and the Elzevirs 1633 editions (this is where the term Textus Receptus was made common). The marginal reading and text of 221 implies it is similar, but we cannot know for sure what the hand left out (see part 2). Therefore, the final form of the TR’s Comma has only one Greek manuscript behind it.

Of the 30 TR editions I have collated, only 10 are an identical match to Scrivener’s TR, the first being Stephanus’s 4^th edition of 1551. Therefore, it was not known in its final form among the Protestants and Reformers until latter half of the 16^th century.

Conclusion

This being the final segment of this seven-part series, I do not wish to shake the faith of believers. But I would ask you to consider the evidence and ask yourself, “Do I believe the Comma is authentic because of a tradition accepted by the papists and most Protestants at the time of the Reformation and post-Reformation or because all the evidence points to it?” For me, the choice is simple.

[1] See Mark Ward, “Which Textus Receptus? A Critique of Confessional Bibliology,” Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal 25 (2020): 51–77.

[2] The collation of the TR tradition is making use of the Scrivener 1881 edition of the TR as the primary text and comparing all of the TR editions with Scrivener’s. This is known as a diplomatic edition, which uses as its base text a manuscript or final edition, such as Scrivener’s 1881. The NA^28th is an eclectic text and apparatus, seeking to ascertain from the evidence in the apparatus what the correct reading should be in the text.

[3] To include variations of the “movable nu,” I have displayed the siglum at the end of the word the sign that indicates a different word or spelling

[4] Parker implied this of the TR, “Authorized by Erasmus, canonized by Stephanus, and deified by Beza, Textus Receptus reigned pre-eminent in the reformed Churches of the sixteenth century.” T. H. L. Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, Second ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1993), 155.

[5] For another example of this, see my guest article at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog “A Critical Apparatus of the Textus Receptus Tradition,” March 2024, accessed: https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2024/03/guest-post-by-timothy-decker-critical.html.

[6] Calvin’s Commentary at 1 John 5:7.

[7] See Parker, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries, 151–57. See also John D. Currid, Calvin and the Biblical Languages (Fearn, Scotland: Mentor, 2006), 41–42.

[8] See his 7 volumes titled New Testament Greek Manuscripts: Variant Readings Arranged in Horizontal Lines against Codex Vaticanus.

[9] See Elijah Hixson’s “The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)” (https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-greek-manuscripts-of-comma.html) and Taylor Desoto’s “1 John 5:7 and Modern Criticism” (https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2020/01/16/1-john-57-and-modern-criticism/).

Timothy Decker

Dr. Timothy Decker is one of the pastors of Trinity Reformed Baptist Church of Roanoke, VA, having joined them in 2018. He holds a B.A. and M.A. biblical studies from Carolina University (formerly Piedmont International University), a Th.M. in New Testament from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. in biblical studies from Capital Seminary and Graduate School. In his dissertation research, he examined the style of biblical Hebrew poetry in the New Testament. He has presented various papers at academic society meetings and authored numerous articles in several different scholarly journals. He is a member of ETS and IBR. When he is not reading or researching, he enjoys spending time with his wife and four children.

 

Courses taught at CBTSeminary: Elementary Greek I, Elementary Greek II