Educated in the Catholic seminary, teaches adult Catechism and Bible in parish.

Answered July 5, 2019
What are some good reasons to believe the Johannine Comma is an inspired text and not just
inserted in by a scribe?

The text of the New Testament was not definitely defined until the end of the fourth century, by
St. Damasus I at the Councils of Rome (A.D. 380) and Carthage (A.D. 397). From there, the text
was given to St. Jerome who translated the entire Bible into Latin, known as the Vulgate. This
Vulgate text is the only approved text of the Scriptures, known by the Church as authoritative,
which was infallibly proclaimed 11 centuries later at the Council of Trent.

The Johannine Comma was included in St. Jerome’s Vulgate. What early manuscripts may or
may not have had is immaterial, the Vulgate is the only text that has been infallibly defined by
the Church.

Since that time, many texts have received an Imprimatur and a Nihil Obstat, which say that they
are free from error - but they are not the official guarantee of the Church of THE infallible text.

All of this is besides the main point, since the Church has never been based on the Bible, rather
the reverse. Our Blessed Lord guaranteed the Church until the end of time, and the Church only
issued a Bible at the end of the fourth century based on readings used at Mass. We base our faith
on Christ’s teaching in His Church, of which the Bible is part, but only part.

It is only Protestants whose faith is based on a mutilated edition of the Bible, which has the
seven Christian books of the Old Testament removed. Thus discussion of the Johannine Comma
may be of interest to Biblical scholars and Protestants, but has no bearing on the faith of the
Church.
111 views
View 2 upvotes
2
Add Comment
Promoted by JetBrains
What are the best resources (sites, books, or tutorials) for learning programming?

JetBrains

, The drive to develop

Answered May 3
There are so many sites, books, and other options for learning programming that it can be
overwhelming for even the most determined learners. JetBrains Academy removes this issue by
providing a holistic approach to learning with a full hands-on programming experience. It allows you
to stu
(Continue reading in feed)

Vincent J. Harris

, Christianity became the basis for my Wordview, after Atheism

Answered July 6, 2019
The “Johannine Comma", as it is called, for those who don't know what this refers to, is a
controversy going back to a translation of 1 John 5:7,8. What is in contention, I'll put in italics:
“For there are three that beare record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and
these three are one. And there are three that beare witnesse in earth,the Spirit, and the Water,
and the Blood, and these three agree in one.”

Erasmus added it to his Nouum instrumentum omne in 1522; his first two editions did not have
the phrase. That, however, does not mean, however, that he made it up.

The Codex Sinaiticus reads: "There are three witness bearers, the Spirit and the water and the
blood". Here is an image of that manuscript.

So, what is one to do? Easy.

First, I must refuse to make an argument for or against the text being inspired or not, AS IT
STANDS ALONE. Because, to do so with any scripture is contrary to Biblical teaching. I will
provide Biblical support for that and for everything I am about to say.
God's Word, as a necessity, cannot be interpreted by man. “Thy Word is Truth.” This means that
only God, being truth (“I am the way, the truth and the life.”) Is the only one who can lend
authority to His Word. To allow otherwise would be to put imperfect man's thoughts above
God's thoughts. This goes further to belief. God must uphold the accuracy of His Word (Truth;
Himself)or cease to be God…is He incapable of preserving truth? Himself? “I am the Lord thy
God; I change not.” - Malachi 3:6. Furthermore, loss of His Word would make sanctification
impossible; and make Jesus a liar:

“Sanctify them by Thy Truth; Thy Word is Truth.” So, Scripture must interpret Scripture. This is
affirmed throughout the Bible, as is the denunciation of “the wisdom of man.” Watch:

“One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he
sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be
established.” - Deuteronomy 19:15. This is an enduring law of witness (“witness" - remember
that). Jesus and Paul affirmed this requirement as enduring (Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1).

God has never applied a law not kept Himself and demonstrated to be inherent to His nature:
(“God is love”, “Love is fulfilling of the Law". That is His character).

“That ye be…followers of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. For when
God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by
himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so,
after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily swear by the greater:
and an oath FOR CONFIRMATION is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing
more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it
by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we
might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before
us.” - Hebrews 6:12-18.

The Bible states: “Whom shall he teach knowledge? and whom shall he make to understand
doctrine? them that are weaned from the milk, and drawn from the breasts. For precept must be
upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little.”
- Isaiah 28:9-10.

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is
no light in them.” - Isaiah 8:20.

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a
light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your
hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private
interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God
spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” - 2 Peter 1:19-21.

The method for interpreting scripture is scripture. With that established, let's take a moment to
address how the controversy mentioned earlier became what it is. I'm going to show here how
this has been a distraction; a “sleight-of-hand”; misdirection. The “facts” people quote are not
facts.
If so inclined, you could use what follows as support for the “comma" being inspired. I caution
against it. Scripture is the foundation, not human reasoning. I will solve this out once I address
this “Misdirection” so deceptively flung about.

Clement of Alexandria (approximately 200 A.D.) was strongly of the trinity view, but, when
quoting 1 John 5:7–8, he did NOT quote, nor rely upon, that “comma".

Tertullian (210 A.D.) relied upon John 10:30 in support of a trinitarian view.

There is no reference of the “comma” being used or quoted by anyone until the mid 4th century.
No one relied upon that passage in 1 John for support of a trinitarian view.

However, fully 95% of the thousands of latin manuscripts dating to the 6th and 7th century
contain it.

But here is the biggest failure in the position that Erasmus invented the doctrine by inserting
something contrary to belief/support for those beliefs… their position being supported on other
grounds:

In his 1st and 2nd editions (1516 & 1519) did not have the “comma". His 3rd edition (1522)
of Nouum instrumentum omne: diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum et emendatum and
the second edition of 1519 did include it. But, it was a note in those first editions, and the third
edition made lengthy note of his suspicion that it wasn't well enough supported in the extant
Greek manuscripts to be relied upon.

The attacks on the belief are argued against a position not held: the argument being that the
questionable provenance of the “comma" is the influence behind the belief, or that it is a “proof"
of the Bible's alleged human invention, etc. All of those arguments are “Strawman" arguments.

Finally, leaving that aside, let's compare scripture with scripture? Because upon those grounds no
one has succeeded in using “worldly" logic (by using logical Fallacies, such as the Strawman) to
accomplish their goals; unlike other works of literature.

Here, I am going to quote other writers as I feel they are far more eloquent than I. Of course,
they rely upon scripture. I will reiterate that my goal is not to support or refute any view, only to
present the scriptures. People will believe what they want to believe; for the most part.

In the Old system of sacrifice, the "tabernacle was cleansed with blood (Leviticus 16), an
indication of the fact that it is the blood of Christ that cleanses the living sanctuary—our bodies.
But whereas in that sanctuary the cleansing was done only periodically, in the real sanctuary it is
a continual process. Just as the water of life constantly flows from God’s throne (Revelation5:6;
7:17), so the blood of Christ constantly flows through the hearts of believers, cleansing them
moment by moment; and as the blood is life, identical with the water of life (1 John 5:8), it must
flow out as well as in; so out of him that believeth, whose heart is God’s throne, “shall flow
rivers of living water,” and he shall be a source of life to others. This high calling Israel of old
missed through unbelief. Let us take heed lest we fall after the same example of unbelief." - The
Everlasting Covenant, p. 365.1 (Ellet Joseph Waggoner).
"Being “baptized into Christ,” indicates what must be our relation to Him when we are baptized
into Him. We must be swallowed up and lost to sight in His life. Only Christ will henceforth be
seen, so that “it is no more I, but Christ,” for “we are buried with Him by baptism into death.”
Romans 6:4. Baptism doth save us “by the resurrection of Jesus Christ” from the dead (1 Peter
3:21), because we are “baptized into His death,” that “like as Christ was raised up from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Being reconciled to
God by the death of Christ, we are “saved by His life.” Romans 5:10. - GTI 154.1

Baptism is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh” (1 Peter 3:21), not the outward
cleansing of the body, but the purging of the soul and conscience. There is a fountain opened for
sin and for uncleanness (Zechariah 13:1), and this fountain is the blood, the life of Christ. That
life flows in a stream from the throne of God, in the midst of which is the slain Lamb (Revelation
5:6), even as it flowed from the side of Christ on the cross. When, “through the eternal Spirit,”
He had offered Himself to God, there flowed from His side blood and water (John 19:34), “for
there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in
one” (1 John 5:8, R.V.). All these are also one with the Word, which is Spirit and life. John 6:63.
Christ “loved the church, and gave Himself for it; that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the
washing of water by the Word.” Ephesians 5:25, 26. Literally, “a water bath in the Word.” In
being buried in the water, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the conscientious
believer signifies his acceptance of the water of life, the blood of Christ, which cleanses from all
sin, and that he gives himself to live henceforth by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of
God. From that time he disappears from sight, and only the life of Christ is manifested in his
mortal flesh." - The Glad Tidings, p. 154.3 (Ellet Joseph Waggoner).

"The Psalmist was well acquainted with the priests’ custom of washing at the laver before they
went to the altar, and so he said, “I will wash my hands in innocency; so will I compass Thine
altar, O Lord; that I may publish with the voice of thanksgiving, and tell of all Thy wondrous
works.” Psalm 26:6, 7. PTUK December 26, 1895, p. 818.1

Here is washing that is effective. Washing in innocency; how may it be done? There is but one
fountain of innocency, and that is “the precious blood of Christ, as of a Lamb without blemish
and without spot.” 1 Peter 1:19. This blood is the water of life; for when the Roman spear
pierced the side of Jesus, “forthwith came there out blood and water.” John 19:34. Now “there
are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one.” 1
John 5:8, R.V. We know that “the Spirit is life” (Romans 8:10), and therefore the blood and
water are life. In that stream, emblem of the river of life flowing from God’s throne, we may all
wash and be clean. “The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.” 1 John
1:7.PTUK December 26, 1895, p. 818.2

May we know that we wash in this fountain and find cleansing?-By believing the Word of the
Lord. Christ gave Himself for the church “that He might sanctify it, having cleansed it by the
washing of water with the Word.” Ephesians 5:26, R.V. The margin has, “Greek, laver,” for
washing, showing what was symbolised by the laver in the earthly sanctuary. Some versions
have it, “cleansed by a water bath in the Word.” If we believe the Word, we have the witness of
the Spirit." - Ellen G White, The Present Truth, vol. 12 October 29, 1896, page 693 par. 10.
"The water that makes the earth fruit as is the water of life from the river of God. Psalm 65:9-11.
The water comes from the slain Lamb in the midst of the throne (Revelation 5:6; 7:17), just as
the water which the Israelites drank in the desert came from Christ. 1 Corinthians 10:4. The
Spirit of God is the water of life (John 7:37-39), and the Spirit and the water and the blood agree
in one. 1 John 5:8...The blood is the life. Thus we see that when Jesus gave “the fruit of the vine”
to His disciples, at the last supper, He stated the literal truth when He said, “This is My blood.”
The fruit of the vine, which refreshes man, imparting to him life, is the blood of Christ, the true
vine." - Ellen G. White, The Present Truth, vol. 15 April 27, 1899, page 258 par. 8.

SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY NECESSARY

“To expect outside evidence and proof of the Bible, is therefore to deny that it is God’s Word,
and to dishonour God. It is to deny that God is above all, and ask for a greater than He. Whoever
does that, will invariably be deceived, since he is turning to the darkness to find something to
augment the light. “Eye have not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man,
the things which God hath prepared for them that love Him. But God hath revealed them unto us
by His Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.” 1 Corinthians 2:9,
10. The Spirit is given to all who believe; therefore “he that believeth on the Son of God hath the
witness in himself,” but not from himself." - Ellen G White, The Present Truth, vol. 11 October
31, 1895, page 691 par. 10,11.
93 views
View 2 upvotes
 · Answer requested by 

Bryan Kuranaga
You upvoted this
2
Add Comment

Mary Crosby

, studied The Bible & Biblical History at Theocratic Ministry School

Answered July 5, 2019
What are some good reasons to believe the Johannine Comma is an inspired text and not
just inserted in by a scribe?

Here are good reasons why it is not inspired by God.

From Wikipedia: The first Greek manuscript of the New Testament that contains the comma
dates from the 15th century. The comma is absent from
the Ethiopic, Aramaic, Syriac, Slavic, Armenian, Georgian, and Arabic translations of the Greek
New Testament. It appears in some English translations of the Bible via its inclusion in the first
printed edition of the New Testament, Erasmus's Nouum instrumentum omne, who added it to his
text in 1522.

Neither the Apostles nor Jesus taught that Jesus was God. He was the son of God. Therefore the
Johannine Comma is not inspired. If so it would agree with the remainder of the texts in the
Bible.
Jesus was not God. He was God's son.

(John 3:16) 16 “For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that
everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

(Matthew 3:17) 17 Look! Also, a voice from the heavens said: “This is my Son, the beloved,
whom I have approved.”(God says Jesus is his son).

(Matthew 8:28, 29) 28 When he came to the other side into the region of the Gad·a·renes', two
demon-possessed men coming out from among the tombs met him. They were unusually fierce,
so nobody had the courage to pass by on that road. 29 And look! they screamed, saying: “What
have we to do with you, Son of God? (The demons say Jesus is God's son. )

(Mark 15:39) 39 Now when the army officer who was standing by with him in view saw that he
had expired under these circumstances, he said: “Certainly this man was God’s Son.” (The
Roman soldier believed Jesus was God's son)

(Revelation 3:14) 14 “To the angel of the congregation in La·o·di·ce'a write: These are the things
that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation by God.
45 views
View 2 upvotes
 · Answer requested by 

Bryan Kuranaga

2
Add Comment
Sponsored by Chegg Study®
Get expert help. Make homework less work.
Snap a quick picture of a tough problem, and submit it to our Chegg Experts.
Learn More
Related Questions
More Answers Below

How did the Johannine Comma, (1 John 5:7-8), get added to the Bible?

How do I know when to use a full stop or a comma?

When did the ellipsis (…) turn into generic punctuation? Is it viewed as a super stop, three
periods instead of one? It seems to be used as a comma, too. Even logistically, it doesn’t make
sense. Why would you hit the keyboard 3x instead of once?
Teresa McWilliams

, studied Theology at Bob Jones University

Answered July 5, 2019
The Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, regardless of the spurious nature of the Johannine
Comma. Think about it. If it is a margin note that was accidentally mistaken for text, the reason
the scholar made the note is because the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity and he was
jotting down a note about it. And The reason it was mistaken for text is because the Bible teaches
the doctrine of the Trinity and the copier thought it was text. We just have to work harder to
defend our position.
21 views
View 1 upvote
You upvoted this
1
Add Comment

Leslie Dellow

, BSc from University of Leeds

Answered July 5, 2019

Prior to the sixteenth century, it only appears in the Latin Vulgate. Which makes it pretty
difficult to defend as being original. In the sixteenth century, Erasmus included it in his
edition of the Greek New Testament, but only at the Pope’s insistence.
35 views