1 John 5:7 – The Johannine Comma
The Most Famous Textual Variant in the New Testament?
By Simon Brown
For centuries, 1 John 5:7 has been one of the most debated verses in the New Testament. The longer reading found in the King James Version states:
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
This passage has often been used as one of the strongest biblical arguments in support of the doctrine of the Trinity.
But an important question remains:
Did the Apostle John actually write these words?
Or were they added centuries later?
As Christians, we should follow the example of the Bereans.
"Examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."
— 1 Thessalonians 5:21
And as the Apostle John warned:
"Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God."
— 1 John 4:1
If a passage has been questioned by scholars for hundreds of years, it deserves careful examination.
What Is the Johannine Comma?
The disputed words are commonly known as the Johannine Comma.
The longer reading says:
"...in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth..."
Modern Bible translations usually omit these words because most textual scholars conclude they were not part of John's original letter.
Instead, most modern translations simply read:
"For there are three that testify:"
followed by verse 8:
"the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree."
Why Do Most Modern Bibles Omit the Longer Reading?
One of the main reasons is the manuscript evidence.
The Johannine Comma is absent from the overwhelming majority of ancient Greek manuscripts, including the earliest and most important witnesses.
It is also absent from many early Bible translations, including ancient Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic and Slavonic manuscripts.
Many respected textual scholars therefore conclude that the longer reading was not part of the original text written by John.
Bruce Metzger, regarded as one of the world's leading New Testament textual critics, concluded that the passage entered the Greek tradition through a marginal note that was later copied into the text.
The Evidence from Greek Manuscripts
The evidence is striking.
The longer Trinitarian wording is missing from virtually all early Greek manuscripts.
It only appears in a handful of very late Greek manuscripts, most of which date from the Middle Ages or later.
This explains why many modern Bible translations omit the passage or place it in a footnote.
The NASB Lexicon
An interesting example is the NASB Greek Lexicon.
When examining 1 John 5:7, the lexicon simply translates:
"For there are three that testify."
The additional Trinitarian wording does not appear because it is absent from the Greek text being translated.
The Interlinear Greek Text
The same pattern can be seen in many Greek interlinear Bibles.
The Greek text simply reads:
"For there are three that testify."
There is no reference to:
the Father
the Word
the Holy Spirit
within the Greek manuscript tradition on which these editions are based.
What Do Bible Commentaries Say?
Even many conservative Bible commentaries acknowledge the textual problem.
The Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary notes that the disputed words are absent from the oldest Greek manuscripts and appear to have entered the Latin tradition before eventually finding their way into some Greek copies.
Likewise, the Pulpit Commentary concludes that the passage was almost certainly introduced from a marginal note into the Latin Vulgate before later appearing in a small number of Greek manuscripts.
These observations come from commentators who generally hold orthodox Trinitarian beliefs, yet still recognize the textual evidence.
Dr. James White
Dr. James White is a well-known evangelical scholar and defender of the Trinity.
Despite strongly defending Trinitarian theology, he acknowledges that the longer reading of 1 John 5:7 was not part of the original Greek text.
His acceptance of this conclusion demonstrates that rejecting the Johannine Comma does not require rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity itself. Many Trinitarian scholars also agree that the passage is not original.
Why Was It Included in the King James Bible?
The King James Bible was translated from the Textus Receptus.
The earliest printed editions of the Textus Receptus did not contain the Johannine Comma.
Later editions included it after pressure was placed on Desiderius Erasmus when a Greek manuscript containing the passage was produced. Most scholars believe this manuscript was very late.
Because the King James translators relied largely on these later editions of the Textus Receptus, the longer reading entered the King James Version.
Does Removing the Comma Affect Christian Faith?
For many Christians, the answer is no.
Even many Trinitarian scholars freely admit the passage is almost certainly not original while continuing to believe in the Trinity based on other passages.
Likewise, Christians who reject the doctrine of the Trinity argue that removing the Johannine Comma simply restores John's original words.
Either way, the question is one of textual history, not merely theology.
The Importance of Honest Scholarship
Whatever our theological position, Christians should seek the original words of Scripture.
If later additions entered the biblical text, we should not be afraid to acknowledge them.
Truth has nothing to fear from honest investigation.
As Jesus said:
"Seek, and you shall find."
— Matthew 7:7
My Conclusion
After studying the manuscript evidence, the Greek text, early Bible translations, and the conclusions of numerous textual scholars—including many who themselves believe in the Trinity—I have concluded that the longer reading of 1 John 5:7, known as the Johannine Comma, was not part of John's original letter.
In my view, the evidence strongly supports the shorter reading preserved in the earliest Greek manuscripts.
For me, this demonstrates the importance of testing every teaching against Scripture and carefully examining the historical evidence rather than accepting traditions without question.
Whether readers ultimately agree or disagree with my conclusion, I encourage everyone to study the evidence personally and prayerfully.
As Jesus said:
"Seek, and you will find."
— Matthew 7:7
1
There are Trinitarians who believe the Bible translations like the King James Bible, regarding, 1 John 5:7, proves the TRINITY.
This is because the Trinitarian Bible translations like the King James Bible, reads: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
This scripture is a perfect teaching to prove the TRINITY is correct, and adequately good enough to accept the TRINITY as a Biblical teaching and doctrine, because within the verse of the translations like the King James Bible, we read there are THREE SEPARATE beings in heaven who are ONE, confirming with what the TRINITY doctrine teaches.
And within the verse of, 1 John 5:7, in the Trinitarian Bible translations, we also find there is no other teaching in the entire Bible which teaches there are THREE as ONE. That fact makes this verse enormously important for the TRINITY faith, and others desiring to know the truth.
We also find there are Trinitarian's who have done some research on' 1 John 5:7, as in the article here by David W. Daniels. Who sates:
But if the claims like David W. Daniels are correct, then surly we will find dedicated Trinitarian scholars supporting and agreeing with, David, Daniels, claims, who are often biased, who would surly jump to using this scripture to prove their own TRINITY faith, instead of CONTRADICTING each other. Read on and lets see if that is the case?
What is WRITTEN in the OLDEST manuscripts, because surely they would reveal the truth, as they are the literal Biblical FACTS, that take us as close as possible to the originals.
It is encouraging to see how the oldest complete Bibles, are proving the many later manuscripts and some translations to be unreliable, wrongly translated or simply forgeries, and seem to prove some kind of Trinity conspiracy, as we will now examine and see in 1 John 5:7.

1 John 5:5.
τιϲ(Who) δε(now) εϲτιν(is) ο(the) νεικων(overcoming) τον(the) κοϲμον(world) ει(if) μη(not) ο(the) πιϲτευων(believing) οτι(that) ιϲ(Jesus) εϲτιν(is) ο(the) υϲ(Son) του(the) θυ(GOD)
1 John 5:7.
What this proves, is that many Trinitarian’s believe what they read, without doing any research on what they read. And have no idea with whats MISSING from 1 John 5:7.
But instead, we see that Trinitarians like David W. Daniels, CONTRADICT other Trinitarian Scholars.
And even worse, most Trinitarians do not even believe people of their own faith as the dedicated Trinitarian scholars, who even clearly admit this is a forgery.
Why are there so many Trinitarians who believe, 1 John 5:7, proves the Trinity, so blind? When all they need to do is simply have a look at many translations we have today, who clearly leave out the Trinitarian formula.
The amount of Trinitarians who use and send me this scripture to prove the Trinity is shocking, and instead they prove how deceived they are from understanding the truth.
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/Extras/Newton_Arian.html
If Trinitarians do not believe Bible scholars who teach the TRINITY is false, then whom do they believe?
Which contradicts the TRINITY who teach there are THREE SIDE by SIDE.
Trinitarians do not obey the first commandment, that we must believe GOD is ONE, because instead Trinitarians believe GOD is THREE, called the TRINITY.
Well, as the doctrine of the Trinity was not established until to forth century.
And as the Catholic Church admit they made the Trinity into a doctrine, which is well documented in history.
Then what is the meaning of John’s teaching in I John 5:6, to 9?
If we read from, I John 5:6, to 9, we find St John is teaching about the: Testimony Concerning the Son of God, and NOTHING whatsoever about all THREE being in heaven and being one or a TRINITY.
2. There is NO mention of the THIRD person of the Holy Spirit being a SEPARATE being or SEPARATE GOD anywhere in the entire Bible.
3. There is NO mention of the THIRD person of the Holy Spirit from the lips of Jesus when Jesus said: I and the Father are ONE, in His famous statement of John 10:30.
4. There is NO mention of the THIRD person of the Holy Spirit in the book of Revelation. Where has He DISAPPEARED too, if he is a SEPARATE being, shouldn’t He be on Heaven’s Big Throne?
5. Instead, the TRINITY phrase in, 1 John 5:7, states there are THREE as ONE.
We have discovered, the ONLY scripture that would prove the Trinity, is a FORGERY.
Is that surprising?
Common sense tells us, if there is ONE FORGERY, there will be more, which should help TRINITARIANS to see WHY IS THE TRINITY A CONSPIRACY CONTAINING DESTRUCTIVE HERESIES?
Yet no matter what Biblical facts are presented, most TRINITARIANS, still refuse to believe the truth, including their own TRINITARIAN Bible scholars, who would jump to using this as proof for their own faith.
Instead MOST honour the Catholic main TRINITY doctrine, which is well documented in history, to be established by man hundreds of years after Christ.
The facts seem to prove, as TRINITARIANS do not believe what Jesus taught, that His Father is the ONLY ONE TRUE GOD, John 17:3, Mark 12:29, how then will TRINITARIANS believe Bible scholars in their own faith, which explains why TRINITARIANS still use this proved FORGERY.
Comma Johanneum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum
KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, ...
Modern versions: (omitted from main text and not in a footnote)
Reason: A multitude of books have been devoted to just this verse, including: A Vindication of I John V, 7 from the Objections of M. Griesbach [by Thomas Burgess] (1821, London); Das Comma Ioanneum: Auf Seine Hewrkunft Untersucht [The Johannine Comma, an examination of its origin] by Karl Künstle (1905, Frieburg, Switz.); Letters to Mr. Archdeacon [George] Travis in answer to his Defence of the Three Heavenly Witnesses by Richard Porson (1790, London); A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses or Porson's Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined by Rev. Charles Forster (1867, London), Memoir of The Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, I John V.7 ˈ by 'Criticus' [Rev. William Orme] (1830, London), reprinted (1872, Boston, "a new edition, with notes and an appendix by Ezra Abbot" ); and The Three Witnesses – the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old by Henry T. Armfield (1893, London); and many more.[53] Eberhard Nestle, writing in Germany at the end of 19th century, said, "The fact that it [the Comma Johanneum] is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view."[54] F.H.A. Scrivener, usually regarded as a defender of the KJV text, said of this verse, "The authenticity of [this verse] will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by anyone whose judgment ought to have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies. ..."[55]
Early Church Fathers did not mention this verse, even when eagerly scraping together verses to support the Doctrine of the Trinity.[56] This verse first appears, not in a New Testament manuscript, but in a fifth century Confession of Faith, and after that it was assimilated into mss of the Latin Vulgate, but it was (because of the lack of Greek documentary support) omitted from the first two "Textus Receptus" printed editions of the New Testament (namely those edited by Erasmus, 1516 and 1519),[57] as well as some other very early Textus Receptus editions, such as Aldus 1518, Gerbelius 1521, Cephalius 1524 and 1526, and Colinaeus 1534.[58] Stephanus (Robert Estienne), in his influential Editio Regia of 1550 (which was the model edition of the Textus Receptus in England),[59] was the first to provide an apparatus showing variant readings and showed this verse was lacking in seven Greek manuscripts.[60] Martin Luther rejected this verse as a forgery and excluded it from his German translation of the Bible while he lived – it was inserted into the text by other hands after his death.[61] The first appearance of the Comma in a Greek New Testament manuscript is no earlier than the 15th century.[62]
Doubts about its genuineness were indicated in printed Greek New Testaments as early as that of the first two editions (1515 & 1519) of Erasmus of Rotterdam, who simply left the verse out because he could not find a Greek ms containing it – and provided a comment that "this is all I find in the Greek manuscripts".[63] Expressions of doubt also appeared in the edition of Stephen Courcelles (Étienne de Courcelles), in 1658, and from Johann Jakob Griesbach's edition of 1775. Most critical editions relegated the Comma to a footnote or otherwise marked it as doubtful.[64] The American Bible Union,[65] a Baptist organization, omitted this verse from the new English translations of the New Testament it published in the 1860s. The Roman Catholic Church was a bit more resistant about yielding up this verse; an 1897 decision of the Holy Inquisition forbade a Catholic "to deny or even express doubt about the authenticity of" the Johannine Comma, but this was effectively reversed by a declaration of the Holy Office on June 2, 1927, which allows scholars to express doubts and even denials of the genuineness of the Comma, tempered by the fact that the Vatican would have the final authority.[66] and, e.g., the 1966 Jerusalem Bible omits the Comma without a footnote. The spurious nature of this verse is so notorious[67] that even the Revised Version of 1881 did not bother to include nor provide a footnote for this verse, and many other modern versions do likewise. Ezra Abbot wrote, "It may be said that the question [of excluding this verse] is obsolete; that the spuriousness of the disputed passage had long been conceded by all intelligent and fair-minded scholars. This is true, but a little investigation will show that great ignorance still exists on the subject among the less-informed in the Christian community."[68] Even the two leading editions of the so-called Majority Text (Robinson & Pierpont, and Hodges & Farstad) omit this verse (the Hodges & Farstad edition acknowledge the 'Textus Receptus' version of this verse in a footnote).


























I STRESS THIS IS MY SHORTENED NARRATIVE BASED ON SPIRITUAL INSINCT AND PERCEPTION ON THE ORIGIN OF THE TRINITY NAD PETER THE ROCK.
ReplyDeleteWHO INITIALLY INVENTED THE TRINITY ANDSIMON PETER THE ROCK..??? NOT SIMON PETER BUT HIS ARCH ENEMY SIMON MAGUS WHO MASQUERADED AS SIMON PETER IN ROME AND IN ASIA MINOR.
THE TRINITY WAS A REVENGE BY THE ANTICHRIST TO TAKE JESUS'S NAME OUT OF BAPTISM, PAUL WARNED THE EARLY CHURCH AGAINST THAT THE ANTICHRIST WAS ACTIVE.
2 CORINTHIANS 11:3 3I AM AFRAID, HOWEVER, THAT JUST AS EVE WAS DECEIVED BY THE SERPENT’S CUNNING, YOUR MINDS MAY BE LED ASTRAY FROM YOUR SIMPLE AND PURE DEVOTION TO CHRIST. 4 FOR IF SOMEONE COMES AND PROCLAIMS A JESUS OTHER THAN THE ONE WE PROCLAIMED, OR IF YOU RECEIVE A DIFFERENT SPIRIT THAN THE ONE YOU RECEIVED, OR A DIFFERENT GOSPEL THAN THE ONE YOU ACCEPTED, YOU PUT UP WITH IT WAY TOO EASILY.
1 CORINTHIANS 10 20 NO, BUT THE SACRIFICES OF PAGANS ARE OFFERED TO DEMONS, NOT TO GOD. AND I DO NOT WANT YOU TO BE PARTICIPANTS WITH DEMONS. 21 YOU CANNOT DRINK THE CUP OF THE LORD AND THE CUP OF DEMONS TOO; YOU CANNOT PARTAKE IN THE TABLE OF THE LORD AND THE TABLE OF DEMONS TOO. 22 ARE WE TRYING TO PROVOKE THE LORD TO JEALOUSY? ARE WE STRONGER THAN HE?
There is also strong anecdotal evidence that Simon Magus masqueraded as Simon Peter in Rome. He beguiled hundreds with his sorcery and soon established a Roman Church a pseudo Christian Church full of Pagan relics and rituals including The Pagan Trinity and a Sun-day worship. Many of these rituals and dogmas were later adopted by the newly formed ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. HE EVENTUALLY PROMOTED TO “” THE ROCK OF THE FIRST CHURCH OF ROME “” AND SUSEQUENTLY WAS CONSECRATED AS THE FIRST CHURCH OF ROME IN A MOST ELOBERATED CEREMONY.
OF COURSE PETER NEVER WENT TO ROME AND ALWAYS ACCEPTED JESUS AS THE EXCLUSIVE ROCK AND CORNERSTONE OF HIS OWN CHURCH; HEAVENLY AND EARTHLY SPIRITUAL CHURCH.
AFTER COMPOSING THIS NARRATIVE I WAS ALMOST CONVINCE IT WAS TRUE AND THAT THAT BOTH THE TRINITY AND PETER THE ROCK ARE SCAMS ORIGINATE BY SIMON MAGUS THE FIRST ANTICHRIST IN REVENGE FOR BEING REFUSED THE BAPTISM OG THE HOLY SPIRIT BY PETER EVEN THOUGH MAGUS HAD ALREADY BEEN BAPTISED WITH WATER. SIMON MAGUS THE FIRST ANTI CHRIST.
I SHALL HAVE TO AWAIT AND SEE IF THE HOLY SPIRIT CONFIRMS THIS NARRATIVE BASED ON SPIRITUAL INSINCT WHICH HAS WORKED VERY WELL IN THE PAST.
ACTS 8 19 AND [Simon Magus] SAID TO PETER AND JOHN, “LET ME HAVE THIS POWER TOO! THEN ANYONE I PLACE MY HANDS ON WILL ALSO BE GIVEN THE HOLY SPIRIT.” 20 PETER SAID TO HIM, “YOU AND YOUR MONEY WILL BOTH END UP IN HELL IF YOU THINK YOU CAN BUY GOD’S GIFT! 21 YOU DON’T HAVE ANY PART IN THIS, AND GOD SEES THAT YOUR HEART ISN’T RIGHT.
PRAISE OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS THE CHRIST - YESHUAH HAMASHIACH. THE NAME ABOVE ALL OTHERS - TO THE GLORY OF GOD THE FATHER.
GOD BLESS – SEEK AND YE SHALL FIND.
ReplyDeleteSo if I don’t acknowledge that Jesus and the father as living in me iam not saved
2 John
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds
Dear Den, thank you for your comment.
DeleteCan we please have a look at what 2 John 1:9 says and means?
Anyone going on ahead, and not abiding in the teaching of Christ, does not have God. The one abiding in the teaching, this one has both the Father and the Son.
Now let's see what John 20:31 tells us what we MUST believe:
But these have been written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you may have life in His name.
So the Bible does not tell us we MUST acknowledge that Jesus and the father as living in me TO BE SAVED.
And when we believe in a TRINITY GOD, or that GOD is the SON, we DENY the Christ, and the Father and the Son 1 John 2:22.
Please see my article: SALVATION, WHAT MUST WE BELIEVE?
GOD bless.