Cyprian of Carthage, Eugenius Voulgaris, and "The Three are One"

Two arguments recur in contemporary defenses of the Johannine Comma (the “Heavenly Witnesses” in 1 John 5:7–8): Cyprian’s quotation of “the three are one” and the claim that the masculine grammar of the earthly witnesses requires the heavenly witnesses of v. 7. The latter argument is often associated with a 1780 letter of Eugenios Voulgaris (aka Eugenius Bulgaris).  KJV advocates (the usual defenders of the Comma) object to the idea that Cyprian may have been referring to the spirit, water, and blood as the Father, Son, and Spirit.  What is particularly interesting, however, is that Voulgaris himself interprets the earthly witnesses—the spirit, the blood, and the water—as symbols of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Usually, the appeal to Voulgaris' letter comes in the form of bolstering an attack on the text of 1 John 5:6-8 as containing (it is alleged) a grammatical solecism in the absence of the interpolation. Students of John's writings, especially the book of Revelation, recognize that John's writing often violates the standards of Attic Greek, but does so intentionally, and with some purpose in these "violations."  Such departures from strict Attic norms are referred to as solecisms, apparently from the negative view that Athenians had of the Greek spoken by the people of Soloi (a Greek colony of Cilicia, in modern-day Turkey) (source).  

Cyprian's Reference to "The Three are One"

On the idea that Cyprian of Carthage may have been quoting 1 John 5:7, the specific quotation is from Cyprian's Treatise 1 (On the Unity of the Church), Section 6 (source), which states:

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi, incorrupta est et pudica. Unam domum novit, unius cubiculi sanctitatem casto pudore custodit. Haec nos Deo servat, haec filios regno, quos generavit, assignat. Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus adulterae iungitur, a promissis ecclesiae separatur, nec perveniet ad Christi praemia, qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi. Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est. Habere iam non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem. Si potuit evadere quisquam, qui extra arcam Noe fuit, et qui extra ecclesiam foris fuerit, evadit. Monet Dominus et dicit: Qui non est mecum, adversus me est, et qui non mecum colligit, spargit. Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversus Christum facit; qui alibi praeter ecclesiam colligit, Christi ecclesiam spargit. Dicit Dominus: Ego et pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt; et quisquam credit hanc unitatem de divina firmitate venientem, sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem scindi in ecclesia posse et voluntatum collidentium divortio separari? Hanc unitatem qui non tenet, non tenet Dei legem, non tenet Patris et Filii fidem, vitam non tenet et salutem.

(Latin Text Source and Alternative Translation)(Alternative Source)

I've tried to use text highlighting to emphasize the structure of Cyprian's argument.  In particular, note that Cyprian's last sentence wraps up the rest of this section: 

He who does not hold this unity (i.e., the unity of the church) does not hold God’s law (a reference to the adultery/treason motif), does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son (a reference to the gather/scatter statement and to the "I and the Father we are one" statement), does not hold life and salvation (a reference to the sacraments).  

Cyprian's quotation of 1 John 5:8 "and these three are one" is said to be about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  In what way is that?  Some have proposed that it is because John is symbolically referring to the Father, Word, and Spirit as spirit, blood, and water.  Typically, King James defenders balk (or even scoff) at this view.  Before investigating how Comma Defender Voulgaris endorsed such a view, let's consider some other reasonable alternatives. 

Alternatives to the Symbolic View - The Sacramental View

While the explanation of the symbolic interpretation of spirit, blood, and water is the most straightforward explanation of Cyprian's reference that does not require hypothesizing that the Johannine Comma had already been invented, there is another explanation: Cyprian may see the reference to water and blood as references to the sacraments of the Lord's Supper (the body and blood of Christ) and Baptism (water), through which the Spirit works - or perhaps to the Baptism (water) and Death (blood) of Jesus himself.  

Recall that the text says:

1 John 5:5-12 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

You may recall that God's witness to the Son ("my beloved Son") was given at Jesus' own Baptism (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).  A weakness of this interpretation of John's epistle is that John is the only evangelist not to mention this particular verbal witness (unless this is the time he is mentioning it).  On the other hand, John could be referring to the inspired witness that John the Baptist gave to Jesus (see, for example, John 3:26) or to the visual witness of the Spirit that John does record (John 1:33).  The strength of this interpretation is that this is a sense in which Jesus "came by water." 

Origen's (185-253) Commentary on John's Gospel, Book VI, Section 26, makes a similar connection between the Baptism of Jesus and 1 John 5:8 (source):

Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because John says, I baptize with water, but He that comes after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit. To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood, since it is said, Unless you drink My blood, you have no life in you, and as in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood. It is of His last baptism, as some hold, that He speaks in the words, I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished? And it agrees with this that the disciple John speaks in his Epistle of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, as being one.

Origen was approximately a contemporary of Cyprian.  

Another interpretation is that "come by water" here refers to Jesus baptizing (or overseeing baptism) as John's gospel records (John 3:22; 3:26; and 4:1-2).  This could then be connected (by Cyprian) with the triune name of God associated with Baptism in Matthew's gospel (Matthew 28:19).

Ambrose, for example, makes a connection of all three witnesses to Christian Baptism.  He does not do so in the way Origen does, but seems to be completely uninfluenced by his view. 

Ambrose (339-397) in On the Holy Spirit, Book I, Chapter 6 (sections 76-77) writes (source):

There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God. And so these three witnesses are one, as John said: The water, the blood, and the Spirit. One in the mystery, not in nature. The water, then, is a witness of burial, the blood is a witness of death, the Spirit is a witness of life. If, then, there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Ambrose goes on in Book III, Chapter 10 (Sections 65-68) to write (source):

I ask, however, why, if there be no doubt that we are born again by the Holy Spirit, there should be any doubt that we are born of the Holy Spirit, since the Lord Jesus Himself was both born and born again of the Holy Spirit. And if you confess that He was born of the Holy Spirit, because you are not able to deny it, but deny that He was born again, it is great folly to confess what is peculiar to God, and deny what is common to men. And therefore that is well said to you which was said to the Jews: If I told you earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And yet we find each passage so written in Greek, that He said not, through the Spirit, but of the Spirit. For it stands thus: ἀμήν, ἀμήν, λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὓδατος και Πνεύματος, that is, of water and the Spirit. Therefore, since one ought not to doubt that that which is born of the Spirit is written of the Holy Spirit; there is no doubt but that the Holy Spirit also is God, according to that which is written, the Spirit is God.  But the same Evangelist, that he might make it plain that he wrote this concerning the Holy Spirit, says elsewhere: Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not in the water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. Hear how they are witnesses: The Spirit renews the mind, the water is serviceable for the laver, and the blood refers to the price. For the Spirit made us children by adoption, the water of the sacred Font washed us, the blood of the Lord redeemed us. So we obtain one invisible and one visible testimony in a spiritual sacrament, for the Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit. Though the fullness of the sacrament be in each, yet there is a distinction of office; so where there is distinction of office, there certainly is not equality of witness.

Notice the sacramental connection, as well as this explicit and positive testimony against the Comma, by quoting from before its insertion point to after without including it, particularly when it would have suited Ambrose's argument if it were known to him.

Consider the way that Ambrose makes a Trinitarian connection to the passage in On the Mysteries, Chapter 4 (Section 20)(source):

Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.

In another place (Concerning Virginity, Book III, Chapter 5, section 22, link to source), Ambrose does not make an explicit citation of 1 John 5:7-8, but nevertheless makes a similar connection:

And since I have inserted a clause in which mention is made of the Lord's Body, lest any one should be troubled at reading that the Lord took a body of pain, let him remember that the Lord grieved and wept over the death of Lazarus, and was wounded in His passion, and that from the wound there went forth blood and water, and that He gave up His Spirit. Water for washing, Blood for drink, the Spirit for His rising again. For Christ alone is to us hope, faith, and love— hope in His resurrection, faith in the laver, and love in the sacrament.

The Spear Piercing - Double Baptism View

Why go down the sacramental path at all?  Partly this is because of the slight obscurity of what it means for Jesus to "come by water" or by both water and blood.  Other interpretations have suggested that Jesus was born of water in the sense of being naturally born from his mother's womb (based on an interpretation of John 3:5).  Another Biblical mention of water and blood is in John 19:34 (and Matthew 27:49b in more Greek manuscripts than have the TR comma), where blood and water flowed out of Jesus' side upon His side being pierced with a spear (Rufinus (344-411) in his Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, section 23, refers to both this blood and water from the spear-piercing as baptism - link to source).

Considering that John's gospel just summarily says that the Word was made Flesh, and does not provide any infancy narrative, the "came by water" as relating to his birth seems less likely as a viable explanation.  On the other hand, there is mention of testimony associated with piercing of Jesus' side:

John 19:31-37 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.  

Here, the record of the water and blood is supported by the Evangelist, but also aligned with the inspired Old Testament Scriptures.

Tertullian (155 - 220), in On Baptism, Chapter 16, connects the spear-piercing with Baptism (source):

We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, I have to be baptized with a baptism, when He had been baptized already. For He had come by means of water and blood,  just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.

An anonymous author (writing in the third or fourth century) offers these thoughts in On Re-Baptism, sections 14, 15, 18, and 19 (source):

14. And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, But I have another baptism to be baptized with. Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: Are you able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?  Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory. For what was said by the Lord, I have another baptism to be baptized with, signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. And also to those who are made lawful believers, the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink, as says the Scripture, From his belly flowed rivers of living water;  which rivers were manifested first of all in the Lord's passion, when from His side, pierced by the soldier's spear, flowed blood and water, so that the one side of the same person emitted two rivers of a different kind, that whosoever should believe and drink of both rivers might be filled with the Holy Spirit. For, speaking of these rivers, the Lord set this forth, signifying the Holy Spirit whom they should receive who should believe in Him: But the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. And when He thus said how baptism might be produced, which the apostle declares to be one, it is assuredly manifest on that principle that there are different kinds of one and the same baptism that flow from one wound into water and blood; since there are there two baptisms of water of which we have spoken, that is, of one and the same kind, although the baptism of each kind ought to be one, as we have more fully spoken.

15. And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;  — that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men's own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. 

...

18. ...  From all which things it is shown that hearts are purified by faith, but that souls are washed by the Spirit; further, also, that bodies are washed by water, and moreover that by blood we may more readily attain at once to the rewards of salvation.

19. I think that we have fully followed out the announcement of John the Baptist, whence we began our discourse, when he said to the Jews, I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He who comes after me is greater than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one. And, unless I am mistaken, we have also explained what our Lord says: John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Moreover, I think that we have given no weak reason as the cause of the custom. Let us have a care, although we do that in a subsequent place, that none may think that we are stirring up the present debate on a single article; although this custom even alone ought, among men who have the fear of God, and are lowly, to maintain a chief place.

I don't adopt this author's views (cf. Basil (330-379), On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 15, Section 36 - link to source), but merely offer them as being roughly contemporaneous with Cyprian, testifying to a sacrament-related (and even spear-related) view of the text, as well as providing an explicit testimony to the non-interpolation of the Johannine Comma.  Incidentally, Cyprian himself referred to a baptism of blood, referring to the death of the person himself in his Epistle 72, at sections 21-22 (link to source).

Leo's Life of Christ View 

Leo the Great (391– 461) makes a similar reference to both the spear-piercing and 1 John 5:8 in his famous "Tome of Leo," which was received by the Council of Chalcedon of 451 (often referred to as the 4th Ecumenical Council)(source), which is a clear positive testimony against the Comma:

If therefore he receives the Christian faith, and does not turn away his ears from the preaching of the Gospel: let him see what was the nature that hung pierced with nails on the wooden cross, and, when the side of the Crucified was opened by the soldier's spear, let him understand whence it was that blood and water flowed, that the Church of God might be watered from the font and from the cup. Let him hear also the blessed Apostle Peter, proclaiming that the sanctification of the Spirit takes place through the sprinkling of Christ's blood. And let him not read cursorily the same Apostle's words when he says, Knowing that not with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, have you been redeemed from your vain manner of life which is part of your fathers' tradition, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ as of a lamb without spot and blemish. Let him not resist too the witness of the blessed Apostle John, who says: and the blood of Jesus the Son of God cleanses us from all sin. And again: this is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith. And who is He that overcomes the world save He that believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is He that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth, because there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and the three are one.  The Spirit, that is, of sanctification, and the blood of redemption, and the water of baptism: because the three are one, and remain undivided, and none of them is separated from this connection; because the Catholic Church lives and progresses by this faith, so that in Christ Jesus neither the manhood without the true Godhead nor the Godhead without the true manhood is believed in.

But - of course - the primary reason to go down the sacramental path is because of Cyprian's statement that God's unity "coheres in celestial sacraments" (sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem).  That's seen in both the unity of the Sacrament of the Lord's table, in which we consume the one loaf that we are (1 Corinthians 10:17; cf. Cyprian, Epistle 62, section 13 - link to source), and the unity of the Sacrament of Baptism, in which "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).  Connecting the death of Christ and Baptism to church unity has Scriptural precedent -- Paul writes: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13)

You only have to read the rest of Cyprian's treatise (available here) to get the same sense of Cyprian's willingness to follow Paul's point and also to develop the same themes from Scriptural passages that are not necessarily directly about the point being considered.  For example, in the very next section of the treatise, Cyprian argues for the necessary unity of the Church from Jesus' garment remaining undivided (e.g., "By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church.").

Incidentally, this broader use of the term "sacrament" suggests that Cyprian may just be speaking symbolically, not necessarily referring strictly to the two Sacraments of the New Covenant.

Cyprian in Context - the Unity of the Church 

One must also consider Cyprian's point in citing 1 John 5:8.  Was it to establish the unity of essence of the Triune persons?  The argument seems to be about unity of purpose and mission, a sense that fits well with his quotation of John 10:30 ("I and my Father are one"), and does not require Cyprian to be taking John out of context there.  In context "the three are one" relates to the unity of agreement of the three bearing witness, not their unity of essence.  Moreover, in context, that unity of testimonial agreement serves the purpose of bringing life through faith, which is the main point of the church in Cyprian's view as well.

Likewise, while it is not perfectly clear that Spirit points to Father, Blood points to the Son, and Water points to the Holy Spirit, it is certainly easy to see how someone who sees the undivided garment of Christ as being a sacrament of Christian unity could see the context of 1 John 5:8 as pointing in this direction, for John writes: "And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." (1 John 5:7-9).  It would be easy for Cyprian to see "the witness of God" and "the three are one" and to infer that Spirit, water, and blood refer to the persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

Gregory Nazianzen: Trinitarian with a Non-Trinitarian Interpretation 

Gregory Nazianzen (329-390), however, takes a view that John is not speaking about the Trinity in his Fifth Theological Oration (Oration 31) (source):

XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

At some point, our KJV advocacy friends throw up their hands and exclaim that we are being wholly unreasonable to make a linkage between the Spirit, Water, and Blood and the persons of the Trinity - and following Leo or Gregory on the interpretation of the text, we may agree with them about the right sense.  

On the other hand, I would like them to consider their own champion on the grammatical argument (one who stands opposed to Gregory Nazianzen, whose text did not include the Comma): because that's exactly how their champion, Voulgaris, interprets the text!

I'm not suggesting that Voulgaris is infallible, or even right - surely Gregory Nazianzen's and Leo the Great's takes on the text are each better than Cyprian's.  However, considering that Voulgaris is one of the go-to sources for the grammatical argument, KJV advocates ought not lightly set aside his interpretation of the text.  Even if they disagree with it, saying it is wholly unreasonable - or something that only opponents of the Comma would suggest - seems like it is hereby demonstrated to be untenable.

In particular, Voulgaris argues that the heavenly witnesses are what the earthly witnesses symbolize. He made these claims long before the boogey-men, Westcott and Hort were on the scene.  He also made these claims in defense of the verse against being an interpolation. See the details of his claims in the letter that follows. 

My (amateur) Translation of the Text of Voulgaris 

In some places, I've slightly departed from the accents/breathings provided in the printed text (see my transcription of the printed text below). First, I provide a translation of the Latin of the document, and then I offer a translation of the Greek portions. 

This alone I could add at present, which by no one (that I know) has hitherto been observed. So far indeed is it from being the case that that passage crept in through interpolation, that not even the eighth verse, which follows, would stand, unless the seventh verse, about which the matter is, preceded.

For what in the Latin version is rightly expressed by the masculine gender of speech, that, in the original Greek text itself, the preceding verse not being presupposed, would by no means stand, except with a certain violence of diction and through a most manifest solecism. For since

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [1]

are nouns of the neuter gender, in what way will that which immediately precedes agree with them:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [2];

and that which immediately follows:

Καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ. τ. λ. [3]

That masculine nouns, indeed, and feminine ones are construed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, regard being had to

τὰ πράγματα [4],

is certainly a peculiar genius of our language, most well known to all who know it; but that, conversely, neuter substantive nouns are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns, no one would say.

Further, here in the eighth verse we read thus:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [5]

But would not, I ask, the natural and proper expression here rather be:

Τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν? [6]

Yet that is written, not this. What other account, therefore, can be brought forward for the occurrence of this

ἀκαταλληλίας [7],

except solely the expression of the preceding seventh verse, which through this immediately following eighth verse is symbolically explained and plainly repeated, an allusion having been made to that which had preceded?

The three, therefore, who bear testimony in heaven are first placed in the seventh verse:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἓν εἰσι. [8]

Then, however, immediately brought forward, the very same witnesses, insofar as they also confirm the same testimony on earth, through these three symbols in the eighth verse:

Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [9]

As if our Evangelist were saying:

Οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες [10]

(which is sufficiently indicated by the particle καὶ [11], whose force in the present passage is not simply copulative, but plainly identificative)

περὶ ὧν ἐν τῷ ἀνωτέρῳ ἐδαφίῳ εἴρηται· δηλαδὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα· οἱ αὐτοὶ μαρτυροῦντες εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ, δι’ ὧν ἡμῖν συμβόλων ἀπεκαλύφθησαν· ταῦτα δὲ τὰ σύμβολά ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, δι’ οὗ δηλοῦται ὁ Πατήρ· τὸ αἷμα, δι’ οὗ ὁ Υἱός· τὸ ὕδωρ, δι’ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι, οἵτινες ἀνωτέρω μὲν ἀνακεκαλυμμένως δι’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὀνομάτων, ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες παρίστανται οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ διὰ τῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μνήσεως, συμβολικῶς ἐπαναλαμβανόμενοι· οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [12]

But oh! I have undertaken a pitcher, not an amphora!

At Poltava, on the 10th day of December, 1780.

And my (again amateur) translation of the Greek portions:

1. τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

the spirit and the water and the blood

2. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness.

3. Καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ. τ. λ.

And these three, etc.

4. τὰ πράγματα

the things [i.e., the nature of those things]

5. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

and the three are unto the one.

6. Τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ,

Three [neut.] are the things [neut.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν?

and the three [neut.] are unto the one?

7. ἀκαταλληλίας

of incongruity / of lack of agreement

8. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness in heaven,

ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα·

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit;

καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἓν εἰσι.

and these three are one.

9. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

And three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

and the three are unto the one.

10. Οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες

Those very same ones, the ones bearing witness in heaven

11. καὶ

Most commonly, this word means "and" or "also," but here Voulgaris is saying it has the sense of "namely" 

12. περὶ ὧν ἐν τῷ ἀνωτέρῳ ἐδαφίῳ εἴρηται·

concerning whom it has been said in the passage above;

δηλαδὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα·

namely, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit;

οἱ αὐτοὶ μαρτυροῦντες εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ,

the same ones are bearing witness also on the earth,

δι’ ὧν ἡμῖν συμβόλων ἀπεκαλύφθησαν·

through which symbols they were revealed to us;

ταῦτα δὲ τὰ σύμβολά ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, δι’ οὗ δηλοῦται ὁ Πατήρ·

and these symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is indicated;

τὸ αἷμα, δι’ οὗ ὁ Υἱός·

the blood, through which the Son [is indicated];

τὸ ὕδωρ, δι’ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.

the water, through which the Holy Spirit [is indicated].

Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι, οἵτινες ἀνωτέρω μὲν

And these three, who above indeed,

ἀνακεκαλυμμένως δι’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὀνομάτων,

in an unveiled manner, through the thearchic names themselves,

ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες παρίστανται

are presented as bearing witness in heaven,

οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ

the same [are presented] on the earth,

διὰ τῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μνήσεως,

through the mention in the economy,

συμβολικῶς ἐπαναλαμβανόμενοι·

being repeated symbolically;

οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

these three are unto the one.

Source Text (trying to stay faithful to the printed text)

Hoc ego tantummodo in præsenti addere possem, quod a nemine (quod sciam) hactenùs observatum. Tantum scilicet abesse, per interpolationem locum illum surrepsisse, ut ne quidem versus octavus, qui sequitur, staret, nisi versus septimus præcederet, de quo agitur. Quod enim in versione Latina rectè exprimitur masculino sermonis genere, id in ipso textu Græco originali, non præsupposito superiore versiculo, haud planè consisteret, nisi cum violentia quadam dictionis, ac per solœcismum patentissimum. Cum etenim το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα nomina neutrius generis sunt, qua ratione concordabit cum iis, quod immediatè præcedit: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες; et quod illico sequitur: Και οὑτοι οἱ τρεις κ. τ. λ.  Masculina equidem nomina, et fœminina, nominibus adjectivis, pronominibusque in neutro genere expressis construi, respectu habito ad τα πραγματα, id sane linguæ nostræ peculiare genium esse omnibus eam callentibus notissimum est; sed quod etiam reciprocè neutra nomina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut fœmininis indicentur, nemo dixerit. Porro hic versu octavo sic legimus: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἓν εισι. Sed nonne quæso dictio naturalis hic et propria potius esset: Τρια εισι τα μαρτυρουντα εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και τα τρια εις το ἓν εισιν? At illud tamen est scriptum non hoc. Quæ igitur alia ratio occurrentis istius ακαταλληλιας afferri potest, nisi sola præcedentis versus septimi expressio, quæ per hunc immediate sequentem versum octavum, symbolicè explicatur et planè replicatur, allusione facta ad id, quod præcesserat? Tres, igitur, qui in cœlo testimonium perhibent, primo positi sunt versu septimo: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῳ ουρανῳ, ὁ Πατηρ, ὁ Λογος, και το ἁγιον Πνευμα· και οὑτοι οἱ τρεις ἓν εισι. Deinceps vero immediatè adducti, iidem ipsi testes, quatenus in terra etiam testimonium idem confirment, per tria hæc symbola versu octavo: Και τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἓν εισιν. Ac si diceret Evangelista noster: Οἱ αυτοι εκεινοι οἱ εν τῳ ουρανῳ μαρτυρουντες (quod satis indicatur per particulam και, cujus vis in præsenti non simpliciter copulativa est, sed planè identifica) περι ὡν εν τῳ ανωτερῳ εδαφιῳ ειρηται· δηλαδη ὁ Πατηρ ὁ Λογος και το Πνευμα· οἱ αυτοι μαρτυρουντες εισι και εν τῃ γῃ, δι’ ὡν ἡμιν συμβολων απεκαλυφθησαν· ταυτα δε τα συμβολα εστι το πνευμα, δι’ ου δηλουται ὁ Πατηρ· το αἱμα, δι’ ου ὁ Υἱος· το ὑδωρ, δι’ ου το Πνευμα το ἁγιον. Και οἱ τρεις οὑτοι, οἱτινες ανωτερῳ μεν ανακεκαλυμμενως δι’ αυτων των θεαρχικων ονοματων, εν τῳ ουρανῳ μαρτυρουντες παριστανται οἱ αὐτοι εν τῃ γῃ δια της εν τῃ οικονομιᾳ μνησεως, συμβολικως επαναλαμβανομενοι· οἱ τρεις οὑτοι εις το ἓν εισι. Sed ohe! urceum institui, non amphoram!

Poltaviæ, ad d. 10 Decemb. 1780

 

A Brief Rejoinder to Mr. Sheffield on 1 John 5:7

Jonathan Sheffield recently wrote (source):

After reviewing several Francis Turretin points on the subject, his thesis amounts to a poorly constructed postmodern narrative with no basis in history. Appealing to "some scribe" is not evidence for his position, but a deus ex machina to avoid addressing the positive evidence for the passage.

After I asked if he was ok, Sheffield responded: "Francis Turretin, have you ever had the opportunity to Beta Test your thesis?" (source)

The reason for my question was that I have seen Mr. Sheffield present cogent statements in other contexts.  However, in this particular context, what he offered is hard to connect to anything I've said/written.

First: "After reviewing several Francis Turretin points on the subject, his thesis amounts to a poorly constructed postmodern narrative with no basis in history."  

Based on his follow-up message, I gather that he did not have some third party's thesis in mind. He simply misplaced his modifier.  I'm sure I've done the same in informal contexts like Facebook. However, I have no idea which of my "points" JS has in mind.  His comment is too vague for me to guess which points from the many Comma Johanneum articles I've posted he means to reference (link to tagged posts).  

Likewise, the reference to my "thesis" is not entirely clear.  My overall thesis (if one wants to call it that) on the text of 1 John 5 is that John's letter originally said (though in simple uncial without diacritical marks, spaces, and punctuation): "... ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν ... " (see here) and specifically without the additions proposed by Erasmus, the Complutensian editors, and others over the years on the basis (directly or indirectly) of a Latin tradition.

There's a mountain of evidence to support my thesis, especially that the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts support this thesis - particularly the non-insertion of "in earth" and of the heavenly witnesses parallel is evidenced in literally hundreds of Greek manuscripts ranging from the fourth century up to the age of printing (and beyond, for whatever little that might be worth).  (a sorted list of manuscripts can be seen here)

Further support comes from all the ancient versions, except for a subset of the Latin. For example, the Coptic versions follow the Greek (Bohairic)(Sahidic).  So does the Old Georgian (source).

Additional support comes from writings of the fathers and other early Christian authors, even amongst the Latin tradition:

• Cassiodorus' (Latin, 485–585) translation of Clement of Alexandria's (Greek 147-215) comments on 1 John (available here);
• A 3rd or 4th century opponent of Cyprian on rebaptism (available here); 
• Ambrose (339-397) in his treatise on the Holy Spirit (available here); and
• Leo the Great (391-461): the Tome of Leo (available here).

So much for "no basis in history."  It's hard to respond to the claim of poor construction or a postmodern narrative, because no specific narrative is identified. In other comments in the thread JS offered some clarification (source):

Hefin Jones, let me give you an example.

In my debate with Ehrman on Gospel Authorship, his response to the evidence I presented in support of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the actual authors was this:

Actual quote: "But once somebody puts a name on them, apparently somebody in Rome, which at this time is becoming the biggest church and the most influential church in the empire, uh, somebody puts a name on these things, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And everybody else afterwards calls them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So, uh, what, you know, what else are they going to call them? That's what people are starting to call them"

That is a postmodern narrative, not actual objective evidence for his position.

He doesn't produce any documentation to that effect: no letter, where the location was (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, North Africa), - note he dropped the Rome claim when I pressed him on it. Additionally, who the person was that decided, and then which churches copied. It was like a world of make-believe. No one said what he was advocating in the ancient world.

The Critical Text Scholarship uses a similar postmodern narrative in trying to defend the premise that 1 John 5:7 is not original to the epistle of John. While taking the position that 1 John 5:7 is not original is a valid position, instead of advocating a postmodern narrative, present evidence for it in the same way as we have for any other now-credible theory of the world. “Evidence” in that sense must mean facts, which are beyond dispute as they are, whose existence is more likely, more probable, if the proposed theory is true than if any competing theory were true instead. Hope that helps. Pax Christi,

I cannot see the relevance of Ehrman's theory regarding the names of the gospels to the present controversy. JS seems to concede that my overall thesis is "a valid position" and that my approach of offering evidence in support of my position is an appropriate mode of investigating the problem.

JS continued: "Appealing to 'some scribe' is not evidence for his position, but a deus ex machina to avoid addressing the positive evidence for the passage."

What positive evidence?  I've dealt with the very few, inconsistent, and late Greek manuscripts offered in support of any version of the comma (see my post).   Before the life of Erasmus, they amount to a single Greek manuscript (GA 629). The two competing theories about that manuscript are (1) that the scribe producing the manuscript copied from a now lost Greek exemplar and (2) that the scribe producing the manuscript back-translated from his Latin exemplar into Greek to supply what he assumed was an omission in his Greek exemplar. Given the popularity of the comma among Latin readers in the West by the mid-1300s when the manuscript was made, and given the absence of known early Greek exemplars, the second of the two theories is the one more supported by the evidence. However, if an advocate of the TR wanted to go with the former theory, one might reasonably ask (as I did during my recent debate) why the Greek prepositions of the TR are different from those of GA 629. I'm not sure what appeal to "some scribe" JS has in mind. Without some clarification it's basically impossible to provide a helpful response.

As for "have you ever had the opportunity to Beta Test your thesis?" Again, this seems a bit vague. The phrase "beta test" has a meaning in software development, but I'm not sure how JS means to apply that to this topic. If he's asking if I have taken this into debate - yes, I have. There is a link above to my recent debate with CJ Cox and the topic came up in my debate with Nick Sayers (link), though I don't think I offered much (if anything!) on that topic then.

The Greek Manuscripts of the Johannine Comma

The present post is largely drawn from Elijah Hixon's helpful post (link to post) over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.  

Hixon writes:

There are 10 Greek manuscripts that have the CJ, but only three of them have it in the same form as in Stephanus’ 1550 edition and Scrivener’s edition reprinted by the TBS—these three are 221marg, 2318 and 2473. All ten of these manuscripts are indexed for 1 John 5:7–8 at the INTF’s VMR, so you are free to verify them yourself. 

Hixon goes on to note: "Before I get there, I want to mention that sometimes an eleventh Greek manuscript is cited. GA 635 is sometimes cited as having the CJ in the margin, but it does not."

In addition to what Hixon has mentioned, I've added a line for the Complutensian Polyglot, since some folks like to suggest that the Complutensian editors transcribed their text from a manuscript, rather than emending based on the Latin (despite Stunica himself acknowledging the opposite, as explained here).

In a nutshell, before Erasmus' fourth edition, what is today the "TR" Johannine Comma did not exist. Of the four manuscripts with something Comma-like in the main text, the only one that is before the time of Erasmus is transparently a back-translation from the Latin, in the context of a Greek-Latin diglot text.  The only one from the time of Erasmus likewise appears to be a back-translation from the Latin, because it lacks the articles.  The remaining two match the TR text, but both are from long after the age of printing (i.e., 16th or 17th century), and are thought to be based on a printed Greek text.

Even if we were to consider the marginal readings in manuscripts that contain them, only one of the marginal notes is a viable candidate to be before the time of Erasmus, and this one is likewise a transparent back-translation from Latin.

In short, the Greek evidence confirms that the Comma Johanneum (CJ) is a Latin interpolation.   

Manuscript	Evidence of Latin influence	Has the TR reading?	Margin/Main Text
GA 635 (11th Century)	Hixon notes that GA 635 is sometimes cited as containing the Comma, but does not. Others have suggested that this has been cited in error for 636 (see below)	Does not actually contain the Comma.	N/A
GA 629 (14th century)	Latin-Greek diglot; the Greek lacks articles before the heavenly witnesses, suggesting translation from Latin.	No; has ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ / ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, lacks articles, reads Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, and has εἰς τὸ ἕν.	Main text
GA 61 (15th-16th)	Franciscan provenance; copied from GA 326 while adding Vulgate-derived readings, and the Comma lacks Greek articles.	No; lacks the articles and reads Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον.	Main text
GA 429marg (margin after 1522)	Marginal addition copied from Erasmus’s third edition, the article-less form of the Comma.	No; lacks the articles and follows Erasmus’s third-edition form.	Margin
GA 918 (late 16th century)	Spanish Catholic provenance; the Comma appears to have been added from Erasmus’s third edition.	No; lacks the articles and follows Erasmus’s third-edition form.	Main text
GA 2473 (17th century)	Apparently copied from a later printed Textus Receptus edition rather than from an independent Greek manuscript tradition.	✓	Main text
GA 2318 (18th century)	Late commentary manuscript; Wachtel considered its biblical text copied from a later Textus Receptus edition.	✓	Main text
GA 177marg (margin 18th century)	Marginal addition by the Catholic priest Ignatius Hardt in 1785; the verse numbering points to a printed source.	No; lacks articles and οὗτοι, reads εἰς τὸ ἕν, and omits the continuation into v. 8.	Margin
GA 221marg (margin 19th century)	Marginal addition made after a 1854 catalogue stated that the manuscript lacked 1 John 5:7, suggesting dependence on a printed source.	✓	Margin
GA 88marg (16th or later century)	Later marginal hand; Latin note, Counter-Reformation provenance, Latin-looking alpha, and no nomina sacra suggest printed or Latin influence.	No; apparently lacks the articles before the heavenly witnesses.	Margin
GA 636marg (15th or later)	Later marginal hand; lacks definite articles and appears amid Greek and Latin notes, suggesting possible translation from Latin.	No; lacks the articles and omits οὗτοι.	Margin
Complutensian Polyglot (16th)	Printed Greek-Latin New Testament; the Comma is printed in the Greek column alongside the Latin tradition.	No; includes καί before ὁ λόγος, omits οὗτοι, and reads εἰς τὸ ἕν.	Main text

The Grammatical Argument for the Johannine Comma

This is a response to, "Johannine Comma and Georgios Babiniotis," by Nick Sayers (as retrieved on April 27, 2025).  The article starts with the suggestion: "Voulgaris Vindicated by Leading Greek Expert." That refers to an argument made by Eugenios Voulgaris (aka Eugenius Bulgaris) that argues that the text of 1 John 5 contains a grammatical solecism that is avoided only if the Johannine Comma is included. (text of Voulgaris available here, as retrieved on July 12, 2024)

Sayers begins:

Most critical text proponents don't even engage in the grammatical issues surrounding the Johannine Comma, and those who do, such as Barry Hofstetter, or James White, only reveal that they are not adequately informed about this issue.

This blog does address all sorts of arguments that others do not.

Sayers continues:

In an email discussion with Professor Georgios Babiniotis a few months ago, I asked him about the validity of the claims of legendary Greek professor Eugenius Voulgaris concerning the Johannine Comma. Those familiar with the grammatical arguments made by Voulgaris will be pleased to know that Babiniotis, who is probably one of the most important Greek linguists alive today, said that not only was Voulgaris correct to say we need to keep the Comma for grammatical reasons, and he also took it a step further by pointing out that verse 7 justifies verse 8 because of the “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses.

One of the challenges with interacting with this argument is that we are not given the correspondence that Sayers provided to Babiniotis, in order to understand what question was asked, and how it was asked. We have to make certain assumptions, and that can lead to mistaken conclusions about what is meant by the answers that Sayers reports.  

Let me be clear: I am not impugning Sayers' integrity in the least.  I take for granted that Sayers is honestly and accurately reporting what Babiniotis said and that if there is any error in such reporting, it is unintentional.  It's just that, as it stands, the context we have is incomplete.

Sayers continued:

Babiniotis is a Greek linguist and philologist who has written several books about Greek grammar, etymology, and other Greek language-related topics. He is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece and previously served as rector of Athens University.

As David Crystal is to English-speaking people, so Georgios Babiniotis is to the Greek speaker. Here are some of the books he has written here: https://babiniotis.gr/ergografia/vivlia.

You may know of Babiniotis from his Greek dictionary which is often simply called the "Babiniotis" dictionary.

Prof. Babiniotis is now 87 years old.  His academic credentials seem to be that he has a bachelors in Philology from the University of Athens, and subsequently served as a professor at the University of Athens.  His political appointments are impressive: he clearly is very connected.  I'm not sure in what year Sayers contacted him, but my impression is that it was in 2021.

I don't bring these things up to disparage Prof. Babiniotis.  In 2021, La Linguistique published an article by Babiniotis: "Modern Greek Interpretive Lexicography: from the 18th century to the present day."  The article focuses on Greek dictionaries and suggests the possibility of a new and significant Greek dictionary in the near future.  He certainly is a recognized scholar in the field of dictionaries, as Sayers has highlighted.

Sayers continued:

In May he wrote the following and attached a word doc:

“...Dear Mr Sayers,

I apologize that only now I can answer your kind letter about the N.T. passage discussed by Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης.

Here is my opinion as a linguist, not as an expert in theology.

Γ. Μπαμπινιώτης...”

I don't know why Sayers includes ellipses.  I assume that the meaning is that perhaps Sayers has omitted some other material from the email (for legitimate reasons of privacy, or the like).  There is, of course, nothing much to address in the email itself.  

I appreciate that Babiniotis is focused on his own linguistic skills as distinct from any theological skills.  This may, however, pose a small problem for his analysis, as we shall see.

Sayers then offers "(Word Doc):" followed by the following text, which I understand to be the entirety of Babiniotis' comments.  If there is anything missing, of course, that could alter the analysis of what is provided.

Babiniotis begins:

I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically —though with another explanation— Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8.

As I understand it, Babiniotis is saying that Voulgaris has reached the right conclusion, but not for the right linguistic reasons.

Babiniotis continues:

What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek.

As I understand it, Babiniotis is being careful in view of various changes to the Greek language over time to couch his answer in terms of his understanding of New Testament Greek.  His interpretation might be different if he were dealing with Attic Greek or Modern Greek.  Keep in mind that, of course, New Testament Greek is not Babiniotis' central area of study.

 Babiniotis opines:

The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.

«καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»

is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,

ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα

καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι

Presumably, Babiniotis means that each word of the three words, "τρεῖς ... οἱ μαρτυροῦντες," in verse 8, is masculine because of the parallel to "τρεῖς ... οἱ μαρτυροῦντες" in verse 7, where each of those is masculine.  To be more specific, though, the issue is really about the word μαρτυροῦντες - if that were something other than masculine, both the number and article would surely follow.

It is easy to see the parallelism, but how does Prof. Babiniotis explain the justification?

So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical “gender agreement rule” (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender : «καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ…»), but the overruling schema of “syntactic parallelism” which is much more stronger than a simple gender agreement rule.

Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7.

(End of word doc)

Style over syntax seems to be Babiniotis' point.  Following the gender agreement rule (in which case "witness" would be neuter instead of masculine) would damage the style of providing a syntactic parallel between the three heavenly witnesses and three earthly witnesses.

I must admit that even after puzzling over it for a while, it is unclear what Babiniotis means by saying "eliminate verse 5.7." 

We don't know, because Sayers hasn't told us, but presumably Sayers had some unanswered questions as well.  He adds:

George later said in an email:

“...I have given you my own linguistic explanation which is to keep verse 5.7. which justifies verse 5.8. It is grammatical and mainly “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses...”

Unfortunately, we do not even get two full sentences of the explanation offered by Prof. Babiniotis (I'm not even sure that the first part of the quotation is a full sentence).  Moreover, at least as to what he means by "eliminate verse 5.7," the meaning is not at all clear.

All that said, there is no need to agree or disagree with Babiniotis as to things he has not said clearly.  As to what he said clearly, it seems:

1. Babiniotis does not agree with or accept Voulgaris' linguistic argument, only the conclusion;
2. Babiniotis thinks that the syntactic parallelism with 5.7 is an adequate explanation for 5.8 having the masculine gender (notwithstanding that it violates the gender agreement rule); and
3. Babiniotis thinks that if 5.7 needs to be present in order to justify 5.8 on the grounds of syntactic parallelism.

I do not think that my analysis of Babiniotis is unfair or in the least controversial.  I don't think it requires taking a low view of Babiniotis' linguistic abilities, credentials, acumen, or intelligence to conclude that his analysis can be boiled down to those three salient aspects.  Before providing my response, let's see what else Sayers offers:

So I hereby challenge those of the Anglo Sanhedrin who desire to delete the Comma, such as James White, Dan Wallace, Barry Hofstetter, James Snapp Jr, Stephen Boyce, Bill Brown, Bart Ehrman, Elijah Hixson, etc, to refute the claims of this top Greek linguist, who has basically just confirmed that the Greek grammatical argumentation that myself (Nick Sayers), Steven Avery, Will Kinney, Edward Hill, Jack Moorman, and many other TR/KJV people hold to, is not only correct but that the Comma is also linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”.

I don't think that Sayers has correctly understood Babiniotis, if he thinks that Babiniotis is endorsing anyone else's "Greek grammatical argumentation."  Then again, I don't have access to the additional documentation that presumably Sayers himself has.  Suffice that in the released material, that is not what Babiniotis said in the published correspondence.

The bigger issue, however, is what was not considered by Babiniotis, but what was not considered by Babiniotis: is there another justification for the use of the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8, even without the justification of syntactic parallelism?

In other words, the big question is why John would refer to the three witnesses using the masculine gender and not using the neuter, even in the absence of 1 John 5:7.  There is a better explanation for why John referred to the three witnesses using the masculine gender: although the nouns themselves are not masculine, they are being anthropomorphized as witnesses.  An alternative explanation is that although the nouns themselves are not masculine, they are to be understood analogically as referring to the three persons of the Trinity.  

Unfortunately, there is no evidence of Babiniotis considering these alternative explanations for the violation of the gender agreement rule. Had Babiniotis done so, perhaps he would simply agree that these considerations may likewise trump the gender agreement rule. 

The most likely explanation is that John means to evoke the "three witnesses" rule in the Mosaic law, which both Jesus and Paul reference:

• Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
• Deuteronomy 19:15 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.
• Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
• 2 Corinthians 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
• 1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
• Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Assuming that this is indeed John's intent, then the use of the masculine as consistent with treating these witnesses as people.

There is also possible precedent for doing something similar in Psalm 89:37 (Septuagint numbering 88:38): καὶ ὡς ἡ σελήνη κατηρτισμένη εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ὁ μάρτυς ἐν οὐρανῷ πιστός διάψαλμα

In this place, witness (μάρτυς) is masculine, whereas moon (σελήνη) is feminine. One might argue, however, that the antecedent reference witness is making here should be taken as throne (θρόνος), which is masculine.

There are at least two other cases of impersonal witnesses being referenced in the Septuagint, where there is a gender agreement mismatch between the witness and the word that the witness describes. 

Septuagint Joshua 22:34 provides a first example of a non-personal witness:

καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν Ἰησοῦς τὸν βωμὸν τῶν Ρουβην καὶ τῶν Γαδ καὶ τοῦ ἡμίσους φυλῆς Μανασση καὶ εἶπεν ὅτι μαρτύριόν ἐστιν ἀνὰ μέσον αὐτῶν ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν ἐστιν

Note that altar (βωμὸν) is masculine, but witness (μαρτύριόν) is neuter.

Septuagint Joshua 24:27 provides a second example of a non-personal witness:

καὶ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τὸν λαόν ἰδοὺ ὁ λίθος οὗτος ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς μαρτύριον ὅτι αὐτὸς ἀκήκοεν πάντα τὰ λεχθέντα αὐτῷ ὑπὸ κυρίου ὅ τι ἐλάλησεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς σήμερον καὶ ἔσται οὗτος ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς μαρτύριον ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἡνίκα ἐὰν ψεύσησθε κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ μου

Note that stone (λίθος) is masculine but witness (μαρτύριον) is neuter.

Note about content:

The content of this article (at least in part), appeared previously on my youtube channel (here).  The video may contain some additional content not captured in this post, and - of course - vice versa.

Timothy Decker has posted a very interesting item on the same subject, which can be found here: (link to post).

Responding to Jonathan Sheffield's Comments on the Johannine Comma (on C Jay Cox's show)

C Jay Cox (CJC) in Un-Apologetics Ep.#67: Talking Textual Criticism with Jonathan Sheffield came to the topic of 1 John 5:7 around 1 hour and 13 minutes into the presentation (link to start of discussion).  The following is lightly cleaned-up transcript of the question and answer, interspersed with my comments.

Question from CJC:

I’ll hold off on the wrap-up really quick just to ask very briefly about 1 John 5:7. I’m just going to read it really quickly here for the people:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

The common objection is that this first appears in the works of Erasmus around the early 1300s. Is that a fair assessment as far as what we have in the historical record? Obviously, if you believe that it goes before then, then you wouldn’t think it’s a fair assessment in its totality. But as far as the historical record, does anybody reference it before then? Is there any manuscript evidence before then?

Erasmus was not around in the 1300s.  Erasmus famously introduced a form of the Comma into his third edition in AD 1522 (he had not included it in his first two editions).  Possibly there was some kind of conflation on CJC's part, because the oldest known manuscript with an insertion into the Greek from the Latin is GA 629, which is dated to AD 1362–1363.  GA629 is a Greek-Latin diglot, and there are multiple differences between the reading found in GA629 and the reading now viewed as the "TR" reading, most notably the absence of Greek articles, which is evidence of back translation from the Latin.  

Erasmus's Third Edition, showing the absence of Greek articles:

(Novum Testamentum omne (C.2.9), 596/643)

The TR reading first appears in Erasmus' fourth edition (1527), based -- as far as anyone can tell -- on Erasmus' conjecture of how to improve the reading he first published in his third edition (1522).

On the other hand, no one who is familiar with the evidence would say that this Latin variant first appears either in the works of Erasmus or GA629.  Instead, of course, this Latin variant shows up first in Latin.  There are examples of Latin manuscripts with such a reading that significantly predate the 1300s.  The earliest identifiable evidence of some related variant being possibly as early as the 300s.  Some have argued that it may have appeared in Latin as early as the late 100s, though the evidence for that idea falls short of compelling.

Jonathan Sheffield:

Yes, there is. That is the way they kind of detract and try to say, you know, the King James Bible editors added it in, or that it was Erasmus where it first showed up.

In the case with Erasmus, it wasn’t in his first edition, which prompted a response from the team of Cardinal Jiménez, who reached out to him and said, “Hey,” because in the [Complutensian] Polyglot it was included. And they actually provided citations for why they included it in their documents. So that is not the first case.

Jacobus Stunica (aka Zuniga) was part of the Complutensian team, and did publish a response to Erasmus' New Testament. Sheffield is a bit vague in his explanation here, but as we have discussed in a previous post (link to post), Stunica acknowledged that the Greek manuscripts do not have this reading but insisted that the Latin manuscripts maintain the correct reading, citing Jerome in support of his position. It turns out that Stunica was citing Ps-Jerome and a significantly corrupted version of Ps-Jerome at that (as explained here).  

Jonathan Sheffield:

Actually, we have two allusions very early on from the North African church, both with Tertullian and with Cyprian, that appear to hold the passage. But definitive quotes we have not only in Spain in the fourth century, but we actually have it used at an official council in the West, responding to the Goths, who were Arians.

The council was called by Huneric, the Vandal king, who was in support of the Goths, or the Arians in the West. He called the council and wrote a letter to all the Trinitarian bishops of the North African province, and we’re talking about Spain and all those little areas and islands around North Africa, to convene a council in 484 and to go to Scripture to defend their homoousian faith.

Let's break this down into four: Tertullian, Cyprian, Spain in the 4th Century, and Victor of Vita (author of the book against the Vandals, which Sheffield is indirectly citing).

As to Tertullian, there are at least three different works that are sometimes cited as allegedly showing reliance on the Johannine Comma.  The first is De Baptismo (On Baptism), in which Tertullian refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as "three witnesses" that are united in the Church: "Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under three witnesses, there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body of three."  (On Baptism, Chapter 6)  The second is De Pudicitia (On Modesty), in which the Church is similarly said to unify the three: "For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three." (On Modesty, Chapter 21)

One challenge to viewing these as an allusion to the Johannine Comma is that the church as the unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit is not really a suitable match to the usual readings of the Johannine Comma.  Moreover, in the case of On Baptism, the "three witnesses" is taken either from Paul (2 Corinthians 13:1; Cf. 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28) or Christ (Matthew 18:16) or possibly, though less likely, from Moses (Deuteronomy 17:6 & 19:15). 

A third passage that is sometimes cited is Tertullian's, Against Praxeas, in which Tertullian states (Against Praxeas, Chapter 25): "These Three are one [essence], not one [Person], as it is said, I and my Father are One, (John 10:30) in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."  While this translation may obscure the point, Tertullian's Latin is: "qui tres unum sunt, non unus".  Tertullian is relying on the difference between the neuter and masculine, a difference that also exists in his Latin of John 10:30.  

The major problem for the theory that this is an allusion to the Johannine Comma is as follows: why not quote the entirety of the text if Tertullian is referring to something from 1 John?  The chapter in question contains numerous quotations from John's gospel: why then wouldn't the epistle be quoted if a helpful statement were found there?  So, it seems that instead Tertullian is explaining the unity of the Trinity, not quoting a verse that allegedly supports his conclusion.  

Turning to Cyprian of Carthage, James Snapp (source) provides this succinct explanation: 

In his Treatise on the Unity of the Universal Church (1:6), Cyprian says: “Dicit Dominus, ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus,’ et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est:  ‘Et tres unum sunt.’”  In English:  “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one,” and again, it is written of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”

This is a quotation, not an allusion.  The use of the formula, "it is written," suggests that Cyprian is referencing Scripture, not Tertullian (or another merely human author).  The question remains, however, whether Cyprian is referencing the shorter original reading or the interpolated Latin reading.  The former is possible, if Cyprian believes that the spirit, blood, and water are references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Cyprian does not explain, so it is difficult to be sure.  On the other hand, again, if the interpolation were present in Cyprian's text, why does he not quote it more fully?  Why say that it is about the Father, Son, and Spirit instead of quoting "Father, Word, and Spirit"?  It's hard to find a good answer to that question, and in this very brief discussion, Sheffield does not offer one.

Turning to Spain in the fourth century, we have what is generally viewed as the earliest clear reference to some form of the Comma.  As discussed in a previous post (link), this form of the comma has a few notable differences, especially that it says that the Father, Word, and Spirit are one in Christ Jesus.  Also, the author who provides this quotation is someone who did not hold to proper Trinitarian doctrines.

Finally, we turn to the first evidence of a shorter form of the comma that became more widespread in medieval Europe.  This is evidence is from a work by Victor of Vita, who records persecution by Huneric, including a time when Huneric is said to have summoned 466 (or so) bishops to Carthage, in an effort to make them conform to the Arian religion of the Vandals.

Huneric did not call them to "convene a council" as that expression is usually used.  The homousian bishops were, instead, essentially being put on trial.  The synod was run by the Vandal king's bishop of choice, a man named Cyrila.  There was an offer to hold a debate between the Vandal bishops and the homousian bishops.  The homousian bishops of North Africa selected ten representatives to attend the debate.  However, this offer of debate was declined.  Nevertheless, Victor says that four bishops had prepared a written treatise on the beliefs of the homousians.  Victor includes a version of this document in his account, and his version of that document (as best as it has been critically reconstructed) includes a reference to a form of the Comma.  

The Vandals invaded North Africa via Spain at the start of the 5th century, but I'm not sure whether any of the bishops summoned to Carthage were from Spain.  Huneric's territory did not, as far as I can tell, include Spain in 484, and he only summoned bishops from his territory.

While Vandals and Goths are related, they were different Germanic tribes.

Jonathan Sheffield:

So the Trinitarian North African bishops came to that council with a written confession, not only in their own language but in the language of the Goths and other dialects, and presented a specific quote from John, referencing the Epistle of John, where he quotes 1 John 5:7.

So the bishops of North Africa crafted this statement in response to the Arians of the West, the Gothic Arians, and used this specific passage to defend the Trinitarian position. And this is a council of over 400 bishops in attendance.

So the question is: we have a major council that is quoting this passage against the Arians. We know the type of text that the Arians used, so why would the North African bishops use something that was questionable, which would have meant their death over there in North Africa, if the passage was disputed?

The treatise cites John the Evangelist, without specifying whether it was in John's first epistle or somewhere else.  However, it seems reasonable to think that the author meant to refer to John's first epistle.

The treatise was not written in multiple languages: it was written in Latin.  Latin, however, was not the language of the Vandals.  In fact, the reason Cyrila gave (according to Victor) for declining to hold a debate was that he didn't know Latin.

Victor does not say that the treatise was crafted by all the bishops, but attributes the treatise to four bishops.  As the treatise does not seem to have circulated apart from Victor's work, we have no way to tell how much Victor himself contributed to the work. Indeed (as discussed in this previous post), the discussion of the Comma breaks the flow of the work, suggesting that it may have been a revision (Victor would be the most obvious source of this revision).  

There is no evidence that using something questionable or disputed would have "meant their deaths".  We also do not know what type of text the Vandals used.  Very little of Vandalic has survived to the present time, the longest sentence being  "eils ... scapia matzia ia drincan!" (source) Even if we were to assume that the Vandals read the Gothic Bible, John's epistles (if they were ever translated into Gothic) have not survived.  

On the other hand, we do know that Augustine who died during the Vandal siege of Hippo in 430, had a text of 1 John without the Latin interpolation (link to example of Augustine's discussion of 1 John 5).  So, it is reasonable to suppose that if the Vandals had taken up Latin texts from the places they conquered, they would have found at least some without the interpolation.

Likewise, it is unreasonable to call this a "major council."  There was no meaningful participation in person by any of the homousian bishops.

Jonathan Sheffield:

And if we look back to the allusions of Cyprian and Tertullian, that follows that same textual line of the North African bishops. They had no doubt that this passage was Scripture at all.

The common retort against the North African council is, “Well, this passage was sort of made up because they looked at verse 8 and John, and it became sort of a version of verse 8 and became verse 7.” So they have to make up these wild conspiracies to generate verse 7.

Sheffield seems to be conflating a few things.  The question is less about the council or even just Victor specifically, and more about how such an interpolation could come to be.  The answer to that question is that it can come to be by an unreliable (or at least, not strictly literal) translator providing an interpretive gloss on the three witnesses that are actually mentioned in the text: the spirit, the blood, and the water.  This fault seems to have been identified at least as early as the 6th century (see the original reading of the Ps-Jerome prologue).  

Jonathan Sheffield:

The passage is a majority reading in the West. So while the Greek evidence is very—it has very little testimony to it in the Greek—when the official Greek Orthodox churches, I’m talking about the official churches of Alexandria, North Africa, and Constantinople, all met in 1904 to create their standardized Greek text for use throughout the Greek Orthodox Church, they discussed the issue of 1 John 5:7.

That is not in their textual tradition. That is not basically witnessed by the Byzantine text form. The holy bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church voted this passage to be included in the 1904 [text].

So when all the magisterial Reformers, basically all the magisterial Reformers except for Luther, all basically came to the same conclusion that this passage was witnessed by the ancient church and included in their editions of the TR. It’s a majority reading in the West, and when the Greek Orthodox Church met and discussed this issue, they included this passage.

The only people who seem to reject this passage are the textual critics based in the German rationalism of the late eighteenth and seventeenth century. So it’s not the official churches rejecting this passage. It’s basically the critical-text proponents of German rationalism.

This comment about "the only people who seem to reject this passage" is unsupportable.  It's also misleading to say that it is "a majority reading in the West."  It may well be a majority in the later Vulgate manuscripts.  It is not a majority reading in the oldest Vulgate manuscripts.  If you survey the Latin manuscripts from the 6th to the 10th centuries (as I did in this post), none of them have the Comma as it was ultimately imposed on the Greek text:

• 22 manuscripts originally lacked the Comma (many of these were later deliberately altered to include it)
• 1 manuscript had the "son" variant (i.e., not "Word" but "Son")
• 1 manuscript without "in earth" and with the comparative variant
• 1 manuscript with the "in Christ Jesus" variant

So, it's misleading at best to make comments about the "majority reading" in the West.  The earliest Latin exegesis of 1 John 5 (from an anonymous Irish author around AD 680) does not have the interpolated reading. Neither did the Venerable Bede in the 8th century.