I am not a Greek scholar or a trained textual critic. I am simply a Christian: a student of the Word of God. However, from time to time I have opportunity to teach the book of First John and have to deal with questions regarding the different readings of 1 John 5:6-8.
The King James Version renders these verses in the following way:
- 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.
- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
- And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
The New King James Version agrees with this rendering. However, many other modern versions translate the passage differently. Below is the New American Standard Version, which is similar to other translations such as the New International Version and the English Standard Version:
- This is the one who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood.
- And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
- For there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.
One will notice that the words of the KJV in bold print are missing from the NASV. These omitted words are sometimes called "The Johannine Comma." Why are these words not included in newer translations? Good question.
In his commentary on First John, brother Guy N. Woods provides a well worded explanation for the reason some passages in the Bible are questioned and/or omitted:
"The Greek text, from which present-day translations are made, is determined by ancient manuscripts, versions and early writings of the so-called 'Church Fathers,' some of which extend almost to the apostolic age. With reference to the major portion of the sacred writings - perhaps ninety-nine per cent or more - there never has been the slightest doubt as to their apostolic origin; the readings thereof are supported by overwhelming evidence from all of the original and reliable sources. In a few instances, however, spurious readings have crept in, readings which lack such universal support as that regarded essential to eliminate all doubt as to their genuineness and reliability. In proportion as such a reading is found to be missing from ancient documents on which the text is founded, doubt arises as to its authenticity; and when it is discovered to be wanting from a respectable number of sources it is regarded as spurious - that is, an inserted passage, without inspiration or divine authority" (325).
Brother Dan King, in his commentary on First John, makes the argument that the words under question in this article were not a part of the original text. "The First part of verse 7 as represented in the Authorized Version of King James, and part of verse 8 are considered not to have been written by John at all, but represent a devotional comment inserted, probably in the margin at first, but later mistakenly into the body of the epistle itself" (154). Brother King goes on to say the contested passage "is a splendid summary of a wonderful truth, and is completely consistent with all other scriptural doctrine regarding the nature of the Godhead. It teaches no error and is utterly harmless... it does no harm when people continue to read and study the KJV and view this longer reading as Bible doctrine" (156-157), but he insists the apostle John did not write these words and, thus, they are not a part of the text of the Bible.
Both brother Woods and brother King set forth the arguments in defense of omitting the contested passage (I believe brother King does a much more thorough job, as one would expect from him). Below is a summary of some of their arguments.
- These words do not appear in any of the early Greek uncial manuscripts, and only appear in six late cursive Greek manuscripts (of which between 200-300 have been discovered).
- These words are not found in any of the ancient versions of the New Testament, including the earliest copies of the Latin Vulgate. It does not appear in Latin Codices until after the eighth century.
- None of the early Greek "Church Fathers" quote these words. It is not quoted by a "Latin" writer until the end of the fifth century. This is significant because the passage under question would have been useful to Christians who were battling a heresy against the Bible doctrine of the triune nature of the Godhead in the early centuries of the church.
- The internal evidence argues against its authenticity. The verse flows much better, and John's point is made more plainly, without the words under question.
- The passage found its way into the Textus Receptus (from which the KJV is translated) only because Erasmus had promised to insert it if it could be found in any Greek manuscript. One manuscript containing the passage was brought to him (some claim it was made to order) and he reluctantly included it in his edition of the Greek text of the NT.
While these appear to be good arguments, I look at this matter from another direction. I am not a Greek scholar or textual critic, but I do believe in the providence of God. The King James Version has been in existence for over four hundred years now. No version of the Bible has even begun to have as great an influence upon the world during the past four hundred years as the King James Version. I do not believe God would allow His word to be translated and used in such an influential manner over such a great amount of time if the text had been adulterated (an entire verse had been added). Every Bible student knows what the Scriptures say about adding to and taking away from the word of God.
"You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you" (Deut. 4:2).
"For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Rev. 22:18-19).
Brother Woods concludes his comments on the Johannine Comma with these words: "There is, therefore, not the slightest ground for assuming that these words were a part of the original composition of the apostle John, or entitled to a place in the sacred text; nor is there any loss whatsoever in yielding them up as spurious, since nothing is taught in them not abundantly taught elsewhere in the New Testament" (326).
I take issue with brother Wood's willingness to yield up this passage. First John 5:6-8 is not the only disputed passage in the Bible. Arguments are also made against the inclusion of passages such as Mark 16:9-20 and Acts 8:37. If we argue in favor of the "removal" of a passage that clearly sets forth the triune nature of the Godhead, we make way for the "removal" of Philip requiring the confession of the Eunuch's faith prior to his baptism (Acts 8:37) and the Lord's command of water baptism for salvation (Mark 16:16). These are important passages of Scripture! Yes, there are other uncontested passages which uphold these important doctrines, but are we standing on solid ground when begin a practice of yielding up passages of Scripture to be "removed" from the Bible? The "safe" argument would be: "God, in His providence, has preserved these verses in His Word. Since these disputed verses support doctrines which are already upheld in Scripture, what is the harm in leaving them in the Bible and recognizing them as a part of the inspired text?"
Greek scholars and textual critics may not appreciate my thoughts on this matter, but I would rather be at odds with them than to stand before God in Judgment and try to explain to Him why I taught people that a part of His Word was not actually a part of His Word.
References:
King, Sr., Daniel H. Truth Commentaries, The Three Epistles of John, Bowling Green, KY, Guardian of Truth Foundation, 2004
Woods, Guy N. A Commentary on the New Testament Epistles of Peter, John, and Jude, Nashville, TN, Gospel Advocate Company, 1955