Which variant reading is the original and why?
In a day where literacy abounds and technology is flourishing there is still a large amount of ignorance deeply-rooted within society. Much of this ignorance is manifest in the belief most people have that the New Testament is nothing more than exaggerated tales passed down from generation to generation eventually ending up in written form. There seems to be either a lack of interest or a lack of knowledge concerning the truth of the New Testament documents. Not only is there unambiguous evidence that all twenty-seven books were written before the end of the 1st century, but that there were so many copies in existence that the loss of any original autographs posed no problem whatsoever.
The early Christian church was experiencing such rapid growth that there was a need and demand for copies of the Scripture. One result of such growth is that the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is unparalleled in all of antiquity. There are more than 5,300 extant fragments or manuscripts in existence today. This number does not include the thousands of copies of New Testament translations in Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Coptic; nor does it include the thousands of quotations from the Early Church Fathers. Other ancient documents pale in comparison to the New Testament. Homer’s Illiad is the closest competitor with only 643 surviving manuscripts. It has been said that if we reject the New Testament documents as being reliable, we must reject all of ancient antiquity.
The rapid growth of the Church and the demand for manuscripts has brought us to our topic at hand. As Bruce Metzger described it, “as a result, speed of production sometimes outran accuracy of execution.” It is inevitable that the copying of multitudes of manuscripts at such a fast pace would result in some errors of transcription. Whatever the reason why there exists scribal errors (from unintentional errors such as bad lighting to intentional errors such as clearing up difficulties, conflating readings, or adding details), the fact is that due to scribal errors we have textual variants. The existence of variants requires the interpreter to seek to discover as nearly as possible what was written in the original autograph. The purpose of this paper is to discuss and apply the principles of textual criticism in assessing variant readings of the text. 1 John 5:7-8 will be the chosen text of exegesis.
Before exegeting the passage in 1 John, a concise understanding of the principles of textual criticism is necessary. Textual criticism is simply the scholarly work of examining the available manuscripts to determine the most reliable wording of the text.
There are two branches within this subject. There is higher criticism which seeks to find out what factors influenced the writing of the text. This also asks who wrote the text, where it was written, when it was written, and why was it written? Sadly, this field has been infiltrated with liberals who are intellectually dishonest and seek to attack the trustworthiness of Scripture. Lower Criticism is the analysis of the manuscript evidence and is often referred to as textual criticism.
The task of textual criticism is “to evaluate which reading or variant of the text is most likely the original. Variants are not the same as errors; they are rather differences in wording among the various manuscripts.” Since all that exists are copies and copies of copies, the textual critic must carefully examine them to find out what the original text said.
Johann Bengel, (1687-1752) was the first scholar to separate the manuscripts into groups and weigh them rather than suppose they were equal in value. One of his key principles was “the difficult is to be preferred to the easy reading.” This principle is echoed by many other textual critics as well, such as J.J. Griesbach. Bengel came up with fifteen critical rules to weigh various readings of the manuscripts. This was his second rule and is a valid principle because scribes sometimes tried to correct what they thought were difficult or problem passages.
Another principle used to determine which reading of the text is most likely the original is that the early text is to be preferred. This seems to be obvious because the earlier the date of the manuscript, the less opportunity it would have had to become corrupted. Next, textual critics seem to agree upon the principle that the diverse geographical reading is to be preferred. What this means essentially is that if a manuscript is attested within several different families of texts that originated in different areas it seems to be more dependable. Finally, the shorter reading is usually said to be preferred. This is the case because scribes were more likely to add to the text than to omit.
These external considerations should be sufficient to apply to our analysis of 1 John 5:7-8. The text reads, “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” (KJV).
This passage is sometimes referred to as the Johannine Comma due to the sequence of extra words (bolded in red above) that appear in some editions of the Greek New Testament. The discussion is whether or not the short clause which is bolded above is part of the original writing of the text. The New International Version (NIV) renders it different from the above King James Version. The NIV reads, “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement” (1 John 5:7-8).
Here is where critical analysis of the text is important. At this point Berkeley Michelson’s words ring ever so true:
No passage should be employed to support any doctrine until the interpreter has made sure that it is supported by good manuscripts and can, therefore, be regarded as what the original writer said.
Therefore, as we exegete this passage we will be able to conclude whether or not the Johannine Comma can be regarded as what the original writer said. Does this statement appear in enough manuscripts to warrant its inclusion in the main body of the text?
Many King James Only supporters would call us blasphemous for even inspecting the text in such a way. What truly is at stake here? If the passage is genuine and represents what the apostle John wrote to his original audience than we have one of the strongest texts supporting the doctrine of the Trinity. For this reason some Christians (such as King James Only supporters) are resistant to relegating this passage to a mere footnote.
If this clause is not part of the original passage does the doctrine of the deity of Christ or of the Trinity fold? It must be plainly stated that the absence of this passage in no way diminishes the historic Orthodox belief of the Trinity. There are a wealth of passages that explicitly teach the doctrine (Matt. 28:18-20; John 1:1, 14, 18; Rom. 9:5; 2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Tim. 3:16; Phil. 2:5-7; Col. 1:15-16; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:1-3; 1 John 5:20).
As we begin our analysis we must first look toward the external considerations of the text. The Greek apparatus to the 27th Edition of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece states that this clause is found in eight Greek manuscripts. Here are the following manuscripts:
61: 16th century codex Montfortianus.
88: 16th century variant reading added to the 14th century codex Regius of Naples.
221: 10th century variant reading added to a manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429: 16th century variant reading added to a manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
629: 14th or 15th century manuscript in the Vatican.
636: 16th century variant reading added to a manuscript at Naples.
918: 16th century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318: 18th century manuscript influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
As one perceives, four of these eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant written in the margin. The earliest manuscript that the Comma is found in is a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript from the Vatican. As a variant added to the manuscript, the earliest date we have is in the tenth century. This is not considered great manuscript evidence.
Desiderius Erasmus, who published the first Greek New Testament in 1515, was criticized for not having the Johannine Comma in the text. Erasmus told his critics that he never found any Greek manuscript that had the text but if he did find one it would be placed in there. Apparently someone took him up on that offer and ‘found’ a copy containing the passage. Erasmus put it in the text with a lengthy footnote indicating that he was suspicious of the finding.
Dr. Daniel B. Wallace described this in his article, Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today. He wrote:
Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge!
This story is not without its critics. H. J. de Jonge, a professor at Leiden University has a different take on the matter. According to de Jonge, one of Erasmus critics was the archbishop of York, Edward Lee. Lee argued that Erasmus only consulted one manuscript of 1 John. To the charge of neglecting manuscripts Erasmus replied:
Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.
H. J. de Jonge proposes that Erasmus did not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript but instead challenged Lee to prove he neglected a manuscript he had access to. Until Lee could do that the charge of being negligent and impious are inappropriate. Moreover, it is claimed that Erasmus included the Comma “not due to a so-called ‘promise’ but the fact that he believed the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome.”
Regardless of Erasmus motive or what he believed about the Johannine Comma we simply have to reserve judgment at this point and look at the manuscript evidence. It must also be noted that this clause is not in any ancient version except the Latin. No Syriac or Coptic manuscripts include the Comma. Moreover, Metzger points out that none of the Greek Fathers quote this passage either. Though the earliest manuscript is found in the fourteenth century, the earliest citation of the Comma is in a fourth century writing by Priscillian. This citation was written in Latin. The first time it appears in Greek is in a Greek translation of a Latin book of Acts in A.D. 1215.
Before we conclude with the external evidence (which definitely does not favor the inclusion of the passage) we must address the claim that in A.D. 250 Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage quoted this passage. In Treatise I, On the Unity of the Church it is written, “‘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. The debate over Cyprian is whether this Church Father is quoting the Comma or not.
Michael Maynard and King James Only advocates such as the Dean Burgon Society say this is a clear reference to the Johannine Comma. Dr. Jack A. Moorman, replied to Dr. Daniel Wallace’s Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today with Twenty Points of Criticism Answered. He wrote:
Critics have argued that Cyprian was merely giving a Trinitarian interpretation to verse 8. The spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. The answer to this is obvious; the figures of verse 8 cannot naturally be interpreted as the Persons of the Holy Trinity. Though missing in most Greek manuscripts, it nevertheless leaves in them its footprint with the mismatched genders that result when the disputed words are removed. The loose ends do not match up grammatically! Native Greek speakers find this “glaring”. Here in London, the printed Apostolos (the lectionary text used in Greek Orthodox services) contains the passage.
In all fairness to the debate, Dr. Moorman’s statement contains many fallacies. He presents a straw man argument of those who deny Cyprian is speaking of 1 John 5:7-8. He claims that the critics argue Cyprian is giving a Trinitarian interpretation of the Comma, and then he easily refutes that by saying that the figures (the Spirit, the water and the blood) cannot be interpreted as the Persons of the Trinity.
Though it is true that some critics believe Cyprian is interpreting this passage in such a way, Moorman does not mention to his readers that the Alexandrian allegorical method of interpreting the Bible dominated the first two to three centuries after Christ. With a tad bit of historical background one could easily reconcile the Bishop of Carthage using this passage to teach the Trinity. The allegorical method was used by the Church Fathers for the purpose of forming a deeper spiritual life. Clement, Origen, and others ripped verses out of context to seek out a deeper spiritual meaning and “to uphold the rationality of the Christian faith.”
Other critics claim that if Cyprian was aware of the Comma he would have quoted it directly rather than simply referring to a gloss from a different book with a sentence that resembles the Comma. Was Cyprian truly quoting this text or was he merely inserting his allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses in the passage? In closing out our examination of the external evidence we must consider the truth that there is a lack of reliable manuscript evidence for the Comma.
One would expect that Clement, who lived around A.D. 210, would mention this passage, especially in commenting on John’s First Epistle. Yet, the strong Trinitarian Church Father though quoting 1 John 5:8, interestingly enough, did not include the Comma.
King James Only advocates and others who support the inclusion of the Comma also have been known to cite Tertullian. These authors (whom many do not even identify themselves) reference John Gill in his Exposition of the NT Volume 2 page 907-8. Apparently Gill cites Tertullian’s apologetic work Against Praxeas. Of the many websites who recycle this claim of Tertullian, I have found few which actually quote the citation itself. Tertullian writes:
Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One,’ in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.
The author of this web page who does not identify himself says the following in regards to this quote:
While Tertullian here quotes John 10:30 so as to elucidate the point he makes about the unity of essence, and not of number, among the Persons of the Godhead, his language concerning all three Persons is strikingly particular to that found in I John 5:7. He quotes “these three are”, and then clarifies that the “one” is a one of substance and essence, not person. Quite clearly, this is a reference to the Comma.
This is obviously a dismal attempt to justify the inclusion of the Comma. First of all, it is evident that Tertullian quotes John 10:30. Just because Tertullian uses the phrase “these three are one” does not indicate that he is referring to 1 John 5:7-8. He certainly did not preface the phrase with “as it is written” or anything of the like. For anyone to see this as a clear reference to the Comma is to read into the text what Tertullian did not attempt to write. These proponents have made an egregious error and are quite possibly being scholastically dishonest.
Another article says Tertullian makes a clear reference to the “teaching found in the Comma” yet that is not the issue at hand. There are many Church Fathers who reference the teaching i.e. the Trinity. Yet, the question is whether or not they quote the passage of the Comma. So given the external considerations we have examined, which witnesses omit the Johannine comma? Wayne Grudem summarizes the witnesses in writing:
The vast majority of Greek manuscripts from all major text traditions, including several very reliable manuscripts from the fourth and fifth century A.D., and also including quotations by church fathers such as Irenaeus (d. A.D. 202), Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. A.D. 212), Tertullian (died after A.D. 220), and the great defender of the Trinity, Athanasius (d. A.D. 373).
To that we must conclude we have insufficient external evidence supporting the inclusion of the Johannine Comma.
The internal evidence must now be weighed. Why would this passage be omitted if it were original? Whether intentionally or accidentally, there is no good reason why this passage is not in the thousands of Greek manuscripts or ancient translations. In regarding the intrinsic probability, the passage does seem to be awkward compared to the rest of the context. As we exegete the context of the passage this will become more clear.
In the epistle of 1 John, the apostle is writing to instruct believers concerning the joys of fellowship in Christ. He is also addressing the false teachers and refuting this pre-Gnostic heresy that Jesus could not have taken on human flesh because all matter and flesh is evil. These heretics also said that the divine Spirit came upon Jesus at His baptism and then left before He died. In countering those who denied the incarnation John begins to speak of the witness (or testimony) of God to the truth of the deity of Christ (5:6-12). This witness of God is objective and external (5:6-8), and internal and subjective (5:10-12). The apostle declares that the overcomer is the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God (5:4-5). He then states that we ought to believe this because of the testimony of God the Father.
God’s testimony that Jesus is deity is supplied by three witnesses: the Spirit, the water and the blood (5:8). The water and blood in this verse refer to Christ’s baptism and death. Therefore, God has given testimony to the deity of Jesus by Christ’s baptism and death. God testified about the Son at His baptism when he said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well-pleased” (Matt 3.17). On the eve of the crucifixion, as Jesus predicted His death, the Father gave testimony again of the Son. In John 12:28 we read that Jesus prayed, saying, “‘Father, glorify your name!’ Then a voice came from heaven, ‘I have glorified it, and will glorify it again.’” The Holy Spirit was active all throughout Jesus life and testified to His identity as well (Mark 1:12; Luke 1:35; Acts 10:38). In other words, in all these places, the Father was testifying to Jesus Christ that He is the divine person in two natures. Therefore, the Spirit, the water, and the blood are all one great testimony from God the Father about God the Son.
Since God is giving His testimony about Jesus being the incarnate Son it would seem awkward if the Johannine Comma were placed in the passage. For the apostle introduces Christ as coming by water and blood in verse six. In this context John is talking about the testimony of the Father to the Son. Specifically, that testimony while Jesus was on earth. For him to immediately say that there are three witnesses in heaven, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” and then to reiterate the testimony on earth, “the Spirit, the water and the blood” seems awkward to say the least.
To conclude this paper we must state that the external evidence and the internal evidence do not support the argument that the Johannine Comma was originally written by John the apostle. The best explanation is that it probably originated in an allegorical exegesis of the three witnesses and was placed in the text as a marginal note in certain Latin manuscripts. Therefore, we have to conclude that these words are spurious and should only be relegated to footnote status, since it is a valuable expression of the Church’s faith in the fourth century. In the words of Berkeley Michelson: “to cite a verse like 1 John 5:7 (KJV) as supporting the doctrine of the Trinity is foolish.” For any Christian to cry “heretic” over this is flat out absurd. The lack of authenticity of this passage absolutely in no way affects the Biblical witness as to who Jesus is – the Second Person of the Triune God.
Click the link below to download the complete article with footnotes.
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Mike,
Thanks for the great article. And WHEW! Thank God I made it to the end!!! I’ll tell ya, I’ve taken a little bit of flack in the past for writing long articles – but this is a case-in-point demonstrating the legitimacy of lo-o-o-o-ong blog posts!
You’ve certainly rebutted the claim that manuscript evidence for the Comma is abundant. But as to Erasmus’ inclusion in his third edition, you didn’t really state your position (outright) on the story about the Oxfordian drive-thru window worked by Mr. Roy over on Highway (codex) 61. You acknowledged (I assume, along with Wallace, you wrote ‘found’ in pgrph. 17) that it was “made to order” sort of like a Jumbo Jack is at Jack-n-the Box, but do you side with Wallace or de Jong? Neither or both?
This seems to be a critical part of KJV Onlyists’ argument. If the Comma was in Erasmus’ 3rd text, and if Erasmus’ text is reliable because it reflects the Greek texts Jerome had access to prior to the Vulgate (which would have also had the Comma), then if it can be shown that Erasmus included it based on Roy’s “made to order” ms, and if Roy’s ms really was “made to order,” then it seems an insurmountable amount of evidence against the KJV Only crowd’s claim a connection with early Gk texts.
I know you’ve decided to reserve judgment on this (at the time of your writing), but have you been convinced of one over the other? Just curious!
Thanks again…
Stephen,
I am glad you were edified by the article, my friend. I have to say that I am more convinced with the argument of Wallace on this issue. Regarding the KVJ Onlyists’: as you know, there are quite a bit of ‘if’s’ in their argument. ‘If’s,’ which by the way, are not adequately supported with manuscripts.
I find it very interesting that the modern day King James Only position echoes the Latin Vulgate Only position of the 1500 – 1600’s. Have you ever noticed the parallels?
I’ve not noticed the parallels, but I also never paid my dues in an in-depth analysis. I do remember James White once saying that another similar parallel to KJV Onlyism was a dispute in Augustine’s day. He later said he wouldn’t be surprised (based on the irrationality of people) if a new movement of “NIV Only” emerged one day.
Ok, I couldn’t make it to the end. I’ll have to come back.
Stephen: Will we need the red letter edition of our NIV? Maybe a key phrases red letter edition? Something with just the highlights verses such as “judge not lest ye be judged” and “God so loved the world” passages.
Hi Sir Aaron!
Yeah, it will only be a few pages long. It will also be evaluated on internal evidence, although internal will mean something different than Mike’s use in the article. The included verses will be based on man’s own internal evidence of how s/he feels about a certain passage.
Next they will debate the “Doctrina Comma” (hey, who stuck that doctrine in there?)…
Thought provoking information! Most Christians, I would say, are not aware that a passage such as the one found in 1 John, are not in the original manuscripts. Yes most of them would cry blasphemy, but it is important to meditate on these things and have an understanding! Thanks for the thought provoking article Mike!
Stephen:
Maybe, they can use natural theology and human reason to come to the Bible verses. After all, man can come to the same point using man’s reason,right?
Stephen:
You need to fix this post. You have bolded the entire 5:7-9, but in Mike’s actual article from the link, Mike only bolded: “in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” This mistake made me have to read the article three times to make sure I understood the conclusion.
Mike: You didn’t specifically say this, but I am correct in coming to the conclusion that the NIV has it rendered correctly?
Mario: I certainly wasn’t aware of it, but then again, I don’t use the KJV.
Sir Aaron,
Check the paragraph now, see if that helps. I “bolded” it in red and added a note in the next paragraph…
much better!
I wanted to thank Mark for this really good article, my pastor is taking us through 1 John and I sent this article to him, he really enjoyed it and several of our congregation wanted the complete article for themselves.
Much appreciate the homework.
John
John,
Thanks brother. That is awesome to hear that your pastor and others are being edified by the article. As many on this website know, the typical evangelical congregation is not interested in issues such as this.
Mike
You know Stephen if you were a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeel christian you would be quoting only from the NIV!!
Just kidding….
When you said that, I couldnt help think if the Lord tarries how the conversation will go between the NIV’ers and the ESV’ers…
I appreciate all the good articles that are posted here.
Thanks so much
John
I didn’t realize there were NIV’ers and ESV’ers.
I use many translations but I prefer the NIV only because I “grew up” on it. It’s easier for me to read. Plus, I have an NIV Bible and going ESV would require me to buy another Bible…It’s hard for me to justify when most of my word studies, etc. are done on the computer anyhow. But most reformed churches I know use the NASB, although I know of one that is replacing thier NASB with the ESV. The ESV is becoming more popular at my church as well (our pew Bibles are NASB).
I read the above article by Mike Sarkissian with some caution. In the first instance, for someone to present an article of this nature on an important passage of Scripture, one must have a good working knowledge of both Greek and Latin. The references made to the Church fathers require us to check for ourselves what was actually quoted by them, from the original languages, where possible. In our present case, both the works of Tertullian and Cyprian are available in Latin. Greek is required for an accurate understanding of these Latin writers underlying text. It is a known fact, that both Tertullain and Cyprian wrote in both Greek and Latin, even though they were form the Latin speaking Church. I have read with amusement the article done by Dr Daniel Wallace on Cyprian’s evidence, as it clearly shows he is way out of his depth on textual matters. He has simply gone out of his way to rubbish Cyprian on 1 John 5:7, because he is against the King James Version, and tries to undermine this version as a whole because of some promise that Erasmus made with regards to this verse. I have personally researched this verse, and can say with complete confidence in my findings, that there is no doubt at all, to those who are honest, that Cyprian very clearly read verse seven in his New Testament. A fact that even the great textual critic, Dr Frederick Scrivener, who did not accept the words as John’s, but nevertheless had this to say of Cyprian’s words. “it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies” (Intro. to Textual Criticism of the NT, vol.II, p.405). It does call for honesty and not a bais against something just for the sake of it. Cyprians words are very akin to those used by Tertullian in his epistle Against Praxeas. Where he says, “Thus the connection with the Father and the Son, and of the Son in the Parclete, make Three coherent Persons, One in the Other; qui tres unum sunt (which Three are one), in substance, not one Person. quomodo dictum est (in the same way it is written) “I and the Father are One” His argument is very clear here. He first speaks of the essential unity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, where he appeals to the words qui tres unum sunt which are only found in 1 John 5:7, for the Three Persons. And then uses another Scriprure’s language to show the unity of the Persons in their “essence”. To say that both these fathers were using this passage from 1 John in a “symboilc” sense, just because some of the fathers did so, is nothing more than a cop out, as there is not other way to get rid of these testimonies. I have read some who also suggest that, what is Cyprian quotes the words in question. Shall we accept the testimony of a father who was of the Latin church, and knew no Greek. Please! what utter nonsense. There is abundant evidence that Cyprian had a Greek education! Tertullain, we are told by another textual scholar, Dr A Souter, was in the habit of translating directly from the Greek into Latin! Another fact. In the Old Latin Text, that which was used by both Tertullain and Cyprian, verse eight ended different to verse seven, as it does in the Greek. It reads, “tres in unum sunt”, which would make the quotations of both these fathers from verse seven.
One further point I must make. Who can explain without the disputed words of verse seven, the language of the Greek text, that suddenly changes from the neuter gender in verse six, when used of the Spririt, water and blood, to the masculine gender in the accepted part of verse eight, where the same three neuter nouns are spoken of? There is but one explanition for this, and that is, that verse seven has the masculine Father and Word, which would in greek determine the words and have them in the masculine! So, Erasmus, did what the Holy Spirit said, and included what had been robbed from the Church for 16 centuries!
Hi Andrew,
In the Majority Text, 1 John 5:7-9 reads, “7 And the Spirit (N) is the thing bearing witness (N), because the Spirit (N) is the truth. 8 Because three (M) are the ones bearing witness (M), the Spirit (N) and the water (N) and the Blood (N), and the three ones (M) for the one thing (N) they are. 9 If the witness of the men (M) we accept, the witness of the God greater it is, because this is the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him.”
The participial phrase “the thing bearing witness” in 5:7 is neuter either (1) because it refers to a thing (the Spirit), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE grammatically neuter referent noun “Spirit” in the same verse, or (3) both.
The participial phrase “the ones bearing witness” in 5:8 is masculine either (1) because it refers to persons (the two or three men who comprise the witness of the men, to whom John is comparatively equating the Spirit and the water and the Blood), or (2) because of grammatical gender agreement with the SINGLE referent noun “men” in the phrase “the witness of the men” in 5:9, or (3) both.
The neuter participial phrase “the thing bearing witness” in 5:7 is singular in reference to “the Spirit” in the same verse, which is likewise singular. This participial phrase does NOT refer to the water and the Blood and the Spirit in 5:6-7. It would be plural if it did. Rather, it refers only to the Spirit (singular) in 5:7. John is simply stating in 5:7 that “the Spirit (singular neuter) IS the thing bearing witness (singular neuter).” That is all he is saying in 5:7 (Majority Text).
In contrast, John is comparatively (this is like that) equating “the Spirit and the water and the Blood” (all three things) to “the ones bearing witness / the three ones” (M), that is, to the two or three men prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 to establish the truth of a matter, in 5:8 (Majority Text), hence the plural masculine form “the ones bearing witness / the three ones.”
So what John is expressing in 5:7 with the singular neuter form and what he is expressing in 5:8 with the plural masculine form are two completely different things. In 5:7, he is simply stating that the Spirit IS the thing bearing witness, whereas in 5:8, he is stating that the Spirit and the water and the Blood are comparable to the ones bearing witness / the three ones (the two or three witnesses [men] prescribed by Moses).
The fact that “the ones bearing witness / the three ones” in 5:8 is a reference to the two or three witnesses (men) prescribed by Moses to establish the truth of a matter is corroborated by the phrase “the witness of the men” in 5:9.
In 5:8-9, John is comparatively equating (this is like that) “the Spirit and the water and the Blood,” which comprise “the witness of the God which He has born witness regarding the Son of Him,” to “the ones bearing witness / the three ones,” who comprise “the witness of the men,” hence the masculine gender.
The two or three witness (men) model prescribed by Moses in Deuteronomy 17:6 and 19:15 is cited in Matthew 18:16 and John 8:17-18 and 2 Corinthians 13:1 and 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9 (Majority Text). In three of these citations (2 Corinthians 13:1 and Hebrews 10:28-29 and 1 John 5:8-9), the author comparatively equates two or three things to the two or three men prescribed by Moses.
In ALL of these 8 instances, the number of witnesses NEVER exceeds the two or three witnesses prescribed by Moses. Therefore, the fact that John is comparatively equating the witness of the God which he has born witness regarding the Son of Him (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to the witness of the men (the ones bearing witness / the three ones) in 1 John 5;8-9 in the Majority Text in conformity to the Mosaic witness model (two or three witnesses), whereas adding the Johannine Comma to the text (as in the Textus Receptus) increases the number of witnesses from three witnesses (the Spirit and the water and the Blood) to five witnesses (the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit … and the water and the Blood) in contradiction to the Mosaic witness model (two or three witnesses), proves that John did not write the Johannine Comma, but that it was subsequently added by Trinitarians to some copies of John’s epistle.
Jim