The Johannine Comma etc

Download as PDF (best formatting)

1. Johannine Comma

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. [1 John 5:7]

Erasmus noted the ‘striking absence of references to this in Greek sources’: ‘…Erasmus remarks that none of the orthodox Greek commentators use this text to defend the orthodox dogma of the trinity against the Arians, nor felt the need to adjust their text.’ Similarly, Metzger states: ‘The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.’ This demonstrates that the gloss had no influence on any creedal statement in any way relating to the Trinity by any ancient council. Metzger observes: ‘The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.’ It is interesting how late these manuscripts are – they range from the tenth to the eighteenth centuries, and both the eleventh and twelfth century manuscripts contain the gloss as a marginal comment by a much later hand. The same goes for the early translations:

The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541–46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

Metzger explains how the gloss arose:

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars.

What modern textual critics have done is simply to honestly examine the historical evidence for the gloss and to conclude that such evidence precludes it being original.

2. The story of the adulteress

John 7.59ff relates a story of Jessu dealing with the issue fo the woman taken in adultery. Adulteresses were ‘sinners’, a specific, technical term for practitioners of high-handed sins like prostitutes and tax collectors, as Plummer suggests: ‘A person of notoriously bad character, and probably a prostitute: comp. Mt xxi. 32.’ As for ‘sinful’ women, consider this narrative from Luke 7 about Jesus and a ‘sinner’:

36 One of the Pharisees asked him to eat with him…. 37 And behold, a woman of the city, who was a sinner… brought an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 and standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head and kissed his feet and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, for she is a sinner.”

…44 Then turning toward the woman he [Jesus]said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? …47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven ...” 48 And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.” 49 Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50 And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

Carroll helps us understand what happened in this incident:

If Luke’s audience is unfamiliar with the Pharisaic emphasis on ritual purity, the host’s objection to touch by a sinful woman implies such a concern (v. 39)... Moreover, readers acquainted with the stereotypical depiction in Greco-Roman culture of women slaves and prostitutes as available for music (“flute girls”), conversation, and sexual activity at banquets would likely sympathize with the scandalized dinner host.

Jesus forgave the sinner. There are obvious parallels with the Pericope Adulterae in John 7:53-8:11. Metzger notes its absence in early manuscripts:

The evidence for the non-Johannine origin of the pericope of the adulteress is overwhelming. It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as P66 75 אֱ B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1242 1253 2193 al… In the East the passage is absent from the oldest form of the Syriac version (syrc,s and the best manuscripts of syrp), as well as from the Sahidic and the sub-Achmimic versions and the older Bohairic manuscripts. Some Armenian manuscripts and the Old Georgian version omit it. In the West the passage is absent from the Gothic version and from several Old Latin manuscripts (ita, l*, q). No Greek Church Father prior to Euthymius Zigabenus (twelfth century) comments on the passage, and Euthymius declares that the accurate copies of the Gospel do not contain it.

However, it has been suggested ‘that Jerome included PA in his translation of the Vulgate (Gospels completed by 384 CE) at John 7.53–8.11, and this is supported by the fact that he mentions many Greek and Latin manuscripts that have PA in GJohn at Pelag. 2.17. In his Epistle 68 (26) (385–387 CE), Ambrose refers to ‘the acquittal of the woman who in the Gospel according to John was brought to Christ, accused of adultery.’ Therefore, PA was definitely in GJohn by the 380’s CE.’

The Pericope Adulterae certainly did not form part of the Gospel of John, but may have begun life as a marginal comment in an early scroll, especially since Papias may allude to it: ‘The story of Jesus and the adulteress initially confronted early Christians in some context other than GJohn. Papias likely knows of PA ca. 125 CE, and, depending on how one translates the Greek, either he or Eusebius attributes it to ‘the Gospel according to the Hebrews’…’ However, it is significant that it may have appeared in a non-canonical text dated only to the second century, rather than the first century canonical Gospels. In fact, Papias may not even have been referring to the Pericope Adulterae: ‘Scholars debate whether the story Papias knows is that which appears in John 7.53–8.11 in later manuscripts, but this is ultimately unanswerable with the available evidence.’ At any rate, it is clearly not original to the Gospels, so textual critics acted responsibly by recognising its secondary nature.

3. Believers being able to handle snakes and drink deadly poison

In this section, the longer ending of Mark 16 is addressed here. The evidence for the early absence of the additional endings following that verse is strong, as Metzger observes:

The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (אֱ and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (itk), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913).

Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16.8. Not a few manuscripts that contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

In the light of this, we can see how textual critics, motivated by integrity and concern for historical accuracy, rejected the longer endings. Stein comments on this issue:

When Erasmus produced the first published Greek NT, the half-dozen Greek manuscripts available to him all contained these verses, and consequently, the users of his text all assumed that the text ended with 16:9–20.3 With the continual discovery of Greek manuscripts, some predating the ones used by Erasmus by almost a thousand years, questions began to arise as to the accuracy of the “received text.” It soon became clear that there were a number of variant endings of Mark found in the manuscript tradition. In recent times, it has become clear that the longer ending of Mark is not Markan, and that the earliest recoverable ending of Mark ends at 16:8.

Bruce suggests a theory for the origin of the text:

What of the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel (Mk. 16:9-10)? These verses - the longer Marcan appendix - were not part of Mark’s work…They seem to present, in the main, a summary of resurrection appearances recorded in the other Gospels. Some readers may like to have in verse 18 canonical authority for snake-handling; the clause ‘they will pick up serpents’, however, is probably based on Paul’s encounter with the viper on Malta (Acts 28:3-6). The following words about drinking poison without harmful consequences are reminiscent of a story which Philip’s daughters are said to have told of Joseph Barsabbas, surnamed Justus (one of the nominees for the succession to Judas Iscariot, according to Acts 1:23). The right of these twelve verses to receive canonical recognition is doubtful.

One should also observe that the doctrinal content of the longer ending does not contradict the teaching of the gospel nor of the New Testament in general, nor does it add to it. In the three other gospels we encounter resurrection appearances (Matthew 28:9ff; Luke 24:13ff; John 20:14ff); the commissioning to missionary activity (Matthew 28:19; Luke 24:47; John 20:22-23); and supernatural anointing (Luke 24:49; John 20:24ff; possibly Matthew 28:18-20. We can confidently state, therefore, that issues of doctrine did not cause the creation of the longer ending. Doubtless, the abruptness of the ending at 16:8 led to speculation and borrowing from other New Testament texts to produce the longer endings.

As for some groups, mainly in rural America, that have used the longer endings as the basis for ‘snake-handling’, not only are they ignoring textual criticism, but quite apart from that, it does not follow that because either Jesus, the Apostles or the wider group of disciples performed miracles that just any Christian may do so, and on a regular basis, whenever they choose. The two miracles reported, i.e. involving serpents and poison, are not meant to be prescriptive for all Christians at all times. They are just individual miracles, which God may or may not choose to perform at other times. A miracle is a sovereign, extraordinary act of God, not at human discretion.