The Comma Johanneum, a reading in 1 John 5:7 of the Textus Receptus, is “the most

obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript

tradition of the New Testament.”  This reading has gained great popularity in the
English-speaking world by its inclusion in the 161 King James Bible and subsequent
usage in the Socinian (and other anti-Trinitarian) controversy in the eighteenth
century. Textual critics almost universally agree that the Comma is a later addition,  a
conclusion based upon the cumulative force of scant Greek manuscript testimony,
lack of secondary version support, and sparse patristic citation.  This text-critical
question has long been considered settled. In recent years, a small group of KJV/TR
advocates has argued in favor of the Comma by suggesting that Carthagian bishop
Thaschus Cæcilius Cyprianus (Cyprian) quoted the Comma. The current scholarly
consensus is that Priscillian made the earliest certain quotation of the Comma around
AD 385 as noted in Metzger’s TCNT. Hence, a brief examination of the alleged
Cyprian quotation follows.

In De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, Cyprian writes: “The Lord says, ‘The Father and I
are one [John 10:30], and again of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is written, ‘And
these three are one.’”[1] Pro-Comma advocates thus insist that Cyprian quoted
the Comma. Armfield cites Fell’s work (1682), declaring, “the proof of the
genuineness of this passage in St. Cyprian was put beyond all doubt.” [2] Forster
argues, “It is undeniable that, so far as the identity of the words is concerned, the last
and most peculiar clause of that verse is found, word for word, both in Tertullian and
in St. Cyprian.”[3] Hills says that this “seems” to be a quotation from Cyprian and then
gives a brief synopsis of the discussion.[4] Holland, who usually exhibits more
aggressiveness in defending KJV readings, is similarly reserved. [5] Most critics who
reject the Comma explain that Cyprian was interpreting the Spirit, water, and blood
allegorically as the Trinity.[6]

THE EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF CYPRIAN QUOTING THE COMMA

There are a few reasons the claim that Cyprian quoted the Comma cannot be easily
dismissed. Armfield considers it “an evident truth” that the Comma must have been “a
received part of the sacred text, even before Cyprian’s time (for otherwise he would
not have quoted it as such).”[7] Secondly, pro-Comma advocates insist that Cyprian “is
very little given to indulge in lax and mystical interpretations,” [8] and “adheres to the
letter of Scripture.”[9] A third reason is the claim that a second Cyprian quotation of
the Comma occurs in Epistola ad Jubaianum, where Cyprian writes:

"If anyone could be baptized among the heretics, then he could obtain remission of
sins. If he obtained the remission of sins, he was sanctified, and if he was sanctified,
he was made the temple of God. But of what God? I ask. The Creator? Impossible; he
did not believe in him. Christ? But he could not be made Christ’s temple, for he
denied the deity of Christ. The Holy Spirit? Since the Three are One, what pleasure
could the Holy Spirit take in the enemy of the Father and the Son? [10]
Knittel suggests that because Cyprian “knew Greek” and “translated Greek into
Latin,” these two citations are sufficient proof that Cyprian had the Comma before
him.[11] Armfield concurs: “Of all the Fathers, Greek or Latin, no one is more
remarkable for citing Scripture verbatim than St. Cyprian.” [12]
THE EVIDENCE AGAINST CYPRIAN QUOTING THE COMMA

Although there are a few reasons to concede the possibility that these two quotations
by Cyprian reference the Comma, the arguments against it are not easily overcome.
First, it is not a verbatim quotation. A verbatim quotation would reference the “Father,
Word, and Holy Spirit,” a distinctive phrase that occurs nowhere else in Scripture.
Cyprian quotes “Son,” (filio) not “Word” (verbum). Although verbatim quoting is not
always determinative, it plays an important role in evaluating patristic citations. In the
immediate context of the quotation (et tres unum sunt), Cyprian references many
Scriptures, including Gen 7:20; Matt 12:20; John 10:30; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:23; and1
Pet 3:20. It is therefore possible that he was referencing the language of Matt 28:19
combined with 1 John 5:8. The quotation does not reference anything distinctly found
in the Comma.

 Secondly, the phrase et tres unum sunt occurs regardless of whether the Comma is

included. If Cyprian’s tendency was to quote Scripture verbatim, it is difficult to
believe that he would have said “Son” (Filio) if he read “Word” (Verbum) in his text.
[13] This is a double-edged sword: Comma advocates insist Cyprian quoted textually
but overlook the fact he never quotes “Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.” [14] This
quotation suggests that at least one of those two assumptions is incorrect or perhaps
overstated.

Thirdly, Cyprian sometimes used allegorical interpretation even in places where his
quotations seem text-based. In chapter seven of Unit. eccl, Cyprian proposes an
unlikely allegorical interpretation of John 19:23: These are the words of Holy
Scripture: Now as to His coat, because it was from the upper part woven throughout
without a seam, they said to one another: Let us not divide it, but let us cast lots for it,
whose it shall be. The ‘oneness’ with which He was clothed came ‘from the upper
part,’ that is, from His Father in heaven, and could in no way be divided by whoever
came to acquire it: it retained its well-knit wholeness indivisibly. That man cannot
possess the garment of Christ, who rends and divides the Church of Christ.[15]

Bèvenot acknowledges that this is a “forced interpretation” by Cyprian, and it is

enabled “because of the order of the words” in Cyprian’s Latin Scripture. [16] The point
is not to impugn Cyprian’s interpretation but rather to observe that he did on occasion
utilize allegory or mystical interpretation. This is one reason why most scholars
believe the Comma rose from a similar occurrence.[17] A fourth problem lies in the
fact that Latin copies of 1 John offer “support for a whole set of readings that have
little or no attestation in Greek.”[18] Brooke provides a listing of various “explanatory
glosses” given by Augustine and Cyprian as well as some glosses found in
the Speculum.[19] Cyprian glosses the texts of 1 John 2:9;[20] 2:16;[21] and 4:3.
[22] Cyprian’s tendency to gloss the text combined with the problems evaluating
patristic citations suggest the tentative possibility that: 1) Cyprian is the source of
the Comma; or 2) Cyprian demonstrates the process that gave rise to it. [23] The fact
that a quotation is found in his writings does not necessarily mean it was drawn from
the text of the New Testament.

It must be remembered that the Vulgate was commissioned because there were so
many variant readings in the Old Latin as early as the third century. [24] This
multiplicity of Old Latin readings led Augustine to say: "Those who translated the
Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be counted, but the Latin translators are out of
all number. For in the early days of the faith, every man who happened to gain
possession of a Greek manuscript [of the New Testament] and who imagined that he
had any facility in both languages however slight that might have been, dared to make
a translation."[25]
This presents a peculiar problem for pro-Comma advocates because the Latin
manuscript situation at the time was so diverse that numerous patristic citations exist.
The mere existence of such citations, however, does not prove their authenticity. [26]

A fifth problem concerns why Augustine, who lived at the time of the Arian
controversy, did not bother to invoke the Comma in his writings. “Cyprian was the
prime influence on North African Christianity from the period of his episcopate until
the time of Augustine.”[27] Cyprian’s writings were revered for over four centuries as
one step below Scripture,[28] and Augustine so revered Cyprian that he presented at
least a dozen sermons celebrating a memorial feast to Cyprian. Nowhere in any of his
writings does Augustine quote the Comma.[29] Such a scenario is unlikely if Cyprian
quoted the Comma. 

The most devastating argument suggesting that Cyprian did not quote the Comma is
found by reading Cyprian’s other references to the Trinity. The most likely place to
find an explicit reference to the Comma is in a Trinitarian polemic. Although he never
wrote an extended treatise on the doctrine, Cyprian referenced the Trinity numerous
times.

In one epistle he writes:

"The Lord, when, after His resurrection, He sent forth His apostles, charges them,
saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. [30]"

This verbiage is obviously drawn from the end of Matthew’s Gospel. Such reasoning,
however, cannot explain the following words from Cyprian, an instance that begs for
a reference to the Comma if indeed he had it:

"In the forty-fourth Psalm: “My heart has breathed out a good Word. I tell my works
to the King.” Also in the thirty-second Psalm: “By the Word of God were the heavens
made fast; and all their strength by the breath of His mouth.” Also in Isaiah: “A Word
completing and shortening in righteousness, because a shortened word will God make
in the whole earth.” Also in the cvith Psalm: “He sent His Word, and healed them.”
Moreover, in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same with in the beginning with
God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was
made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in
darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” Also in the Apocalypse: “And I saw
the heaven opened, and lo, a white horse; and he who sate upon him was called
Faithful and True, judging rightly and justly; and He made war. And He was covered
with a garment sprinkled with blood; and His name is called the Word of God.” [31]

Cyprian finds references to Christ as “the Word of God” in Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah,
the Gospel of John, and Revelation but never mentions the Comma, the most explicit
testimony to Christ as “the Word” outside of John’s gospel. While many other
instances could be considered debatable, this lack of quotation strongly suggests that
Cyprian never saw the Comma. Given his chain reference method[32] of citing every
instance of Christ as the Word in this treatise, his failure to cite the Comma is best
explained by the lack of the phrase in his text(s). [33]

THE ALLEGED SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CYPRIAN QUOTATION

Pro-Comma advocates place great significance on the Cyprian quotation. Because

Cyprian (d. 258) lived in the third century, this citation is used to suggest
the Comma has a potential claim to authenticity. It must be acknowledged there is one
sense in which the quotation attains major significance because if Cyprian quoted
the Comma then he is the earliest known Church Father to do so. [34]

However, while affirmation that Cyprian quoted the Comma would alter the specifics
regarding its history, the major picture remains unchanged. Because of the failure of
the grammatical argument, the overwhelming external evidence, and the lack of
citation by the Greek church fathers, it is safe to conclude the Comma is a Latin
interpolation. Therefore, even if Cyprian did quote the Comma then that merely
moves the date of the first known quotation back a century. It does not change the
fundamental reality: not one scrap of Greek evidence of the Comma exists in the first
ten centuries, and all of the extant evidence comes from one secondary language,
Latin. More problematic is that despite the dispute over the Trinity that covered
several centuries, the citations (both real and alleged) of the Comma are small in both
number and geographical distribution.[35] From the closing of the New Testament
canon until the time of Priscillian (d. 385), Cyprian and Tertullian are the only church
fathers alleged to have quoted this passage. Between Priscillian’s first quotation and
the eleventh century there are a few citations of the Comma.[36] These facts suggest
that the Comma citations after Priscillian are little more than multiple quotations of
the same corruption. This particular issue exemplifies the problems regarding patristic
evidence that are well known.

SOME OF THE PROBLEMS EVALUATING PATRISTIC EVIDENCE

Although virtually the entire New Testament can be constructed from patristic
evidence, there are limitations.[37] Using Cyprian as an example, Metzger notes: "The
importance of patristic quotations lies in the circumstance that they serve to localize
and date readings and types of text in Greek manuscripts and versions. For example,
since the quotations that Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in North Africa about A. D. 250,
includes in his letters agree almost always with the form of text preserved in the Old
Latin manuscript k, scholars have correctly concluded that this fourth- or fifth-century
manuscript is a descendant of a copy current about 250 in North Africa. Occasionally,
it happens that a patristic writer specifically cites one or more variant readings present
in manuscripts existing in his day. Such information is of the utmost importance in
providing proof of the currency of such variant readings at a given time and place." [38]

Gordon Fee spells out some of the problems involved with patristic quotations: "One
of the problems with patristic evidence is that it must be carefully analyzed before it
can be used. That is, one must be sure (a) a given Father’s work has been faithfully
transmitted, (b) that the Father was actually quoting (=copying), not merely
‘remembering’ his NT, and (c), especially in the Gospels, that it was one Gospel and
not another that was being quoted."[39]

Fee further observes, "It is simply a maxim in the citation of patristic evidence for the
Gospels that a Father can be cited in support only (a) if he tells us he is citing one
Gospel, not the others (including specific commentaries and homilies, of course), or
(b) the citation is unique to one of the Gospel writers, or (c), when there are parallels,
the language of one Gospel is so unique as to make identification probable. The
problem here is a simple one: Early Fathers were as prone as we are today to
harmonize and collate, and therefore to speak of the ‘rich young ruler,’ although all
three of these designations appear in no single Gospel." [40]

Although Fee’s article references the Gospels, the general principles apply
throughout. The text must be identifiable or explicitly identified by the commentator
to constitute evidence. It is not enough to see the words “Trinity” or “Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit” for a writer to enlist him as a witness for the Comma. Nor is the phrase
“these three are one” evidence of the Comma because those words are found in verse
eight. To qualify as an explicit reference to the Comma, the reference must be
distinctly identifiable. Thus, one must see “Father, Word, Holy Spirit” to be an
explicit quotation. None exist prior to Priscillian.

One objection to this interpretation of the patristic (as well as manuscript) data is to
allege that it constitutes nothing more than argumentum ex silentio. In other words,
although a multitude of Trinitarian church writers never mention the Comma, this
does not constitute evidence. There is some validity to such an objection because the
Catholic Epistles are among the least cited of the NT books. One cannot necessarily
assume that just because a patristic writer did not quote a passage that he did not have
it in his text. The problem, however, is that this particular passage is not one of the
numerous “begat” passages or a verse that occurs in three gospels with slight
alteration; it is the most explicit text in the NT regarding the Trinity, a controversy
that consumed the church for more than two centuries and through numerous
ecumenical councils. What orthodox writer is not going to quote this particular
passage if it is in his text? If a passage is not found in the manuscripts of a particular
time then silence should be expected.  Furthermore, the objection is inconsistent with
one of the major appeals made by pro-Comma advocates: the quotation of the Comma
Johanneum at Carthage in the late fifth century. A congregation of hundreds of
bishops confessed their faith at Carthage in 484.[41] Pro-Comma advocates appeal to
this citation as evidence of the early existence of the reading. The reading is
unquestionably quoted at Carthage, but the appeal is inconsistent. It is inconceivable
that the councils of Nicea, Hippo, or Carthage that affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity
possessed this text yet failed to cite it. Pro-Comma advocates want to insist that
quotation is ironclad evidence of the reading but that lack of quotation is of no
significance whatsoever. As noted earlier, this appeal may be valid regarding “begat”
passages but is a form of special pleading concerning the Trinity. Noting the lack of
citation by early church fathers in conjunction with lack of manuscript testimony is
not an argument from silence but rather evidence from silence that the reading does
not exist. It is inconceivable that the church failed to cite this passage if it existed.
[42] The silence of both the patristic evidence and the manuscripts speaks loudly. [43]
Porson framed it eloquently: "I shall observe, that if we suppose the first Christians to
have treated the Scriptures in this manner, we at once destroy the certainty and
authority of our present canon. But whoever supposes, as I think every defender of the
text ought to suppose, that it was extant and publicly known from the beginning,
cannot, with the smallest appearance of reason, pretend that it ought not be formally
and directly cited in almost every treatise on the Trinity. [44]
It is not because the Comma is not found in some ancient polemic works regarding
the Trinity; it is that the Comma is found in none of the ancient polemic pro-
Trinitarian works that brings the conviction that it is a later addition."

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this chapter was to investigate the claim that Cyprian quoted
the Comma Johanneum. The data were examined and the following points were
concluded:
1) the Cyprian quotations are not verbatim; 2) the quoted portion (“these three are
one”) already exists in v. eight; 3) Cyprian glossed several passages including
multiple glosses in John’s first epistle; 4) Cyprian sometimes engaged in mystical
interpretation; 5) Cyprian failed to mention it in his most explicit exposition regarding
the Trinity; 6) Augustine never cited the Comma despite his reverence for Cyprian; 7)
the arguments in favor of authenticity presume a scenario regarding patristic citation
that never existed; 8) the silence speaks loudly in light of the concurrent history. The
cumulative force of the data suggests that the most probable conclusion is that
Cyprian did not quote the Comma but instead found the Trinity in an allegorical
interpretation of 1 John 5:8.

[1] DicitDominus: ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus’, et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu

sancto scriptum est: Et tres unum sunt. This is taken from the most recent critical
edition, Maurice Bèvenot, Cyprian: De lapsis and De ecclesiae catholicae
unitate, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), 66.

[2] Armfield, Disputed, 76. This alleged “proof” is found in the Prologue to the

Catholic Epistles, a work allegedly by Jerome that is regarded as spurious by virtually
all responsible scholarship.

[3] Forster, ANew Plea, 43. Forster does acknowledge that critics of the passage argue
that it comes from v. eight (54, 64-67, 110-11, 187).
[4] EdwardF. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed. (Des Moines: Christian
Research, 1984), 210.

[5] Thomas Holland, Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized
Version (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2000), 167. There is no question
that Holland believes Cyprian quoted it, but his verbiage is more reserved here than
regarding some of his other arguments advocating the Comma.

[6] A few who reject Comma authenticity believe Cyprian quoted it. “It is surely safer
and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the
explanation of Facundus (vi), that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a
spiritual meaning” (F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the
New Testament,. vol. 2, ed. Edward Miller. [London: George Bell, 1894], 405).
Scrivener acknowledges that this is how the Comma entered the manuscript tradition.
Cf. also Walter Thiele, “Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1 Joh 5,
7f.),” ZNW 50 [1959], 72-73.

[7] Armfield, The Three Witnesses, 73. The assumption that an early church father
must have been quoting verbatim demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the patristic
data. If there was a recognized and authoritative received text during Cyprian’s time
that was so well known, why does no other Church Father quote it? This question will
assume immense significance in chapter four.

[8] Ibid., 94.

[9] Ibid., 94.

[10] Cyprian, Epistula 73.12.2 (CC 3C, 542). Si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit,

utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit. Si peccatorum remissam consectus
est, sanctificatus est: si sanctificatus est, templum dei factus est: quaero cuius dei? Si
creatoris, non potuit qui in eum non credidit. Si Christi, nec huius fieri potest templum
qui negat deum Christum. Si spiritus sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo spiritus
sanctus placatus esse ei potest qui aut filii aut patris inimicus est?

[11] Franz
A. Knittel, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John v.7. Translated by
William A. Evanson (originally published Brunswick, 1785, London: Rivington,
1829), 34.

[12] Armfield, The Three Witnesses, 137. Armfield references this citation twice (117,
155).
[13] This presumes that the claim that Cyprian does not stray from the text is correct.

[14] Armfield, The Three Witnesses, 137.

[15] Bevenot, Unit. eccl., 69.

[16] Bevenot, Unit. eccl., 69.

[17] Porson, Letters,
260, lists the following passages where he states that Cyprian was
“negligent in quoting:” Matt 6:13, 1 John 2:17, and Rev 19:10. Cyprian adds “As God
remains forever” five times in 1 John 2:17.

[18] Brown, Epistlesof John, 129-130. I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of

John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 236, lists other interpolations in the Latin text
of 1 John, including 2:17, 4:3, 5:6, and 5:20.

[19] A.E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine

Epistles (New York: Scribners & Sons, 1912), 198. Cf. also Armfield, Three
Witnesses, 109.

[20] Cyprian adds homicida est et.

[21] Cyprian adds ex concupiscentia saeculi.

[22] Cyprianadds sed est de antichristi spiritu. In addition to these readings that are
glossed by Cyprian, he shares some common readings with Augustine (2:17),
the Speculum (2:23), and Priscillian (2:23).

[23] Brown, Epistles of John, 784.

[24] BruceM. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its
Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University
Press, 2005), 101, record the maxim that Jerome uttered to Pope Damasus: tot enim
sunt exemplaria paene quot codices (“There are almost as many versions as
manuscripts”).

[25] Augustine, Doct. chr, II. 16. The Latin text reads: Qui enim Scripturas ex hebraea
lingua in graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo.
Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex graecus, et aliquantulum
facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari.
[26] In
addition to the previously cited examples by Porson and Brooke, Metzger gives
a number of Latin patristic quotations that are clearly not original. Cf. Bruce M.
Metzger, The Bible in Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 31.

[27] Allan
D. Fitzgerald, ed., Augustine through the Ages: an Encyclopedia (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 263.

[28] Ibid., 263.

[29] Norbert Fickermann, “St. Augustinus gegen das ‘Comma Johaneum’?” BZ 22

(1934), 350-58, suggests Augustine knew the Comma but intentionally did not quote
it. Scholarly consensus rejects this speculation.

[30] Cyprian, Epistle
XXIV.2, trans. Ernest Wallis, in A. Cleveland Coxe, The Ante-
Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed.
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1886),  5:
302.

[31] Cyprian, Treatise XII, 2.3, in ANF 5:516.

[32] The chain reference method occurs when an author combines texts from different
books or sections that focus upon a central point the author is trying to make. The use
of such passages is more topical than exegetical and often violates the original context
of the author. In this instance, Cyprian grabs references that can be used to refer to
Christ as “the Word” from the Psalms, Isaiah, John’s Gospel, and the Apocalypse. His
failure to mention 1 John 5:7 here speaks loudly.

[33] I
note the plural because one cannot assume that Cyprian or any other church
father used only one text.

[34] Daniel
B. Wallace, “The Comma Johanneum and
Cyprian,” http://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian. Accessed 20
February 2013. Wallace notes, “He would effectively be the earliest known writer to
quote the Comma Johanneum.”

[35] RaymondE. Brown, The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible Series 30 (Garden

City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 784.

[36] The
citations with approximate dates include: Contra Variadum (450), a citation at
the Council of Carthage by North African bishops (484), Victor Vitensis  (485),
Fulgentius (527), the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles (550), Cassiodorus (583),
and Isidore of Seville (636). Other than debating manuscript data, pro-
Comma advocate Maynard lists no other fathers who quote the Comma between these
dates.

[37] Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 126.

[38] Ibid., 126-27. Note that Old Latin k (Codex Bobiensis) does not have 1 John.

[39] GordonD. Fee, “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New
Testament,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual
Criticism Studies and Documents, 45. ed. Irving Alan Sparks (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1993), 202.

[40] Ibid., 194-97.

[41] Cf.
Maynard, History, 484; Brown, Epistles, 782; Hills, King James Version
Defended, 210; James, Corruption, 232).

[42] Hills(King James Version Defended, 210) explains the silence thusly: Christians
intentionally chose to not cite the Comma because it would have been ineffective
against the Sabellianism. A number of points refute this: 1) it is an unproven theory;
2) Hills simultaneously suggests that Cyprian, who lived during the Sabellian heresy,
did quote it; 3) it is the least plausible alternative.

[43] Virtually
the only value of this evidence is its demonstration that if
the Comma had been known previously then it would have been cited by others.

[44] Porson, Letters, 285-86. Porson figures in a major way concerning a

separate Comma controversy. One text-critical “urban legend” claimed that Erasmus
added the Comma to his third edition in fulfillment of a promise he allegedly made to
Edward Lee that if one Greek manuscript could be found containing the Comma then
Erasmus would add it. This story was debunked in 1980 by H. J. deJonge, “Erasmus
and the Comma Johanneum,” ETL 56 no. 4, (1980), 381-89, who traced the story
back as far as T. H. Horne in 1818 (383), but acknowledged that Horne was not the
originator of the story. The date can now be moved back at least thirty years. In the
opening of his Letters to Archdeacon Travis, Porson writes, “It is scarcely necessary
to tell the reader, that in the years 1516 and 1519 Erasmus published his first and
second editions of the Greek Testament, both which omitted the three heavenly
witnesses. That having promised Lee to insert them in his text, if they were found in a
single Greek MS. he was soon informed of the existence of such a MS. in England,
and consequently inserted 1 John V.7. in his third edition, 1522” (Porson, Letters, 2).