Johannine Comma (English Wikipedia)

Robert Jack, "Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7" c. 1834. "... sicut scriptum est: Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt de caelo, Pater et Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt, in primo huius opens libro aperte docuimus." Ambrose Ansbert, Ambrosij Ansberti … Apocalypsim libri decem

academia.edu

For an alternate view, and explanation of the terms, see Was Priscillian a Modalist Monarchian? by Tarmo Toom

aomin.org

Bruce Metzger, who is used as the main source by many writers in recent decades, ignores the references entirely: "the passage ... is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine)", A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, p. 717, 1971, and later editions. James White references Metzger and writes about the possibility that "Cyprian ... could just as well be interpreting the three witnesses of 1 John 5:6 as a Trinitarian reference" A Bit More on the Comma 3/16/2006 (White means 5:8). White is conceptually similar to the earlier Raymond Brown section: "There is a good chance that Cyprian's second citation, like the first (Ad Jubianum), is Johannine and comes from the OL text of I John 5:8, which says, 'And these three are one', in reference to the Spirit, the water, and the blood. His application of it to the divine trinitarian figures need not represent a knowledge of the comma, but rather a continuance of the reflections of Tertullian combined with a general patristic tendency to invoke any scriptural group of three as symbolic of or applicable to the Trinity. In other words, Cyprian may exemplify the thought process that gave rise to the Comma." In a footnote Brown acknowledges "It has been argued seriously by Thiele and others that Cyprian knew the Comma". Epistles of John p. 784, 1982.
David Charles Parker, while lauding the 1881 Westcott and Hort "purified text", writes of "the ridiculous business of the Johannine Comma" Textual Criticism and Theology, 2009, p. 324. Parker writes of "the presence in a few manuscripts, most of them Latin". The actual number is many thousands of manuscripts. Daniel Wallace comments that the verse "infected the history of the English Bible in a huge way", referring to a "rabid path". The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript, July 2, 2010 Archived 25 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine James White, even while engaging in discussions on the Puritanboard forums, wrote "I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship, unless, I guess, they likewise support the radical reworking of the entire text of the New Testament along consistent lines … plainly uninspired insertion." The Comma Johanneum Again 4 March 2006, also 16 March 2006. In an earlier day, Eberhard Nestle wrote that "The fact that it is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view." Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, 1901, p. 327, translation by William Edie 1899 German of the German pathologisches.

archive.org

The orthodox confession of the catholic and apostolic Eastern-Church, p.16, 1762. Greek and Latin in Schaff The Creeds of Christendom p. 275, 1877
Metzger, Bruce M. (Bruce Manning) (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament : a companion volume to the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament (fourth revised edition). Internet Archive. Stuttgart : Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft ; U.S.A. : United Bible Societies. ISBN 978-3-438-06010-5.
Burgess, Thomas (1821). A vindication of 1 John, v. 7 from the objections of M. Griesbach : in which is given a new view of the external evidence ; with Greek authorities for the authenticity of the verse not hitherto adduced in its defence. Saint Mary's College of California. London : Rivingtons.
Charles Forster in A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witnesses p 54–55 (1867) notes that the quote of verse 6 is partial, bypassing phrases in verse 6 as well as verse 7. And that Clement's "words et iterum clearly mark the interpolation of other topics and intervening text, between the two quotations". Et iterum is "and again" in the English translation.
John Kaye, The Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, Illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian 1826. p. 550.
Burgess, Tracts on the Divinity of Christ, 1820, pp.333–334. Irish Ecclesiastical Review, Traces of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1869 p. 274
Forster, Charles (1867). A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witness; Or, Porson's Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined and the External and Internal Evidences for 1 John V, 7 Eclectically Re-surveyed. Deighton, Bell. pp. 111-112. ISBN 9780790500805.. Quote: "... the witness of Tertullian and Cyprian is followed and sustained in the Latin Church by that of St. Jerome; whose adoption of the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses in the Vulgate carries in it more weight than the most formal quotation. This point has been unaccountably overlooked in the controversy; insomuch that one of the latest writers on it, Dr. Adam Clarke, sets down Jerome among those to whom the text was unknown! On the contrary, by his silent publication of it in the Vulgate, this most learned of the Fathers not only puts his sign-manual to its authenticity, but gives the clearest proof that down to his time the genuineness of this text had never been disputed or questioned."
Travis references Jerome as writing approvingly of the confession. George Travis, Letters to Edward Gibbon, 1785 p. 108. The Latin is "Nobis unus Pater, et unus Filius ejus, verus Deus, et unus Spiritus Sanctus, verus Deus; et hi tres unum sunt; una divimtas, et potentia, et regnum. Sunt autem tres Personae, non-duae, non-una" Marc Celed. Exposit. Fid. ad Cyril apud Hieronymi Opera, tom. ix. p. 73g. Frederick Nolan, An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, 1815, p. 291.
Principles of Textual Criticism, p. 506, 1820.
Thomas Burgess, A vindication of I John, V. 7, p.46, 1821.
Franz Anton Knittel New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text 1785 p. 34
Kaiserl.[lichen] Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien; Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (1866) Vol XVIII, p. 6. Also Alan England Brooke from Georg Schepps, Vienna Corpus, xviii
Introduction to the New Testament, p. 372, Vol. 3, 1909.
Westcott comments "The gloss which had thus become an established interpretation of St John's words is first quoted as part of the Epistle in a tract of Priscillian (c 385)." The Epistles of St. John p. 203, 1892. Alan England Brooke "The earliest certain instance of the gloss being quoted as part of the actual text of the Epistle is in the Liber Apologeticus (? a.d. 380) of Priscillian" The Epistles of St. John, p.158, 1912. And Bruce Metzger "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". Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p.717, 1971. Georg Strecker : "The oldest undoubted instance is in Priscillian Liber apologeticus I.4 (CSEL 18.6). Similar to these are William Sullivan, John Pohle, John Seldon Whale, F. F. Bruce, Ian Howard Marshall and others.
"It seems plain that the passage of St, Cyprian was lying open before the Priscillianist author of the Creed (Priscillian himself?) because he was accustomed to appeal to it in the same way. In Priscillian's day St. Cyprian had a unique position as the one great Western Doctor." John Chapman, Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, 1908, p.264
John Scott Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, 1848, p.509 Latin: Et Joannes evangelista ait; In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deurn et Deus erat verbum. Item ad Parthos; Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua sanguis el caro, et tres in nobis sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum, et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt. McCarthy, Daniel The Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays, 1866, p. 518. The full book is at Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina Vol 62:359, 1800. Nathaniel Ellis Cornwall explains how Idacius Clarus, of the 4th century and an opponent of Priscillian, is internally accredited as the original author Genuineness Proved by Neglected Witnesses 1877, p. 515. The work was originally published in 1528 by Sichard as Idacius Clarus Hispanus, Otto Bardenhewer, Patrology, the Lives and Works of the Fathers, p. 429, 1908.
Biblical commentary on the Epistles of St John, 1850, p.326, "In Continuation of the Work of Olshausen ... translated (from the German) by W. B. Pope".
Joseph Pohle in The Divine Trinity: A Dogmatic Treatise accuses Cassiodorus of inserting the Comma into the Vulgate from early manuscripts. "The defence can also claim the authority of Cassiodorus, who, about the middle of the sixth century, with many ancient manuscripts at his elbow, revised the entire Vulgate of St. Jerome, especially the Apostolic Epistles, and deliberately inserted I John V, 7, which St. Jerome had left out." Divine Trinity, 1911 p. 38-39
David Harrower, "A Defence of the Trinitarian System", 1822 pp.43–44
Charles Butler Horae Biblicae, 1807 p. 257
Kettner referred to the heavenly witnesses as "the most precious of Biblical pearls, the fairest flower of the New Testament, the compendium by way of analogy of faith in the Trinity." Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism, 1910, p. 71. In 1697 Kettner wrote Insignis ac celeberrimi de SS. trinitate loci, qui I. Joh. V, 7. extat, divina autoritas sensus et usus dissertatione theol. demonstratus and in 1713 Vindiciae novae dicti vexatissimi de tribus in coelo testibus, 1 Joh. V, 7 and Historia dicti Johannei de Sanctissima Trinitate, I Joh. cap. V vers. 7
Abraham Taylor, The True Scripture doctrine of the holy and ever-blessed Trinity, stated and defended, in opposition to the Arian scheme, pp. 31–58, 1727. On p. 32 Taylor lists 17 recent writings on the verse, against authenticity were by Simon, Jean le Clerc, Samuel Clarke and Emlyn.
John William Burgon, Lives of Twelve Good Men, Volume 1 Martin Joseph Routh, the Learned Divine, p. 37, 1788.
Denounced by evangelist Thomas DeWitt Talmage in a speech covered in the New York Times "Taking up the Bible he turned to the fifth chapter of John, but passed it with the remark, 'I will not read that, for it has been abolished or made doubtful by the new revision.'The Revision Denounced; Strong Language from the Rev. Mr. Talmage, New York Times, June 6, 1881]. See also Peter Johannes Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible 2002, p. 54.
Letter in a book published by Christian Frederick Matthaei (1744–1811) [1]. See also Franz Anton Knittel, [2] New criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John v. 7
"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? ... 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."
Frederick Nolan (1784–1864), pages 257-262,564-565
Robert Dabney (1820–98)in the 1871 Southern Presbyterian Review Vol 22, and in pages 350–390 of Dabney's 1890 book, Discussions Theological and Evangelical in the chapter The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek pages 377–378
Edward Hills (1912–81) The King James Version Defended 1956
Johann Bengel (1687–1752), Page 145 in volume 5 of the 1873 English translation of the 1759 second edition of his 1742 book, The Gnomon of the New Testament.
Frederick Nolan (1784–1864), pages 257, 260 565 in his 1815 book, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate
Robert Dabney (1820–98), page 221 in his 1871 article, The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, which originally appears on pages 191–234 in the 1871 (volume 22) edition of the Southern Presbyterian Review journal, and which also appears on pages 350-390 of Dabney’s 1890 book, Discussions Theological and Evangelical (pages 377-378 in the 1890 book corresponding to page 221 in the 1871 article)

www03.us.archive.org

Griesbach, Diatribe, p. 700

archive.today

Summarized with pictures on the web site KJV Today Umlaut in Codex Vaticanus, although the conclusion "an early scribe of Vaticanus at least knew of a significant textual variant here" is only one theory. Discussions have continued on the Evangelical Textual Criticism web site, the Yahoogroups textualcriticism forum and helpful is the web page of Wieland Willker, Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts Archived 26 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine.

bible-researcher.com

"The Johannine Comma". www.bible-researcher.com. Retrieved 13 June 2024.

bible.org

"The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian | Bible.org". bible.org. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
"The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian | Bible.org". bible.org. Retrieved 19 May 2024.
Daniel B. Wallace, "The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian.

biblegateway.com

"Bible Gateway passage: 1 John 5:7 - New English Translation". Bible Gateway. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

biblehub.com

SS[ancti] apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae which gave this margin explanation of the grammar: “He uses τρεῖς in the Masculine, because these things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are symbols of the Trinity.” Johann Christian Friedrich Steudel, footnote on Bengel Gnomon of the New Testament

bibletranslation.ws

FirstJohnCh5v7

books.google.com

Andrews, Edward D. (15 June 2023). THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS: The “Received Text” of the New Testament. Christian Publishing House. ISBN 979-8-3984-5852-7.
Grantley McDonald, The Johannine Comma from Erasmus to Westminster (2017). Scriptural Authority and Biblical Criticism in the Dutch Golden Age: God's Word Questioned. OUP Oxford. pp. 64–. ISBN 978-0-19-252982-4.
John Painter, Daniel J. Harrington. 1, 2, and 3 John
The orthodox confession of the catholic and apostolic Eastern-Church, p.16, 1762. Greek and Latin in Schaff The Creeds of Christendom p. 275, 1877
Nichol, Francis David (1956). The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary: The Holy Bible with Exegetical and Expository Comment. Review and Herald Pub. Association.
Hiebert, David E. (1991). The Epistles of John: An Expositional Commentary. Bob Jones University Press. ISBN 978-0-89084-588-2.
Eclogae propheticae 13.1Ben David, Monthly Review, 1826 p. 277)
Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives,, Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin, 2011, p. 159, the Latin is "Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non unus quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus"
August Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and the Church During the Three First Centuries, Volume 2, 1841, p. 184. Latin, Item de pudic. 21. Et ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Tischendorf apparatus
Documents in Early Christian Thought, editors Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer, 1977, p.178, Latin Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Selecta 1839.
Burgess, Tracts on the Divinity of Christ, 1820, pp.333–334. Irish Ecclesiastical Review, Traces of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 1869 p. 274
Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek Note on Selected Readings, 1 John v 7,8, 1882, p104.
Horne, critical study 1933, p. 451
Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson, footnote: "Bishop 353, died about 392".
William Hales, Inspector, Antijacobin Review, Sabellian Controversy, Letter XII 1816, p. 590. "Denique Dominus: Petam, inquit, a Patre meo et alium advocatum dabit vobis ... Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut a Patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu, ut in Filio secunda persona: unus tamen Deus omnia, tres unum sunt. Phoebadius, Liber Contra Arianos
Introduction historique et critique aux libres de Nouveau Testament 1861, p.564.
In dismissing Phoebadius in this fashion, Griesbach was following Porson, whose explanation began, "Phoebadius plainly imitates Tertullian ... and therefore, is not a distinct evidence", Letters to Archdeacon Travis, 1790, p. 247.
The City of God, Volume 1, trans. by Marcus Dods 1888 p. 197, Latin: Deus itaque summus et verum cum Verbo suo et Spiritu sancto, quae tria unum sunt, Deus unus omnipotens
Homilies, 1849, p. 1224. Latin: et quid est: finis christus? quia christus deus, et finis praecepti caritas, et deus caritas quia et pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unum sunt.
George Travis summarized of Augustinian passages: The striking reiteration, in these passages, of the same expressions, Unum sunt—Hi tres unum sunt—Unum sunt, and Hi tres qui unum sunt seems to bespeak their derivation from the verse ...Letters to Edward Gibbon, 1794, p. 46
Thomas Joseph Lamy The Decision of the Holy Office on the "Comma Joanneum" pp.449–483 American ecclesiastical review, 1897.
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol 3, The Second Session, pp. 22–23, 2005, Richard Price, editor
Edward Rochie Hardy Christology of the Later Fathers 1954, p. 368
"the strongest proof that this verse is spurious may be drawn from the Epistle of Leo the Great to Flavianus upon the Incarnation" Richard Porson, Letters to Archdeacon Travis 1790 p.378 "The verse ...remained a rude, unformed mass, and was not completely licked into shape till the end of the tenth century" p. 401
Thomas Burgess, An introduction to the controversy on the disputed verse of st. John, 1835, p. xxvi
Thomas Burgess, An introduction to the controversy on the disputed verse of st. John, 1835, p. xxxi
Robert Ernest Wallis, translator, The writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, Volume 1 1868, p. 382
Scrivener, while opposing verse authenticity, wrote in Plain Introduction in 1861 "it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read v. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus, that the holy Bishop was merely putting on v. 8 a spiritual meaning". Scrivener then placed mystical interpretation as the root of Comma formation "although we must acknowledge that it was in this way v. 7 obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the Latin copies … mystical interpretation". In the 1883 edition Scrivener wrote "It is hard to believe that 1 John v. 7, 8 was not cited by Cyprian". Thus, Scrivener would be taking the position of a mystical interpretation by scribes unknown, working through the margin and later adding to the text, all before Cyprian. "they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8" p.654. Under this possible scenario the comma "was known and received in some places, as early as the second or third century" (p. 652 1883-ed) which, in the Scrivener textual economy, would be analogous to Acts 8:37. Acts 8:37 has undisputed early citations by Irenaeus and Cyprian and yet is considered by Scrivener and most modern theorists as inauthentic. Despite allowing an early textual formation for the Unity of the Church citation, Scrivener quoted approvingly negative views of the Tertullian and Cyprian Jubaianum references. Scrivener also quoted Tischendorf about the weightiness of the Cyprian referencing gravissimus est Cyprianus de eccles. unitate 5.
Westcott and Hort The New Testament in the Original Greek, p. 104, 1881.
Two Francis Pieper extracts: "In our opinion the decision as to the authenticity or the spuriousness of these words depends on the understanding of certain words of Cyprian (p. 340) ... Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds: Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: "Et tres unum sunt ("and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: 'And the Three are One'") Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: 'Et tres unum sunt' applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. 'The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.' That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: 'I and the Father are one', but also in the words: 'And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.' These are, in our opinion, the objective facts." p.341 (1950 English edition). Similarly, Elie Philippe wrote "Le témoignage de saint Cyprien est précieux, peut-être même péremptoire dans la question." (The testimony of St. Cyprian is precious, perhaps even peremptory to the question.) La Science Catholique, 1889, p. 238.
Henry Donald Maurice Spence, in Plumptre's Bible Educator wrote "... there is little doubt that Cyprian, before the middle of the third century, knew of the passage and quoted it as the genuine words of St. John." James Bennett, in The Theology of the Early Christian Church: Exhibited in Quotations from the Writers of the First Three Centuries, with Reflections 41, p.136, 1841, wrote "the disputed text in John's First Epistle, v. 7, is quoted ... Jerome seems to have been falsely charged with introducing the disputed words, without authority, into the Vulgate; for Cyprian had read them in a Latin version, long before." Bennett also sees the "probability is strengthened" that the Tertullian reference is from his Bible. And Bennett rejects the Griesbach "allegorised the eighth verse" attempt "for they (Tertullian and Cyprian) here argue, as from express testimonies of Scripture, without any hint of that allegorical interpretation which, it must be confessed, the later writers abundantly employ". And the most emphatic position is taken by the modern Cyprian scholar, Ezio Gallicet of the University of Turin, in this book on Cyprian's Unity of the Church, La Chiesa: Sui cristiani caduti nella persecuzione; L'unità della Chiesa cattolica p. 206, 1997. Gallicet, after referencing the usual claims of an interpolation from Caspar René Gregory and Rudolf Bultmann, wrote: "Dal modo in cui Cipriano cita, non sembra che si possano avanzare dubbi: egli conosceva il « comma giovanneo ». (Colloquially ... "there is no doubt about it, the Comma Johanneum was in Cyprian's Bible".)
Arthur Cleveland Coxe, annotating Cyprian in the early church writings edition, wrote of the positions denying Cyprian referring the Bible verse in Unity of the Church, as the "usual explainings away" Ante-Nicene Fathers p.418, 1886. And Nathaniel Ellis Cornwall referred to the logic behind attempts to deny Cyprian's usage of the verse (Cornwall looks closely at Porson, Lange and Tischendorf) as "astonishing feats of sophistical fencing". The Genuineness of I John v. 7 p. 638, 1874.
Stanley Lawrence Greenslade, Early Latin Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome 1956, p. 164. The Latin is "si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est: quaero, cujus Dei? Si creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit: si Christi, non hujus potest sieri templum, qui negat Deum Christum : si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?"
Philip Sellew, Critica Et Philologica, 2001, p. 94
The use of parentheses is described as "these witnesses attest the readings in question, but that they also exhibit certain negligible variations which do not need to be described in detail". Kurt Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 1995, p. 243.
The Church Review p. 625-641, 1874., The Genuineness of I John v. 7, Scholium on pp. 634–635
Richard Porson, Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis, p.234, 1790.
Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti, p.544 first published in 1703.
In modern times, scholars on early church writings outside the textual battles are more likely to see the work as from Athanasius, or an actual account of an Athanasius-Arius debate. Examples are John Williams Proudfit Remarks on the history, structure, and theories of the Apostles' Creed 1852, p.58 and George Smeaton, The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit, 1882, p. 272
Kaiserl.[lichen] Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien; Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (1866) Vol XVIII, p. 6. Also Alan England Brooke from Georg Schepps, Vienna Corpus, xviii
Westcott comments "The gloss which had thus become an established interpretation of St John's words is first quoted as part of the Epistle in a tract of Priscillian (c 385)." The Epistles of St. John p. 203, 1892. Alan England Brooke "The earliest certain instance of the gloss being quoted as part of the actual text of the Epistle is in the Liber Apologeticus (? a.d. 380) of Priscillian" The Epistles of St. John, p.158, 1912. And Bruce Metzger "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". Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, p.717, 1971. Georg Strecker : "The oldest undoubted instance is in Priscillian Liber apologeticus I.4 (CSEL 18.6). Similar to these are William Sullivan, John Pohle, John Seldon Whale, F. F. Bruce, Ian Howard Marshall and others.
John Chapman Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels (1908) p. 264
Preserved Smith Erasmus, A Study Of His Life, Ideals And Place In History, p.165, 1st ed. 1923. However, Priscillian is generally considered as non-Trinitarian. The Künstle idea was more nuanced. William Edie summarizes "To Priscillian, therefore, in all probability, must be attributed the origin of the gloss in this its original and heretical form. Afterwards it was brought into harmony with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity by the omission of the words in Christo Jesu and the Substitution of tres for tria." The Review of Theology and Philosophy The Comma Joanneum p.169, 1906. The accusation of a Trinitarian heresy by Priscillian was not in the charges that led to the execution of Priscillian and six followers; we see this in the later 5th-century writings.
The Codex Muratorianus, Journal of Theological Studies, 1907 pp.537–545
About four hundred bishops of Africa and Mauritania, together with others from Corsica and Sardinia, met in Carthage" Thomas Joseph Lamy, American Ecclesiastical Review, 1 John v 7, 1897 p.464
Frederick Nolan summarizes the history and gives his view of the significance: "Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received text, is wholly inconceivable: and admitting that 1 Joh v. 7 was then generally received, its universal prevalence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning." Inquiry, 1815, p. 296. Bruce Metzger, in the commentary that accompanies the UBS GNT, bypassed the context of the Council and the Confession of Faith, "In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle" A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1971, p.717 and 2nd ed. 1993, and 2002 p.648.
Travis, Letters to Edward Gibbon, 1794, pp. 41–42. Latin at De Trinitate Book V, p. 274 In total, Travis notes five times in the books that John is referenced in the context of the wording of 1 John 5:7, twice in Book One, and once each in Books 5, 7, and 10.
John Scott Porter, Principles of Textual Criticism, 1848, p.509 Latin: Et Joannes evangelista ait; In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deurn et Deus erat verbum. Item ad Parthos; Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua sanguis el caro, et tres in nobis sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum, et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt. McCarthy, Daniel The Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays, 1866, p. 518. The full book is at Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina Vol 62:359, 1800. Nathaniel Ellis Cornwall explains how Idacius Clarus, of the 4th century and an opponent of Priscillian, is internally accredited as the original author Genuineness Proved by Neglected Witnesses 1877, p. 515. The work was originally published in 1528 by Sichard as Idacius Clarus Hispanus, Otto Bardenhewer, Patrology, the Lives and Works of the Fathers, p. 429, 1908.
"William Hales, Antijacobin Review, Sabellian Controversy, Letter XII, 1816 p. 595
Migne (Frag. 21.4: CC 01A,797)
Thomas Burgess, Letter to the Reverend Thomas Beynon 1829, p.649. The Latin is "Beatus vero Joannes Apostolus evidenter ait, Et tres unum sunt, quod de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, dictum, sicut superius, cum rationem flagitares, ostendimus."
Fulgentius continues "Let Sabellius hear we are, let him hear three, and let him believe that there are three Persons. Let him not blaspheme in his sacrilegious heart by saying that the Father is the same in Himself as the Son is the same in Himself and as the Holy Spirit is the same in Himself, as if in some way He could beget Himself, or in some way proceed from Himself. Even in created natures it is never able to be found that something is able to beget itself. Let also Arius hear one; and let him not say that the Son is of a different nature, if one cannot be said of that, the nature of which is different." William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, 1970 Volume 3. pp. 291–292.
In the historic debate, Thomas Emlyn, George Benson, Richard Porson, Samuel Lee and John Oxlee denied these references as demonstrating the verse as in the Bible of Fulgentius, by a set of differing rationales. Henry Thomas Armfield reviews debate theories and history and offered his conclusion "Surely it is quite clear from the writings of Fulgentius, both that he had himself seen the verse in the copies of the New Testament; and that those with whom he argues had not the objection to offer that the verse was not then extant in St. John's Epistle." Armfield, The Three Witnesses, the Disputed Text, 1883, p.171. Armfield also reviews the Facundus and Fulgentius comparison in depth. Facundus and Fulgentius were often compared in their Cyprian references, with Facundus quoted in support of Cyprian being involved in a mystical interpretation.
Migne
Alban Butler, The lives of the fathers, martyrs, and other principal saints, Volume 1(1846) and is referenced by Karl Künstle as Pseudo-Fulgentius.
The Latin is "Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria: aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in coelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus" – Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373. HTML version at Cassiodorus Complexiones in Epistulas apostolorum English text based on Porson and Maynard p.46.
William Wright, Biblical hermeneutics, 1835, p.640.
Daniel M'Carthy The Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays 1866, p. 521. (Patrolog. Lat. ed. Migne), Tom. lxxxiii. p. 1203).
Arthur-Marie Le Hir, Les Trois Témoins Célestes Études bibliques, 1869 pp.1–72
Some see Testimonia Divinae Scripturae as earlier than Isidore. "Most learned critics believe to be more ancient than St. Isidore". John MacEvilly An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul, 1875, p.424, M'Carthy: "The question of authorship is not, however, important in our controversy, provided the antiquity of the document be admitted"
Robert Jack, "Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7" c. 1834. "... sicut scriptum est: Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt de caelo, Pater et Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt, in primo huius opens libro aperte docuimus." Ambrose Ansbert, Ambrosij Ansberti … Apocalypsim libri decem
As explained by Thomas Joseph Lamy, American Ecclesiastical Review, The Decision of the Holy Office, 1897, pp. 478–479.
Samuel Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge, 1893 pp. 103–105
Johann Leonhard Hug Introduction to the New Testament, p. 475, 1827.
Norbert Fickermann, Biblische Zeitschrift. 22: 350-358 (1934) St. Augustinus gegen das 'Comma Johanneum'?
Stunica, one of the Complutensian editors, published in 1520 Annotationes Iacobi Lopidis Stunicae contra Erasmum Roterodamum in defensionem tralationis Noui Testamenti, which included half of a page on the heavenly witnesses. Later Erasmus correspondence on the verse included a letter to William Farel in 1524 in which Erasmus noted the lack of Greek manuscript support and the verse not being used in the Arian controversies. In 1531 Erasmus corresponded with Alberto Pio, a critic of Erasmus.
Thomas Burgess A Letter to Mr. Thomas Beynon 1829, p. xii.
Thomas Smith, Integritas loci 1 Jo. V, 7, 1690.
Kettner referred to the heavenly witnesses as "the most precious of Biblical pearls, the fairest flower of the New Testament, the compendium by way of analogy of faith in the Trinity." Conybeare, History of New Testament Criticism, 1910, p. 71. In 1697 Kettner wrote Insignis ac celeberrimi de SS. trinitate loci, qui I. Joh. V, 7. extat, divina autoritas sensus et usus dissertatione theol. demonstratus and in 1713 Vindiciae novae dicti vexatissimi de tribus in coelo testibus, 1 Joh. V, 7 and Historia dicti Johannei de Sanctissima Trinitate, I Joh. cap. V vers. 7
Bossuet, Instructions sur la version du N. T. [de R. Simon] impr. à Trevoux, 1703, pp. 185–90. Bossuet also wrote in favor of the verse in correspondence with Newton's mathematical rival Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Butler and Orme include Bossuet material.
The footnotes included "In 1689, the papist Simon strove to be free; in 1707, the protestant Mill wished to be a slave; in 1751, the Arminian Wetstein used the liberty of his times, and of his sect." The history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire
Arthur-Marie Le Hir. Les Trois Témoins Célestes Études bibliques, 1869, pp. 1–89.
Daniel McCarthy: … the first to expunge v. 7. altogether (J. D. Michaelis gives that honor to an 'Anonymous Englishman' who published the N. T, Greek and English, London, 1729, with a text revised on the principles of 'common sense'), but his rash example was followed unhappily by the three ablest critics of our own day, Scholz, a Catholic Prof, in Bonn, Lachmann, and Tischendorf; and approved by Wegscheid, Michaelis, Davidson, Horne, Alford, Tregelles, &c; so that it may be truly said the current of Protestant opinion in England and Germany is now as strong against, as it was for the genuineness of the controverted words even within this century. The change is unaccountable when we bear in mind that the evidence for the verse, both negative and positive, has been increasing every day, whilst the arguments against its authenticity were brought out as fully by Erasmus as by any modern critic. The Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays, 1866, p. 512. The Anonymous Englishman is Daniel Mace.
The Revision of the New Testament Dublin Review, 1981, pp. 140–43.
David Charles Parker, while lauding the 1881 Westcott and Hort "purified text", writes of "the ridiculous business of the Johannine Comma" Textual Criticism and Theology, 2009, p. 324. Parker writes of "the presence in a few manuscripts, most of them Latin". The actual number is many thousands of manuscripts. Daniel Wallace comments that the verse "infected the history of the English Bible in a huge way", referring to a "rabid path". The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript, July 2, 2010 Archived 25 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine James White, even while engaging in discussions on the Puritanboard forums, wrote "I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship, unless, I guess, they likewise support the radical reworking of the entire text of the New Testament along consistent lines … plainly uninspired insertion." The Comma Johanneum Again 4 March 2006, also 16 March 2006. In an earlier day, Eberhard Nestle wrote that "The fact that it is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view." Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, 1901, p. 327, translation by William Edie 1899 German of the German pathologisches.
Letter in a book published by Christian Frederick Matthaei (1744–1811) [1]. See also Franz Anton Knittel, [2] New criticisms on the celebrated text, 1 John v. 7
Nathaniel Ellsworth 1812-1879), Page 641 The Genuineness of I John v.7 discusses the torquebit grammaticos of Erasmus.
"He ends his reflections on the comma by wondering why John should have applied masculine participles to things that are grammatically neuter" Raising the Ghost of Arius p. 149-150, In Primam D. Ioannis Epistolam Annotationes, quae uice prolixi commentarij (Commentary on the First Epistle of John) 1544
SS[ancti] apostolorum septem epistolae catholicae which gave this margin explanation of the grammar: “He uses τρεῖς in the Masculine, because these things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are symbols of the Trinity.” Johann Christian Friedrich Steudel, footnote on Bengel Gnomon of the New Testament
John Oxlee (1779–1854), pages 134-138, 260-264 in the 1822 (volume 4) edition of the Christian Remembrancer journal
Daniel Wallace (1952–) footnote 44 on page 332 in his 1996 book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
John Oxlee (1779–1854), pages 136, 138, 260 in the 1822 (volume 4) edition of the Christian Remembrancer journal
Daniel Wallace (1952–), footnote 44 (you may have to reload page 332 in order to view it) on page 332 in his 1996 book, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics.

brill.com

Erasmus, Desiderius (1 August 1993). Reeve, Anne (ed.). Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: Galatians to the Apocalypse. Facsimile of the Final Latin Text with All Earlier Variants. Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, Volume: 52. Brill. p. 770. ISBN 978-90-04-09906-7.

ccel.org

CCEL: The Treatises of Cyprian
"Philip Schaff: Creeds of Christendom, with a History and Critical notes. Volume I. The History of Creeds. - Christian Classics Ethereal Library". www.ccel.org. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

csntm.org

Wallace, Daniel B. (7 February 2010). "The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript". The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Archived from the original on 25 July 2010. Retrieved 5 June 2022.
David Charles Parker, while lauding the 1881 Westcott and Hort "purified text", writes of "the ridiculous business of the Johannine Comma" Textual Criticism and Theology, 2009, p. 324. Parker writes of "the presence in a few manuscripts, most of them Latin". The actual number is many thousands of manuscripts. Daniel Wallace comments that the verse "infected the history of the English Bible in a huge way", referring to a "rabid path". The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript, July 2, 2010 Archived 25 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine James White, even while engaging in discussions on the Puritanboard forums, wrote "I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship, unless, I guess, they likewise support the radical reworking of the entire text of the New Testament along consistent lines … plainly uninspired insertion." The Comma Johanneum Again 4 March 2006, also 16 March 2006. In an earlier day, Eberhard Nestle wrote that "The fact that it is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view." Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, 1901, p. 327, translation by William Edie 1899 German of the German pathologisches.

dailycatholic.org

Fourth Lateran Council – 1215 A.D.

documentacatholicaomnia.eu

English translation by Richard Porson, also given in Charles Forster's New Plea. Greek text, Disputation Contra Arium
Travis, Letters to Edward Gibbon, 1794, pp. 41–42. Latin at De Trinitate Book V, p. 274 In total, Travis notes five times in the books that John is referenced in the context of the wording of 1 John 5:7, twice in Book One, and once each in Books 5, 7, and 10.

doi.org

Gurry, Peter (2018). "Comma Johanneum". In Hunter, David G.; van Geest, Paul J. J.; Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan (eds.). Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000724. ISSN 2589-7993.
Payne, Philip B.; Canart, Paul (2000). "The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus". Novum Testamentum. 42 (2): 105–113. doi:10.1163/156853600506799. ISSN 0048-1009. JSTOR 1561327.
Houghton, H. A. G. (2016). The Latin New Testament: a guide to its early history, texts, and manuscripts. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 178–179. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744733.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-874473-3.
McDonald, Grantley Robert (15 February 2011). Raising the ghost of Arius: Erasmus, the Johannine comma and religious difference in early modern Europe (Thesis). Leiden University. hdl:1887/16486. McDonald, Grantley (31 March 2016). "Erasmus and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7-8)". The Bible Translator. 67 (1): 42–55. doi:10.1177/2051677016628244. S2CID 170991947.

earlychristianwritings.com

"Fragments of Clemens Alexandrius", translated by Rev. William Wilson, section 3.
Origen, discussing water baptism in his commentary on the Gospel of John, references only verse 8 the earthly witnesses: "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."

evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com

Summarized with pictures on the web site KJV Today Umlaut in Codex Vaticanus, although the conclusion "an early scribe of Vaticanus at least knew of a significant textual variant here" is only one theory. Discussions have continued on the Evangelical Textual Criticism web site, the Yahoogroups textualcriticism forum and helpful is the web page of Wieland Willker, Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts Archived 26 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine.

ewtn.com

"EWTN.com - 1 John 5: 7; the status of the Johannine Comma". www.ewtn.com. Retrieved 15 July 2019.

foweylodge.com

"Johannine Comma" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 August 2019. Retrieved 6 June 2020.

google.fi

The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 1802 to 1925. University of Toronto Press. 1 April 2010. ISBN 978-1-4875-2337-4.
Erasmus, Desiderius (26 March 2019). The New Testament Scholarship of Erasmus: An Introduction with Erasmus' Prefaces and Ancillary Writings. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 978-0-8020-9222-9.
The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 1802 to 1925. University of Toronto Press. 1 April 2010. ISBN 978-1-4875-2337-4.
Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1894). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students. G. Bell.
Scrivener, Frederick H. (12 November 1997). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 2 Volumes. Wipf and Stock Publishers. ISBN 978-1-57910-071-1.
HORNE, Thomas Hartwell (1856). An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures ... Third Edition, Corrected, Etc.

handle.net

hdl.handle.net

McDonald, G. R (2011). Raising the ghost of Arius : Erasmus, the Johannine comma and religious difference in early modern Europe (Doctoral dissertation). Leiden University. hdl:1887/16486.
McDonald, Grantley Robert (15 February 2011). Raising the ghost of Arius: Erasmus, the Johannine comma and religious difference in early modern Europe (Thesis). Leiden University. pp. 54–55. hdl:1887/16486.
McDonald, Grantley Robert (15 February 2011). Raising the ghost of Arius: Erasmus, the Johannine comma and religious difference in early modern Europe (Thesis). Leiden University. hdl:1887/16486. McDonald, Grantley (31 March 2016). "Erasmus and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7-8)". The Bible Translator. 67 (1): 42–55. doi:10.1177/2051677016628244. S2CID 170991947.
de Jonge, Henk Jan (1980). "Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum". Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses. 56: 381–389. hdl:1887/1023.

joyeurs.com

kennydominican.joyeurs.com

William Hales, Inspector, Antijacobin Review, Sabellian Controversy, Letter XII 1816, p. 590. "Denique Dominus: Petam, inquit, a Patre meo et alium advocatum dabit vobis ... Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut a Patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu, ut in Filio secunda persona: unus tamen Deus omnia, tres unum sunt. Phoebadius, Liber Contra Arianos
The Latin is "Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria: aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in coelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus" – Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373. HTML version at Cassiodorus Complexiones in Epistulas apostolorum English text based on Porson and Maynard p.46.

jstor.org

Payne, Philip B.; Canart, Paul (2000). "The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus". Novum Testamentum. 42 (2): 105–113. doi:10.1163/156853600506799. ISSN 0048-1009. JSTOR 1561327.

kjvtoday.com

Summarized with pictures on the web site KJV Today Umlaut in Codex Vaticanus, although the conclusion "an early scribe of Vaticanus at least knew of a significant textual variant here" is only one theory. Discussions have continued on the Evangelical Textual Criticism web site, the Yahoogroups textualcriticism forum and helpful is the web page of Wieland Willker, Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts Archived 26 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine.

newadvent.org

"CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistles of Saint John". www.newadvent.org. Retrieved 24 May 2024. The Armenian manuscripts, which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted to represent a Latin influence which dates from the twelfth century
Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est—Et hi tres unum sunt. Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiæ (On the Unity of the Church) IV. "Epistles of Saint John", Catholic Encyclopedia.
Catholic Encyclopedia, "Epistles of St John"
"CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Epistles of Saint John". www.newadvent.org. Retrieved 6 August 2024.

nytimes.com

select.nytimes.com

Denounced by evangelist Thomas DeWitt Talmage in a speech covered in the New York Times "Taking up the Bible he turned to the fifth chapter of John, but passed it with the remark, 'I will not read that, for it has been abolished or made doubtful by the new revision.'The Revision Denounced; Strong Language from the Rev. Mr. Talmage, New York Times, June 6, 1881]. See also Peter Johannes Thuesen, In Discordance with the Scriptures: American Protestant Battles Over Translating the Bible 2002, p. 54.

remacle.org

John Moorhead, Victor of Vita: history of the Vandal persecution 1992, p. 56, Latin at Histoire de la Persécution des Vandales par Victor, évêque de Vita, dans la Byzacène

scribd.com

Edward Hills (1912–1981), page 169 in his 1956 book, The King James Version Defended

semanticscholar.org

api.semanticscholar.org

McDonald, Grantley Robert (15 February 2011). Raising the ghost of Arius: Erasmus, the Johannine comma and religious difference in early modern Europe (Thesis). Leiden University. hdl:1887/16486. McDonald, Grantley (31 March 2016). "Erasmus and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7-8)". The Bible Translator. 67 (1): 42–55. doi:10.1177/2051677016628244. S2CID 170991947.

sightlerpublications.com

James H. Sightler The King James Bible is Inspired (2011) Archived 8 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine "The modern versions… omit or cast doubt on I John 5:7. the most important Trinitarian verse in the Bible and the one verse most often attacked in history"

textandcanon.org

Heide, Martin (7 February 2023). "Erasmus and the Search for the Original Text of the New Testament". Text & Canon Institute. Retrieved 19 May 2024.

the1780letterofeugenius.blogspot.com

Eugenius Bulgaris (1716–1806), a letter that Eugenius wrote in 1780

tischendorf-8th.blogspot.com

August Neander, The History of the Christian Religion and the Church During the Three First Centuries, Volume 2, 1841, p. 184. Latin, Item de pudic. 21. Et ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. Tischendorf apparatus

uni-bremen.de

www-user.uni-bremen.de

Summarized with pictures on the web site KJV Today Umlaut in Codex Vaticanus, although the conclusion "an early scribe of Vaticanus at least knew of a significant textual variant here" is only one theory. Discussions have continued on the Evangelical Textual Criticism web site, the Yahoogroups textualcriticism forum and helpful is the web page of Wieland Willker, Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts Archived 26 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine.

vuntblog.blogspot.com

Some scholars have mistakenly considered it a Greek manuscript but it is a manuscript of the Latin Vulgate. Wizanburgensis Revisited

web.archive.org

Wallace, Daniel B. (7 February 2010). "The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript". The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts. Archived from the original on 25 July 2010. Retrieved 5 June 2022.
"Johannine Comma" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 August 2019. Retrieved 6 June 2020.
Summarized with pictures on the web site KJV Today Umlaut in Codex Vaticanus, although the conclusion "an early scribe of Vaticanus at least knew of a significant textual variant here" is only one theory. Discussions have continued on the Evangelical Textual Criticism web site, the Yahoogroups textualcriticism forum and helpful is the web page of Wieland Willker, Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts Archived 26 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
David Charles Parker, while lauding the 1881 Westcott and Hort "purified text", writes of "the ridiculous business of the Johannine Comma" Textual Criticism and Theology, 2009, p. 324. Parker writes of "the presence in a few manuscripts, most of them Latin". The actual number is many thousands of manuscripts. Daniel Wallace comments that the verse "infected the history of the English Bible in a huge way", referring to a "rabid path". The Comma Johanneum in an Overlooked Manuscript, July 2, 2010 Archived 25 July 2010 at the Wayback Machine James White, even while engaging in discussions on the Puritanboard forums, wrote "I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship, unless, I guess, they likewise support the radical reworking of the entire text of the New Testament along consistent lines … plainly uninspired insertion." The Comma Johanneum Again 4 March 2006, also 16 March 2006. In an earlier day, Eberhard Nestle wrote that "The fact that it is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view." Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, 1901, p. 327, translation by William Edie 1899 German of the German pathologisches.
James H. Sightler The King James Bible is Inspired (2011) Archived 8 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine "The modern versions… omit or cast doubt on I John 5:7. the most important Trinitarian verse in the Bible and the one verse most often attacked in history"

wikipedia.org

de.wikipedia.org

Georg Strecker, The Johannine Letters (Hermeneia); Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. ‘Excursus: The Textual Tradition of the "Comma Johanneum"’.
Joseph Pohle in The Divine Trinity: A Dogmatic Treatise accuses Cassiodorus of inserting the Comma into the Vulgate from early manuscripts. "The defence can also claim the authority of Cassiodorus, who, about the middle of the sixth century, with many ancient manuscripts at his elbow, revised the entire Vulgate of St. Jerome, especially the Apostolic Epistles, and deliberately inserted I John V, 7, which St. Jerome had left out." Divine Trinity, 1911 p. 38-39

worldcat.org

Gurry, Peter (2018). "Comma Johanneum". In Hunter, David G.; van Geest, Paul J. J.; Lietaert Peerbolte, Bert Jan (eds.). Brill Encyclopedia of Early Christianity Online. Leiden and Boston: Brill Publishers. doi:10.1163/2589-7993_EECO_SIM_00000724. ISSN 2589-7993.
Payne, Philip B.; Canart, Paul (2000). "The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus". Novum Testamentum. 42 (2): 105–113. doi:10.1163/156853600506799. ISSN 0048-1009. JSTOR 1561327.