Among the differences between the King James Version and most modern translations of the Bible, one of the most significant is in 1 John 5:7. The KJV (and other older English translations) contain a longer reading called the “Comma Johanneum” which is not present in almost any modern translations.¹Notable exceptions are the NKJV and the MEV, both of which relied on the same printed Greek texts as the KJV translators Because the reading was often cited by orthodox, biblical Christians as a convenient proof text for the doctrine of the Trinity, questions about the verse’s validity are often interpreted as attacks on the Trinity itself. It is important to remember that the Trinity is a thoroughly biblical doctrine that is revealed in the totality of Scripture rather than a single proof text. The Trinity stands firm regardless of where one lands on the Comma Johanneum.

The real question, then, is simply this: What did John write? Regardless of which version of the verse we most prefer, our only concern should be which version of the passage was originally found in the first-century letter that John actually wrote.

What does 1 John 5:7-8 say?

With the Comma Johanneum included, the passage reads:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one,” (1 John 5:7-8, KJV).

The same section in most modern translations reads:

“For there are three that testify: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement,” (1 John 5:7-8, NASB).

The difference is not a matter of the KJV translators adding anything to the text from which they translated, nor is it a matter of modern translators leaving out anything in the manuscripts they were using. The difference is found in the underlying Greek texts which were being translated into English. Both the KJV translators and modern translators honestly rendered what they had in front of them.

The Manuscripts

The debate stems from the fact that the Comma Johanneum is completely absent in every Greek manuscript for virtually all of church history, appearing only in the late middle-ages in very few copies, mostly added in the margins of copies that did not originally contain the reading. The Comma was, however, present in copies of the Latin Vulgate throughout the middle ages. In the few places that the Comma does finally arrive in any Greek documents, it seems to have been transferred there from the Latin. As Dr. Daniel Wallace observes:

“There is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin).²https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8 (accessed 3/26/2018).

All things equal, biblical scholarship has always tended to give greater weight to copies in the original language than to copies of later translations, so the absence of the Comma throughout the Greek manuscript tradition has long been a significant issue. The Comma is also absent in the other early translations, such as the Syriac and Coptic, as well as later but still ancient translations like the Slavonic, Ethiopic, Georgian, and Arabic. It is also noteworthy that the earliest manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate do not contain the comma³Bruce Metzger, A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament (United Bible Societies, 1971) 717 though one such early copy, Codex Fuldensis, contains a prologue attributed to Jerome that mentions the Comma and affirms its authenticity even while the Comma is absent in the actual text of the manuscript itself. Thus, the manuscript evidence casts some doubt on the Comma being present in the original Vulgate, but the Comma clearly has a long history in the Latin tradition, if not in any other.

Even among the witnesses of the Latin Vulgate that contain the Comma, the testimony is not uniform. Some manuscripts reverse the order, listing the “three that bear record on earth” first and the “three that bear record in heaven” second. Some add to the heavenly witnesses that the three are one “in Christ Jesus,” rather than merely saying that these three are one. Other manuscripts do so with the earthly witnesses. Some manuscripts list the second heavenly witness as “the Son” rather than “the Word.”⁴Data based on the textual apparatus in the Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th Edition (NA27) Such wide diversity of forms does not automatically prove the Comma isn’t original, but it certainly raises further questions.

Finally, there are details about the character of the early Latin tradition that are important to note. Namely, the tendency to include expanded and interpolated readings. In some Old Latin manuscripts, like Codex Vercellensis and Codex Sangermanensis, for example, an extra clause is added to Matthew 3:15 explaining that, at Jesus’ baptism, a bright light flashed out of the water and the crowds were terrified.⁵Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the Early Church (Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2013) 110 In others, such as Codex Palatinus and Codex Colbertinus, an additional accusation is brought during Jesus trial in Luke 23:5, namely that “He alienates both our sons and our wives from us, and does not baptize as we do.”⁶H.A.G. Houghton, The Latin New Testament (Oxford University Press, 2016) 163-164 Several Latin manuscripts offer names for the criminals crucified next to Jesus,⁷Bruce Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament (Clarendon Press, 1971) 326 and copies like Codex Sangermanensis primus provide the words of a lament and woe upon themselves cried out by the crowd as Jesus died.⁸ibid. Codex Bobiensis adds a vivid description of the moment of Jesus’ resurrection into Mark 16:3.⁹ibid. This is only a small sampling. Examples could be multiplied. So, while the Latin tradition can be valuable in addressing certain kinds of issues when a reading appears in the Latin tradition and has no significant attestation anywhere else, it is generally fair to suspect that such a reading is one of these sorts of expansions in the text often incorporated by the ancient Latin translators.

Even when we look at the Textus Receptus, the tradition of printed texts beginning in the 16th century upon which the KJV is based, the testimony is not so solid. The first two editions of Erasmus (published in 1516 and 1519) did not contain the Comma at all since it was not found in the Greek manuscripts. When Erasmus finally added the text (seemingly under great pressure) to his third edition, he did so with a footnote indicating his continued doubts about it. Early translators from the TR also expressed their doubts. Martin Luther’s German Bible did not include the Comma at all. William Tyndale’s English New Testament did include it but marked it off in brackets and smaller letters to indicate doubt about its authenticity. The subsequent translations of Miles Coverdale, the Matthew Bible, Taverner’s Bible, and the Great Bible did the same. The Geneva Bible was the first English Bible to publish the reading without indicating doubt, and the Bishop’s Bible and KJV both followed suit. Thus, even within the TR tradition and the related translations, this text is notably unsure at best.

Taken together, the manuscript evidence points toward the Comma being an ancient Latin scribal gloss rather than original words from John’s own pen.

The Church Fathers and 1 John 5:7-8

Lacking indirect manuscript evidence, many defenders of the Comma Johanneum attempt to prove that the Comma must have once been in early (now lost) manuscripts because, they claim, it is cited by the early Church Fathers. Most claims of this sort are based on such strained parallels that they defy credulity. A few, however, require a more serious examination. Most fall into a few basic categories.

The Father, the Word, and the Spirit

Among the weaker claims, there are some King James Only Advocates who will latch onto literally any place where a Christian writer refers to the three persons of the Trinity as “Father, Word, and Spirit.” They claim that any such reference is absolute proof that such a person must have been reading the Comma. This is hardly a meaningful argument. The utilization of “the Word” (ὁ λόγος) as a title for Jesus is introduced in John 1:1-14, and it became a very important term among early Greek Christians. The word λόγος (logos) was rich with meaning to the Greeks, far more so than the English equivalent “Word” implies to us today. Many early Christian writers made particular use of this term in explaining the Son and His relationship to the Trinity.¹⁰For a few especially early examples, see Epistle to Diognetus, Chapter 11;  Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 46;  Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus, Book 2, Chapter 22; Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 1. To these references, countless more could be added from these and many other early writers.  Then, beginning at least with Tertullian, we see this tradition carry over into the Latin as well, where Tertullian frequently expounds on the Son as “the Word” throughout his writings.¹¹For just one of many examples of this, see Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 25. So, among Gentile Christians, the term “the Word” from John 1:1-14 was extremely important wholly apart from any supposed reference to the Comma of 1 John 5:7. It would be shocking not to see the Trinity formulated at times as “The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,” and indeed we often see just that. In fact, if the Comma is not original to 1 John and is instead a gloss by a later scribe, then the Comma Johanneum would actually be another example of such post-New-Testament Christian usage. So, defenders of the Comma see Jesus called “the Word” in a Trinitarian formula and automatically assume that this proves the Comma already existed, but it may well be that the Comma speaks of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,” precisely because the Comma came later and, by then, this had become one of the common Trinitarian formulations. On the face of it, the relationship could go either way, and neither the texts in question nor their authors give any indication that they are quoting from 1 John 5 or that they know of that reading. When using the formula, “The Father, The Word, and the Spirit,” they never cite it as a quotation from Scripture, nor do they attribute it to John (or any other New Testament writer, for that matter). The defender of the Comma must assume that the Comma came first and the Trinitarian references to “the Word” came later rather than the other way around, but that is what they are supposed to be proving. The mere existence of church Fathers who call Jesus “the Word” doesn’t prove the matter one way or the other.

These Three are One:  Tertullian

Similarly, defenders of the Comma will make much of anywhere they see the words “these three are one” in reference to the Trinity as if the only way anyone could ever assemble those four words would be to quote from the Comma. But the words are a rather obvious phrase to use. Tertullian, for example, is often cited by defenders of the Comma as an early reference to the passage, but when we look at his words, there is simply nothing to it:

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One,’ in respect of unity of substance, not singularity of number,” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 25).

While the reference does contain the phrase “these three are one,” those words fall quite naturally in the middle of the sentence and Tertullian gives no indication that he intends those words to be a quotation of Scripture. The titles used for each of the three persons also do not line up at all with 1 John 5:7, nor are the persons are not called “witnesses,” as they are in the Comma. There are, indeed, no other notable parallels that would connect these passages. In this very citation, when intentionally quoting the scriptural words “I and my Father are One,” (John 10:30), Tertullian prefaces the quote with the clause “as it is said,” to note that he is quoting Scripture. But he does no such thing with the words “these three are one.” There is simply no reason to think that Tertullian was meaning these words to be a quote from anything. Indeed, similar phrases exist elsewhere in Tertullian’s writings, even later in the very same document, and are obviously not quotes from the Comma. Note, for example:

“What need would there be of the gospel, which is the substance of the New Covenant, laying down (as it does) that the Law and the Prophets lasted until John the Baptist, if thenceforward the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not both believed in as Three, and as making One Only God?” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 31).

It is also noteworthy that Tertullian quotes Jesus’ words, “I and the Father are one,” frequently throughout his writings to argue for the Trinity but never again uses the phrase “these three are one” or otherwise points to anything remotely like the Comma of 1 John 5:7, which would be strange if he knew of the Comma and intended to cryptically reference it here. There is simply no reason to read the Comma into a few words that make clear sense in their own context in the middle of a sentence and that are not cited as Scripture or even distinguished as a distinct or separate clause from the surrounding words. The truth is that Tertullian never cites 1 John 5:7-8, with or without the Comma. If anything, considering how much Tertullian wrote about the Trinity, his silence on the passage is circumstantial evidence against the Comma’s ancient pedigree.

These Three are One:  Augustine

Tertullian was not the only Latin writer to use these words. Augustine was rather fond of the words “these three are one.” He writes things like:

“But as there are two things, the mind and the love of it, when it loves itself; so there are two things, the mind and the knowledge of it when it knows itself. Therefore the mind itself, and the love of it, and the knowledge of it, are three things, and these three are one,” (Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, Book 9, Chapter 4).

“Since, then, these three, memory, understanding, will, are not three lives, but one life; nor three minds, but one mind; it follows certainly that neither are they three substances, but one substance. Since memory, which is called life, and mind, and substance, is so-called in respect to itself; but it is called memory, relatively to something. And I should say the same also of understanding and of will since they are called understanding and will relatively to something, but each in respect to itself is life, and mind, and essence. And hence these three are one, in that they are one life, one mind, one essence; and whatever else they are severally called in respect to themselves, they are called also together, not plurally, but in the singular number,” (Augustine, On the Holy Trinity, Book 10, Chapter 11).

Again, Augustine does not quote this phrase as Scripture, nor does he imply any connection to 1 John 5:7. It is simply an obvious, natural phrase to use to express his respective points. The same can be said when Augustine describes the nature of the Trinity directly:

“For every nature is either God, who has no author; or out of God, as having Him for its Author. But nature which has for its author God, out of whom it comes, is either not made, or made. Now, that nature which is not made and yet is out of Him is either begotten by Him or proceeds from Him. That which is begotten is His only Son, that which proceedeth is the Holy Ghost, and this Trinity is of one and the self-same nature. For these three are one, and each one is God, and all three together are one God, unchangeable, eternal, without any beginning or ending of time,” (Augustine, A Treatise on the Soul and Its Origin, Book 2, Chapter 5).

The phrase “these three are one,” like the phrases “this Trinity is of one and the self-same nature,” and “all three together are one God” are not presented as biblical citations but rather as plain descriptors. Nothing in the way Augustine uses these phrases would give one a special canonical status above the others to anyone who does not have an agenda to forcefully read a citation of the Comma into such a text. So, the mere presence of the phrase “these three are one,” does not automatically constitute a citation of the Comma.

The Spirit, the Water, and the Blood

Indeed, unlike Tertullian, Augustine actually did offer an interpretation of 1 John 5:7-8. The passage is rather enlightening. Augustine’s reference to the text does not contain the Comma. He does, however, offer an interesting interpretation of the Spirit, the water, and the blood from verse 8:

“But if we will inquire into the things signified by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, ‘There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:’ so that by the term Spirit we should understand God the Father to be signified; as indeed it was concerning the worshipping of Him that the Lord was speaking, when He said, ‘God is a Spirit:’ by the term, blood, the Son; because ‘the Word was made flesh:’ and by the term water, the Holy Ghost; as, when Jesus spake of the water which He would give to them that thirst, the evangelist saith, ‘But this said He of the Spirit which they that believed on Him were to receive.’ Moreover, that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ‘Witnesses,’ who that believes the Gospel can doubt, when the Son saith, ‘I am one that bears witness of myself, and the Father that sent me, He beareth witness of me.’ Where, though the Holy Ghost is not mentioned, yet He is not to be thought separated from them,” (Augustine, Against Maxaminum).

The allegorical methods of interpretation often employed by many early church writers allowed Augustine to read the Trinity into 1 John 5:7-8 and its description of the three witnesses that are one (the Spirit, the water, and the blood). Augustine’s interpretation seems quite forced and even convoluted to us, and indeed it is, but such imaginative expositions were not uncommon in those centuries. This is important for us to realize when we look at Scriptural citations in the early church fathers. There are, for example, early writers who did cite the phrase “and these three are one,” as a biblical quote in reference to the Trinity. Do such passages prove that they had the Comma in their Bibles at the time? As we can see in Augustine, they do not. To say that “these three are one” describes the Trinity could simply be another example of an allegorical interpretation of 1 John 5:8. The most popular example to which most people appeal is the third-century Latin theologian Cyprian, who writes:

“The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one,'” (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church, Chapter 6).

Note that Cyprian only quotes the words, “and these three are one.” He asserts that those words describe the Father, Son (rather than “Word”), and Holy Spirit, but Augustine claimed the same thing about the “these three” of verse 8 without the Comma. Cyprian does not quote the Comma Johanneum here in any clear and unambiguous manner.

These three are One: Cyprian

Some have pointed out that the phrase “these three are one,” is found only in the Comma in 1 john 5:7. The phrase used of the earthly witnesses in verse 8 is “these three agree in one,” (KJV). However, the Latin tradition seems to indeed quote verse 8 (about the Spirit, the water, and the blood) as “these three are one.” That is how Augustine quoted it above. 1 John 5:8 is also quoted in a Latin treatise from Cyprian’s time period, and so we can get a pretty good idea what Cyprian’s Latin copy of 1 John 5:8 would have said:

“Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that ‘three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one,’” (A Treatise on Rebaptism, Section 19).

Two things are noteworthy here. First, this is not the form of the text found in the Comma, as this merely says that “three bear witness” rather than the “three that bear witness in earth.” What’s more, though, it says of the Spirit, water, and blood that “these three are one,” the exact phrase found in Cyprian. Indeed, over a thousand years later, the Wycliffe translation would translate the final clause of 1 John 5:8 from the Latin as “these three be one.” We see this also in Ambrose, a Latin writer from only a century after Cyprian, who quotes the passage thus:

“But the same Evangelist, that he might make it plain that he wrote this concerning the Holy Spirit, says elsewhere: ‘Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not in the water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit beareth witness because the Spirit is truth; for there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one,'” (Ambrose of Milan, On the Holy Spirit, Book 3, Chapter 10).

Again, the phrase “these three are one” refers here to the Spirit, water, and blood. Further, the passage is quoted fully here and it is absolutely clear that the Comma is not in the text. The mere fact that Cyprian uses the phrase “these three are one” rather than “these three agree as one” does not at all insist that he was quoting from the Comma. This is the normal way verse 8 was quoted about the Spirit, water, and blood in Latin sources.

So:

1. The form of Cyprian’s quote does not insist on it being a citation of the Comma.
2. A citation of 1 John 5:8 preserved in Latin writing from Cyprian’s own time and locale not only matches Cyprian’s phrase but also does not match the form of verse 8 found in the Comma.
3. A similar citation not long after Cyprian’s time (Ambrose) also mirror’s Cyprian’s wording and clearly lacks the Comma.
4. A later Latin native of North Africa (Augustine) interpreted the Spirit, water, and blood of 1 John 5:8 (without the Comma) as a symbolic reference to the Trinity. There is no reason to think he was the first to do so.

Thus, Cyprian’s statement does not prove to be an unambiguous reference to the Comma of 1 John 5:7, certainly not enough so to overturn the manuscript evidence. There is a perfectly good explanation that, if anything, fits better with the available data; namely, that Cyprian was citing 1 John 5:8 from a Latin New Testament (without the Comma) and interpreted the Spirit, water, and blood as an allegorical reference to the persons of the Trinity.

Priscillian of Avila

The earliest seemingly unambiguous citation of the Comma is in the tractates of a Latin writer in Spain, a late fourth-century ascetic heretic named Priscillian of Avila. Priscillian’s tractates survive in a manuscript dated to the fifth or sixth century,¹²Marco Conti, Priscillian of Avila: The Complete Works (Oxford University Press, 2010) 26 which is quite an early copy compared to many other early Christian writers. Priscillian writes that:

“John says there are three who testify on earth, the water, the flesh, and the blood, and these three are one, and there are three who testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Jesus Christ,” (Priscillian of Avila, Tractate 1, Sections 46-48).¹³ibid, 35

The citation is a bit mixed up compared to the Comma Johanneum of later history. The earthly witnesses are listed before the heavenly, and are named as “the water, the flesh, and the blood,” rather than “the spirit, the water, and the blood.” The heavenly witnesses are not merely said to be one, but to be one “in Christ Jesus.” As noted above, however, some of these variants also occur in Latin manuscripts of 1 John. However convoluted it may be, we have here a late fourth-century quote attributed to John that is, in substance, the Comma Johanneum.

Yet, even here, we have reason to pause. Priscillian has a habit at times of quoting Scripture and then adding his own words seamlessly afterward as part of the same sentence. Note, for example, only a few pages later, where Priscillian writes:

“The Prophet says, they were rendered as the wind in the feathers of birds and, therefore, are confounded by their altars, because they are rendered as the horse and the mule that have no intellect and deserve to have the sun for their god,” (Priscillian of Avila, Tractate 1, Section 88-91).¹⁴ibid, 39

When he says, “The Prophet says, they were rendered as the wind in the feathers of birds and, therefore, are confounded by their altars,” he is indeed offering a (somewhat muddled) citation from the Prophet Hosea:

“The wind wraps them in its wings, And they will be ashamed because of their sacrifices,” (Hosea 4:19).

The rest of the sentence, however, is not what Hosea (or any of the prophets) said. Priscillian added the words to finish his own thought without giving any indication that his biblical quote had ended and his own words had begun. The phrase “they are rendered as the horse and the mule that have no intellect,” may perhaps be borrowed from Psalm 32:9 “Do not be as the horse or as the mule which has no understanding,” but it would be borrowed imagery rather than a direct quotation. The rest of the sentence, “and deserve to have the sun for their god,” is clearly pure Priscillian. Understanding this, while it is possible that Priscillian is quoting from a Latin manuscript with a different version of the Comma in it, there is another possibility. Priscillian may be quoting from 1 John 5:8 and then adding his own thoughts. Priscillian may only quote John as saying, “there are three who testify on earth, the water, the flesh, and the blood, and these three are one,” and then expound with his own testimony of the heavenly witnesses. It is possible that Priscillian’s extrapolation about the heavenly witnesses found its way into sermons and study notes in the margins of manuscripts and then was added from the margins into the main text of later copies by an honest scribal mistake. Such things did happen, as one textual scholar notes:

“Occasionally, honest errors of judgment have led to the introduction of an error. For example, if a scribe accidentally left out a line or a few words, the corrector might put them in the margin. the next scribe who came along and copied this manuscript might reinsert the words into the text in the wrong place. Alternatively, the marginal note might have been a scribe’s comment rather than an integral part of the text; but the scribe who copied that manuscript might well have inserted the note into the new copy he was writing, thus adding something to the text of scripture that should not be there. No malice was involved, no intentional corruption of the text – just an error in judgment.”¹⁵D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Baker Books, 1979) 22-23

On this theory, rather than being the first to quote from a manuscript containing the Comma, Priscillian may well have been the accidental author of the Comma. The point is not to say that this theory is certainly true, only that, with the data we have from Priscillian’s writings and scribal tendencies, it is possible. Thus, while Priscillian seems to most likely be the earliest writer to plainly cite the Comma as such, this is actually not certain. These are the kinds of complex challenges involved in using the Early Church Fathers as witnesses to the text. It’s rarely quite as clear as looking at the manuscripts.

It’s also worth noting that many scholars think that, when Priscillian says (as cited above) “they are rendered as the horse and the mule that have no intellect,” he is not, in fact, borrowing from Psalm 32:9 but rather quoting from the Apocryphal book of Tobit. The Latin version of Tobit speaks of the wicked as those who:

“give themselves to their lust, as the horse and mule, which have not understanding,” (Tobit 6:17, Vulgate).

This is interesting because this verse is unique to the Latin version. It is not present in either of the two ancient Greek versions,¹⁶A New Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford University Press) 467 or the Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts at Qumran.¹⁷Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Seas Scrolls Bible (HarperOne, 1999) 641 It is certainly a later Latin gloss added by a translator or scribe. Thus, if this is indeed the source of Priscillian’s words, it would be a clear example of Priscillian utilizing later material added to the Latin version of a text he is quoting. It would not make us suddenly think that the verse is actually part of the original book of Tobit and that it was somehow removed from all the Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew manuscripts.

Similarly, even if Priscillian is quoting a version of the Comma, that does not give us evidence that the Comma goes back to the original Greek. It simply confirms what we already know from the manuscripts: that various versions of the Comma were present in some (though not all) ancient Latin copies, copies that often contained scribal glosses and interpretive expansions of the text. It is, indeed, noteworthy that, just as with the manuscript discussion, the only substantive possibilities of the Comma in the Church Fathers are in the Latin tradition, and even these are questionable.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the Greek manuscript tradition is unanimously against the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum. So are the majority of the earliest translations. The Latin tradition from which the Comma comes down to us contains quite a few unique examples of added interpolations and expansions of the text, making it difficult to argue for the originality of a reading that is found almost exclusively in the Latin. Finally, most of the so-called citations of the Comma in the early church fathers are just special pleading based on strained parallels. The few that might be legitimate are all, again, in the Latin tradition, and thus only confirm the situation presented to us by the manuscripts. All in all, there is little reason to accept the Comma Johanneum as the authentic, inspired words of John, which is why the majority of modern translations (just as the majority of ancient translations) do not include those words.