Can the Comma Johanneum be Inspired?

In the First Epistle of John, there’s a short section called Comma Johanneum that is highly disputed. It’s only half a verse. This little fragment is not original to the Greek text of the epistle. It grew up in the Latin tradition. In the post-printing press world, the text was imported into some editions of the Greek text.

For a long time, that settled the question for me. I am a Trinitarian, but I am also an evidentialist. I don’t have a problem with the text as an examination of theology, yet at the same time I am as certain that it isn’t a part of the epistle as anyone can be about any ancient text. So when one of my text-criticism heros took on a couple of King James Onlyists in a debate on the Comma, I only listened as a tiny show of support for James Snapp. His opponents did surprisingly well, for King James Onlyists. I recognize that being the smartest King James Onlyist isn’t a high bar, and they didn’t clear it by very much. Still, I’m not used to King James Onlyists bringing valid history and theology to a debate on scripture. Mr. Snapp successfully showed that the text of the Comma was not a part of the original Greek, and instead grew up in the Latin tradition.

Mike Hollner and Mike Ferrando did bring a whole different angle to the question, though. One of the points that they brought up was the persecution of trinitarians under the Vandals in 484. Among other things, the Vandals cut the tongues out of some trinitarians who quoted the Comma in their defense of their faith. Once the trinitarians escaped to friendly territory they were able to speak.

This miracle is recorded, among other places, in the History of the Vandal Persecution, which the Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity database has cataloged. The time between the events and the recording of the events is such that I’m inclined to believe that this happened. What does it mean, though? 

One of my projects this year is to pull together my reasons for believing that the canon is open. This does raise an important question: is the canon open enough to allow for the addition of text into existing documents? The Comma isn’t the only place this question is relevant. I have long since come to the conclusion that the end of Mark is inspired, regardless of whether it was original to Mark’s pen or another. It’s also going to be a relevant question for sections like the story of the woman caught in adultery.

One of the things that is frustrating about the Comma for me is that it’s not included in any of the classical creeds either. I have a hard time getting too worked up on the filioque controversy. I accept the Athanasian Creed, which undoubtedly contains the filioque. It’s hard for me to get worked up that it’s added to the Nicene or missing without it when I have that section either way. I don’t have that with the Comma, though. If the Comma didn’t come from John, where did it come from? There’s not another document that seems to have the text without thinking that it comes from John.

I find the miracle of the people at Carthage to be interesting and compelling in the direction of accepting the Comma as scripture. But it doesn’t convince me that the text flows from John’s pen. So coming back to the original question, is it possible for this little fragment to be inspired separate from the piece it’s added to?

I honestly don’t know what to think about that. I’ve always preferred going back to the original language of the document. I allow for the first generation or two of theologians to edit and organize the text, but mostly I want to see the text in the original language, saying the things that the original human author intended to say. This is very clearly an example that does not do that.

Might the Latin text of 1 John be an inspired translation? Or might there be another document that the Latin fathers were drawing from, mistakenly thinking that the text came from John? I don’t know. But I’m very interested in hearing other people’s opinion on the subject.