In this post I share some of the early and plentiful evidence from the Latin Church for the authenticity of 1 John 5:7, typically referred to as the Comma Johanneum. The verse reads:

“For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” New King James Version

“And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.” Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition

I also provide the Greek and Latin renderings of this text:

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.

Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo : Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : et hi tres unum sunt.

I start off with the testimony of St. Cyprian.

St. Cyprian (250 AD)

12. For it is no small and insignificant matter, which is conceded to heretics, when their baptism is recognised by us; since thence springs the whole origin of faith and the saving access to the hope of life eternal, and the divine condescension for purifying and quickening the servants of God. For if any one could be baptized among heretics, certainly he could also obtain remission of sins. If he attained remission of sins, he was also sanctified. If he was sanctified, he also was made the temple of God. I ask, of what God? If of the Creator; he could not be, because he has not believed in Him. If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father? (Cyprian, Epistle 72, To Jubaianus, Concerning the Baptism of Heretics: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050672.htm; bold and underline emphasis mine)

6. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathers not with me scatters. Matthew 12:30 He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathers elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, I and the Father are one; John 10:30 and again IT IS WRITTEN of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, And these three are one. 1 John 5:7 And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation. (Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 1. On the Unity of the Church http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm; bold and capital emphasis mine)

Here is another translation:

UNITY OF GODHEAD, UNITY OF CHURCH. CYPRIAN. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one.” And again of the Father and Son and the Holy Spirit it is written, “And these three are one.”³⁷ Does anyone believe that this unity that comes from divine strength, which is closely connected with the divine sacraments, can be broken asunder in the church and be separated by the division of colliding wills? THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH 6.³⁸

³⁷1 Jn 5:7 (KJV). Cyprian seems to be quoting the so-called Comma Johanneum text of 1 Jn 5:7 that has an explicit reference to the Trinity. See Michael Maynard, A History of Debate (Temp, Ariz.: comma Publications, 1995), 38, although Daniel Wallace disagrees with Maynard’s conclusions. See his article on the web, The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian. (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: New Testament, IVa, John 1-10, edited by J.C. Elowsky, Thomas C. Oden (General Editor) [InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL 2006], p. 359; bold emphasis ours)

… The Lord says, “The Father and I are one (9);” and again, IT IS WRITTEN of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, “And the three are one (10).”… 

9. John 10:30

10. 1 John 5:7. (William A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers [The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, MN 1970], Volume 1, pp. 221, 222)

BIBLE EXPOSITORS AND THEOLOGIANS

I cite a slew of Christian authorities, all of whom appeal(ed) to Cyprian as an early, clear witness to the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum.

“Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds: ‘Et iterum de Patre et Fillo 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.” (Francis A.O. Pieper, Christian Dogmatics [Concordia Publishing House, 1968], Translated by T. Engelder, Volume 1, pp. 340-341; bold and capital emphasis mine)

“On the unity of the church these words occur: ‘The Lord says, “I and the Father one;” and again, concerning the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, it is written, “and these three are one.”‘ Here the disputed text in John’s First Epistle, v. 7, is quoted; for nowhere else is it written, these three are one. As Cyprian was the echo of Tertullian, the probability is strengthened that the latter was known to have quoted the disputed text in his work against Praxeas: ‘Which three are one (thing), unum; not one (person), unus; as it is said, “I and my Father are one,” unum; for unity of substance, not for singularity of number.’ It may be said Tertullian quotes only the text, ‘I and my Father are one;’ but he evidently quotes another text, which speaks of three as unum, one thing, or existence; or, as he says, substance. It may be said Tertullian quotes only the text, 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. Griesbach yields too much to the suspicion that the earlier fathers merely allegorized the eighth verse; for they 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.” (James Bennett, The Theology of the Early Christian Church Exhibited in Quotations from the Writers of the First Three Centuries, with Reflections [The University of Chicago Libraries, 1855], p. 94 https://archive.org/stream/MN40253ucmf_0#page/n109/mode/2up; bold emphasis mine)

1 John 5:7. For there are three, &c. — It is well known that the authenticity of this verse has been a subject of much controversy. “The arguments, on both sides of the question, taken from ancient Greek MSS. and versions, and from quotations made by the fathers, and from printed editions, have been stated with the greatest fidelity and accuracy by Mill in his long note at the end of John’s first epistle, where he observes that this verse is wanting in all the ancient Greek MSS. of the New Testament which have come down to us, except a few, which shall be mentioned immediately. It is wanting likewise in the first Syriac, and other ancient versions, particularly the Coptic, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and in many of the present Latin MSS. With respect to quotations from the fathers, Mill acknowledges that few of the Greek writers, who lived before the council of Nice, have cited this verse. The same he observes concerning those who, after that council, wrote in defence of the Trinity against the Arians, and other heretics; which, he thinks, shows that this verse was not in their copies.” But, on the other hand, the proofs of the authenticity of this verse are,” 1st, Some of the most ancient and most correct Vatican Greek copies, from which the Spanish divines formed the Complutensian edition of the Greek Testament, and with which they were furnished by Pope Leo X.,” one of which Mill speaks of as peculiarly eminent, of great antiquity, and approved fidelity. “2d, A Greek copy, called by Erasmus, Codex Britannicus, on the authority of which he inserted this verse in his edition anno, 1522, but which he had omitted in his two former editions. This is supposed to be a MS. at present in the Trinity College library, Dublin, in which this, verse is found with the omission of the word αγισν, holy, before πνευμα, Spirit. It likewise wants the last clause of 1 John 5:8, namely, and these three are one. All Stephens’s MSS., being seven in number, which contain the catholic epistles, have this verse: only they want the words εν ουρανω, in heaven. 4th, The Vulgate version, in most of the MS. copies and printed editions of which it is found, with some variations. 5th, The testimony of Tertullian, who alludes to this verse, Praxeam, c. 25, and who lived in an age in which he saith, Præscript, c. 30, the authenticæ literæ (the authentic writings) of the apostles were read in the churches. By authenticæ literæ Mill understands, either the autographs of the apostles, which the churches, to whom they were written, had carefully preserved, or correct transcripts taken from these autographs. Also the testimony of Cyprian, who flourished about the middle of the third century, and who, in his epistle to Jubajanus, expressly cites the latter clause of this verse. The objections which have been raised against the testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian, Mill hath mentioned and answered in his long note at the end of 1 John 5., which see in page 582 of Kuster’s edition. 6th, The testimony of many Greek and Latin fathers in subsequent ages, who have cited the last clause of this verse; and some who have appealed to the Arians themselves as acknowledging its authenticity. Lastly, the Complutensian edition, anno 1515, had this seventh verse exactly as it is in the present printed copies, with this difference only, that instead of these three are one, it hath substituted the last clause of 1 John 5:8, And these three agree in one, and hath omitted it in that verse. These arguments appear to Mill of such weight, that, after balancing them against the opposite arguments, he gave it as his decided opinion that, in whatever manner this verse disappeared, it was undoubtedly in St. John’s autograph, and in some of the copies which were transcribed from it.”

“Instead of passing any judgment in a matter so much contested,” says Macknight, “I shall only observe, 1st, That this verse, instead of disturbing the sense of the verses with which it is joined, rather renders it more connected and complete. 2d, That in 1 John 5:9, the witness of God is supposed to have been before appealed to: If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater. And yet, if 1 John 5:7 is excluded, the witness of God is nowhere mentioned by the apostle. 3d, That in the opinion of Beza, Calvin, and other orthodox commentators, the last clause of 1 John 5:7 hath no relation to the unity of the divine essence. If so, the Trinitarians, on the one hand, need not contend for the authenticity of this verse, in the view of supporting their doctrine, nor the Arians, on the other, strive to have it excluded from the text as opposing their tenets. 4th, That the doctrine which the Trinitarians affirm to be asserted in this verse is contained in other places of Scripture. So Wall saith. Dr. Benson likewise, in his Dissertation, written to prove this verse not genuine, saith, ‘If it were genuine, there could nothing be proved thereby but what may be proved from other texts of Scripture.’” The reader who wishes for more satisfactory information respecting the authenticity of the text, may find it in Dr. Calamy’s Vindication of it, annexed to his Sermons on the Trinity, preached at the lecture at Salter’s Hall, and published in 1722. (Rev. Joseph Benson Commentary of the Old and New Testaments http://biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/1_john/5.htm; bold and emphasis mine)

For there are three that bear record in heaven,…. That is, that Jesus is the Son of God. The genuineness of this text has been called in question by some, because it is wanting in the Syriac version, as it also is in the Arabic and Ethiopic versions; and because the old Latin interpreter has it not; and it is not to be found in many Greek manuscripts; nor cited by many of the ancient fathers, even by such who wrote against the Arians, when it might have been of great service to them: to all which it may be replied, that as to the Syriac version, which is the most ancient, and of the greatest consequence, it is but a version, and a defective one. The history of the adulterous woman in the eighth of John, the second epistle of Peter, the second and third epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the book of the Revelations, were formerly wanting in it, till restored from Bishop Usher’s copy by De Dieu and Dr. Pocock, and who also, from an eastern copy, has supplied this version with this text. As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens’s, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius (z), in the beginning of the “sixth” century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the “fourth” century; and it is cited by Athanasius (a) about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian (b), in the middle, of the “third” century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian (c) about, the year 200; and which was within a “hundred” years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation. The heavenly witnesses of Christ’s sonship are, (John Gill’s Exposition on the Whole Bible http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/1_john/5.htm; bold and capital emphasis mine)

FULGENTIUS (527 AD)

This brings me to my next witness. Fulgentius Ruspensis, Bishop of Ruspe in North Africa not only cited the Comma but also stated St. Cyprian did so as well:

In Patre ergo et Filio et Spiritu sancto unitatem substantiae accipimus, personas confundere non ademus. Beatu enim Joannes apostolus testatur, dicen: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus; et tres unum sunt. Quod etiam beatissimus martyr Cyprianus, in epistola de Unitate Ecclesiae confitetur, dicens: Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversus Christum facit; qui alibi praeter Ecclesiam colligit, Christi Ecclesiam spargit. Atque ut unam Ecclesiam unius Dei esse monstraret, haec confestim testimonia de Scripturis inseruit. Dicit Dominus: Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et iterum: De Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum et: Et tres unum sunt.

“In the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, whose unity of substance we accept, are confident not to confound the persons. For the blessed John the Apostle testifies, saying: ‘There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and the three are one. This is also confessed by the most blessed martyr Cyprian in the letter On the Unity of the Church, saying: ‘He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, he does against Christ’, who in another place says in addition to a collection of the Church, says, ‘scatters the Church of Christ’. And in order to show that there is one Church of the one God, he immediately inserted this into the testimonies of the Scriptures: ‘The Lord says: I and the Father are one. And again: of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: ‘And the three are one.’” (Responsio Contra Arianos Libri Duo, Response 10 [MPL065, col. 224]; bold and capital emphasis mine)

And:

En habes in brevi aliu esse Patrem, alium Filium, alium Spiritum sanctum: alium et alium in persona, non aliud et aliud in natura; et idcirco Ego, inquit, et Pater unum sumus. Unum, ad naturam referre nos docei, Sumus, ad personas. Similiter et illud: Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium dicun in caelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et his tres unum sunt.

“Here you have briefly that another is the Father, another is the Son, another is the Holy Spirit: different in person, not different in nature: and for this reason ‘I’, he says, ‘and the Father are one.’ We teach that ‘One’ refers to nature, and ‘We are’ refers to the persons.  Likewise regarding it: ‘There are three’, he says, who are said to testify in heaven, ‘the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.’” (Ad Felicem Notarium De Trinitate Liber Unus, Chapter IV [MPL065, col. 500]; bold emphasis mine)

PRISCILLIAN (380 AD)

Priscillian, writing in Spain, cited the Comma:

Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt. Et tria sunt quae testimonium dicent in caelo: Pater Verbum et Spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.

“There are three that bear witness on earth: the water, in the flesh, and the blood: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, Volume xviii, p. 6 https://archive.org/details/corpusscriptoru01wissgoog/page/n55/mode/1up?view=theater; bold emphasis mine)

VIGILIUS TAPENSI (484 AD)

In a work refuting the Arians, Vigilus includes the following statement:

“John the Evangelist, in his Epistle to the Parthians (i.e., his 1st Epistle), says there are three who afford testimony on earth:  the water, the blood, and the flesh, and these three are in us; and there are three who afford testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.” (Contra Varimadum Arianum)

COUNCIL OF CARTHAGE (485 AD)

A council in Carthage was convened at the instruction of the Arian Vandal king Huneric where North Africa Trinitarian bishops met Arian bishops to debate the issue of the Trinity. Sources state that there were 461 bishops that stood in defense of the Trinity against Arian heretics. These orthodox bishops employed the Comma to refute the Arians’ denial of the Trinity. 

A Christian named Eugenius (Eugene) was the spokesman for the Trinitarian bishops of Africa, Mauritania, Sardinia, Corsica and the Balearick Isles. He planned to present a statement of faith, a manifesto, delineating the 461 bishops’ belief in the Trinity.

North African Victor of Vitensis, who attended the Council, included the manifesto of the 461 bishops into his account of the proceedings. That manifesto states in respect to the Comma:

Et ut luce clarius unius divinitatis esse cum Patre et Filio Spiritum Sanctum doceamus, Joannis Evangelistae testimonio comprobatur. Ait namque: Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in coelo: Pater, Verbum et Spiritus Sanctus et hi tres unum sunt.

“And as a shining light teaching the unity of the divinity of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, the testimony of John the Evangelist demonstratively testifies: ‘There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.’”

Victor himself wrote that:  

“… and in order that we may teach until now, more clearly than light, that the Holy Spirit is now one divinity with the Father and the Son. It is proved by the evangelist John, for he says, ‘there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”

I share a couple of more noteworthy cases where the Comma is cited.

Cassiodorus (500s AD) noted:

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.  

“And the three mysteries testify – on earth:  water, blood and spirit.  The fulfillment of which we read about in the passion of the Lord.  And in heaven:  Father and Son and Holy Spirit.  And these three are one God.” (Complexiones in Epistolis Apostolorum)

Codex Fuldensis, which was produced in 546, mentions the Comma in the Preface to the Canonical Epistles. It states that, “much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words ‘water, blood and spirit’ in this edition, omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit.”  

FURTHER READING

1 John 5:7 (Johannine Comma)

REFORMERS ON MK. 16:9-20, JN. 7:53-8:11, ACTS 8:37 & 1 JN. 5:7

Edward F. Hills on 1 John 5:7

WALLACE & 1 JOHN 5:7

This post is taken from the following article: Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7. (See also: http://www.jesusisprecious.org/articles/martin_shue/1_john_5_7.htm)

Response to Daniel Wallace Regarding 1 John 5:7

by Martin A. Shue

In my studies of 1 John 5:7 I came across the following article by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. In fairness to Mr. Wallace I would like to post his entire article instead of just quoting from it as many do. This way I will not be accused of using Mr. Wallace’s quotes out of context or inaccurately. Below in the shaded area is his entire article as found on his website.

The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian by Daniel B. Wallace, Ph.D. A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“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.”) The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum. Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648): (2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215. (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome … or (c) as revised by Alcuin… The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “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.’” What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.” The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma. Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).

I think myself happy this day to be able to respond to Mr. Wallace’s claims in his article. I shall endeavor to rebut his claim that Cyprian did not quote the Comma Johanneum before 258 AD. I shall also seek to prove that several of his statements, which Mr. Wallace states as fact, regarding the Comma are false. I trust that the following will be beneficial to both sides of the debate and will perhaps clear up some of the myths surrounding Cyprian and 1 John 5:7.

I would concur with Wallace that it would indeed be significant if Cyprian did in fact quote the Comma in the early third century. I would also agree with Wallace that all we need to establish is that Cyprian “quote(d) a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it”. In the ensuing paragraphs this is exactly what I shall prove. But as Wallace points out “a little background is needed”. We proceed to examine the evidence set forth by both Wallace and Metzger.

Wallace immediately states that “the Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS.”. Obviously Mr. Wallace is referring to the Greek mss. only. I would like to point this out lest it be made to appear that there are LITERALLY ‘only about 8 MSS.’ which contain the Comma. There are many Latin mss., of those that contain the Catholic Epistle of 1 John the vast majority contain 1 John 5:7. Many of these dating back to at least as early as the 4th century. It can also be found in the Latin Vulgate; of which, Frederick Scrivener wrote, “it is found in the printed Latin Vulgate, and in perhaps forty-nine out of every fifty of its manuscripts”. So, the ms. evidence is far greater than 8. And even if we did take this to mean the Greek mss. it is still not correct. Though the actual count is somewhat disputed, each side claiming or denying certain mss., it is agreed upon by both sides that there are certainly more than just 8 Greek mss. that contain the phrase.

In the next portion of his article Wallace quotes from Bruce Metzger. Metzger is quoted as writing, “(2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.” This is a most interesting statement by Metzger. In an effort to make it appear to the unsuspecting saint that there is no Early Church Father support for the verse Metzger says “Greek Fathers”. This is interesting because at other times Metzger himself will appeal to these ‘non-Greek’ Fathers if they can be found to bolster support for his argument. The fact is the Comma Johanneum is cited by Priscillian (385 AD), Cassian (435 AD), Ps-Vigilius (date unknown), Ps-Athanasius (6th century), Fulgentius (510 AD) (see John Gill), Ansbert (8th century), Jerome (4th century), Tertullian (3rd century), Athanasis (350 AD), Council of Carthage (415 AD), Vigilius of Thapsus (5th century), Cassiodorus (6th century) and Victor Vitensis, who records that the passage was “insisted” upon in a confession of faith that was drawn up by Eugenius Bishop of Carthage and authorized by no less than 460 bishops in 484 AD.

In addition to those already listed there are numerous other Early Church Fathers that cite the verse without doubting its authenticity. Of special note I would like to mention that the passage appears in the Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture (4th century). It is also quoted in the ’Disputation with Arius’ by Ps-Athanasius thus proving Metzger’s statement that it was not used in the Arian controversy false. The passage is also cited in an isolated Homily by an unknown author, in the Benedictin edition of Chrysostom (tom. xii. pp. 416-21). The date of this Homily has been fixed to 381 AD. This is yet another Greek witness for the Comma of the fourth century. The Homily reads in Greek, “eis kekletai ho Pater kai ho Uios kai to Pneuma to Agion: dei gar te apostolike choreia parachoresai ten Agian Triada, en ho Pater kataggellie. Trias Apostolon, martus tes ouraniou Triados.” Once again this is Greek evidence which appears much earlier than Metzger purports when he says, “Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.” I am not certain if Metzger is aware of the above facts or if he has just chosen to overlook them.

Wallace next cites Metzger as writing, “The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic) except the Latin:”. Again we find a distortion of the facts by both Metzger and Wallace. Being that both these learned men write extensively on this subject one would think they would be a little more familiar with the facts of the matter. These facts are not hidden and can be found by anyone willing to do a little research. The Comma is in fact found in some of the Armenian manuscripts. F. H. A. Scrivener reported this fact in his book “Plain Introduction” (cf. p. 403). Now even the newest UBS critical text has updated this information and admits that the passage is in fact found in some Armenian manuscripts. Additionally, the first printed edition of the Armenian Bible, which was published in 1666 by Bishop Uscan, contains the Comma. It is also reported by Dr. Scrivener that “only a few recent Slavonic copies” do in fact contain the Comma. I will be the first to admit that it is hard to keep up with all the evidence when dealing with this issue of textual criticism but for such respected men as Daniel Wallace and Bruce Metzger to not be aware of the above facts is perplexing. Especially when so many read their books and articles and, as can be seen by the clubs, hang on to every word that flows from their pen (or in this day I should say ‘keyboard’).

I will now move on to his arguments concerning whether or not Cyprian quoted “a version” of 1 John 5:7. Mr. Wallace makes a lot of accusations about Cyprian putting a “theological spin” on 1 John 5:7 thus intimating that Cyprian did not actually read the Comma in his copy. Most of his statements are pure conjecture and cannot be proven in any way. It would be easy for me to make such hypothetical allegations as: “theological spin”, “What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation”, “Apparently, he was prompted”, “it was a natural step”, “obviously his interpretation”, “Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian”, and my favorite is his concluding remarks, viz. “Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely.” I would thank Mr. Wallace for giving us his opinion as to what Cyprian was “likely” or “unlikely” to have both read and thought. However, it is this type of ‘scholarship’ that has landed us in the mess that we are currently in. I can assure you that what Mr. Wallace points out as conjecture will be used by another as FACT. We pass on!

Since Cyprian wrote the disputed passage in Latin I feel it necessary to list Cyprian’s words in Latin. Cyprian wrote, “Dicit dominus, Ego et pater unum sumus (John x. 30), et iterum de Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Et tres unum sunt.” (The Lord says, “I and the Father are One,” and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: “And the three are One.”). This Latin reading is important when you compare it to the Old Latin reading of 1 John 5:7; “Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.” Cyprian clearly says that it is written of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost–”And the three are One.” His Latin matches the Old Latin reading identically with the exception of ‘hi’. Again, it is important to note that Cyprian said “it is written” when making his remarks. He never indicates, despite Wallace’s claims, that he is putting some sort of “theological spin” on 1 John 5:7 or 8. There is no other verse that expressly states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ‘three in one’ outside of 1 John 5:7. If Cyprian was not quoting 1 John 5:7 the question must be asked and answered: What was he quoting?

The matter becomes even more devastating for Wallace when we take into account another of Cyprian’s many statements. When considering issues such as this one before us it is necessary to lay on the table as much of the evidence as one can. Often many of the facts are purposely kept silent due to their damaging testimony. Cyprian writes in another place, “et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus ets, quaero cujus Dei? Si Creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit; si Christi, nec hujus fieri potuit templum, qui negat Deum Christum; si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Fillii inimicus est?” (If he was sanctified, he also was made the temple of God. I ask, of what God? If of the Creator; he could not be, because he has not believed in Him. If of Christ; he could not become His temple, since he denies that Christ is God. If of the Holy Spirit; SINCE THE THREE ARE ONE, how can the Holy Spirit be at peace with him who is the enemy either of the Son or of the Father?) Here again we see Cyprian stating that “the three are One” (i.e. the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This I feel is important because it gives us another reference in Cyprian’s writings testifying to the fact that he was not merely putting a “theological spin” on 1 John 5:7/8. The fact is 1 John 5:7 was found in Cyprian’s copies.

Admittedly, the second quote is not near as ‘strong’ as the first but when the evidence it presented, without all the conjecture, only one seeking to hide something can ignore the fact that Cyprian knew full well the wording of 1 John 5:7 as found in our Authorized Version. This is so evident that even Frederick Scrivener, who adamantly opposed the Comma, was compelled to say, “If these two passages be taken together (the first is manifestly much the stronger), it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read verse 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus, that the holy Bishop was merely putting on verse 8 a spiritual meaning (Plain Introduction, p. 405).” I couldn’t agree more with the words of Dr. Scrivener! The question then becomes, why does Mr. Wallace continue to espouse this “spiritual meaning/theological spin” hypothesis when this allegation has been refuted for centuries? One can only wonder if the reason behind this charade is not to further conceal the actual evidence and to further mislead the unsuspecting saints.

I hope in this short confutation of Wallace’s article that 1) More light has been shed on the evidence in favor of the Comma Johanneum and 2) Exposure has been made of the constant misrepresentation of the facts by people such as Daniel Wallace and Bruce Metzger.

FURTHER READING

REFORMERS ON MK. 16:9-20, JN. 7:53-8:11, ACTS 8:37 & 1 JN. 5:7

Edward F. Hills on 1 John 5:7

In this post I will prove that Muhammad was ignorant about the names attributed to the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. As a result of his confusion, Muhammad would jumble up the titles of particular biblical writings by mistakenly attributing a specific term to the wrong book. All emphasis is mine.

THE TALMUD IS THE TORAH

Muhammad is reported to have said that the Torah warns fathers who do not marry off their daughters when they reach the age of 12, and therefore sin as a result, shall be guilty:

Abu Sa‘id and Ibn ‘Abbas reported God’s messenger as saying, “He who has a son born to him should give him a good name and a good education and marry him when he reaches puberty. If he does not marry him when he reaches puberty and he commits sin, its guilt rests only upon his father.”

‘Umar b. al-Khattab and Anas b. Malik reported God’s messenger as saying that it is written in the Torah, “If anyone does not give his daughter in marriage when she reaches twelve and she commits sin, the guilt of that rests on him.” Baihaqi transmitted both traditions in Shu’ab al-Iman. (Mishkat Al-Masabih English Translation With Explanatory Notes by Dr. James Robson, [Sh. Muhammad Ahsraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprint 1990], Volume I, Book XIII. – Marriage, Chapter III. The Guardian in Marriage, and asking the Woman’s consent, section III, pp. 666-667; bold emphasis mine)

Here’s the online version:

13 Marriage

(2c) Chapter: The Guardian in Marriage, and asking the Woman’s consent – Section 3

‘Umar b. al-Khattab and Anas b. Malik reported God’s Messenger as saying that it is written in the Torah, “If anyone does not give his daughter in marriage when she reaches twelve and she commits sin, the guilt of that rests on him.”

Baihaqi transmitted in Shu’ab al-iman.

Reference: Mishkat al-Masabih 3139

In-book reference: Book 13, Hadith 59 (https://sunnah.com/mishkat:3139)

The problem with Muhammad’s assertion is that he confused and conflated the Torah with the Talmud, since this statement is found in the latter!

With regard to a girl, it was urged that the father’s duty was to secure a husband for her at an early age. The verse, ‘Profane not thy daughter to make her a harlot’ (Leviticus 19:29) was applied to a man ‘who delays in arranging a marriage while she is of suitable age’ (Sanhedrin 76a). She was considered to have arrived at this stage when she passed her twelfth birthday. According to Talmudic law, ‘A man is forbidden to give his daughter in marriage while she is a minor, until she is grown up and says, I wish to marry so-and-so’ (Kid. 41a). If he married her in her minority she could repudiate the marriage on reaching the age of twelve, and have it annulled without a divorce. (Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud – The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages [Schoken Books, New York 1995], Chapter V. Domestic Life, II. Marriage and Divorce, pp. 162-163; bold emphasis mine)

הָאִישׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה. כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה – אִין, כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה – לָא. מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אָסוּר לְאָדָם שֶׁיְּקַדֵּשׁ אֶת בִּתּוֹ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה, עַד שֶׁתִּגְדַּל וְתֹאמַר: ״בִּפְלוֹנִי אֲנִי רוֹצָה״.

The mishna teaches: A man can betroth his daughter to a man when she is a young woman. The Gemara infers: When she is a young woman, yes, he can betroth her; when she is a minor, NO, he cannot betroth her. This statement supports the opinion of Rav, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says, and some say it was said by Rabbi Elazar: It is prohibited for a person to betroth his daughter to a man when she is a minor, until such time that she grows up and says: I want to marry so-and-so. If a father betroths his daughter when she is a minor and incapable of forming an opinion of the husband, she may later find herself married to someone she does not like. (Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 41a https://www.sefaria.org/Kiddushin.41a.8?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en)

The Talmud further condemns marrying off a mature, post-pubescent maiden to an old man:

אם כן לימא קרא אל תחל מאי אל תחלל שמע מינה תרתי ואביי ורבא האי אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה מאי עבדי ליה אמר רבי מני זה המשיא את בתו לזקן

The Gemara answers: If so, and that is the sole derivation from the verse, let the verse say: Do not profane [taḥel]. What is the reason that the verse uses the more complex form: Do not profane [teḥalel]? Conclude two derivations from it. The Gemara asks: And according to Abaye and Rava, who derive the prohibition against engaging in intercourse with one’s daughter from a different source, what do they do with this verse: “Do not profane your daughter by causing her to act licentiously”? Rabbi Mani says: This verse is referring to one who marries his daughter to an old man. Since she will not be satisfied with him, it will ultimately lead her to engage in adultery, and her father is responsible for causing that situation.

כדתניא אל תחלל את בתך להזנותה רבי אליעזר אומר זה המשיא את בתו לזקן ר”ע אומר זה המשהא בתו בוגרת

This derivation is as it is taught in a baraita: “Do not profane your daughter by causing her to act licentiously.” Rabbi Eliezer says: This is referring to one who marries his daughter to an old man. Rabbi Akiva says: This is referring to one who delays the marriage of his daughter who is A GROWN WOMAN. Since she finds no permissible outlet for her sexual desire, she is apt to engage in licentiousness.

אמר רב כהנא משום רבי עקיבא אין לך עני בישראל אלא רשע ערום והמשהא בתו בוגרת אטו המשהא בתו בוגרת לאו רשע ערום הוא

Rav Kahana says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: You do not have a pauper among the Jewish people other than one who is a conniving wicked person, who seeks to conceal his true nature, and one who delays the marriage of his daughter who is a grown woman. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that one who delays the marriage of his daughter who is A GROWN WOMAN is not a conniving, wicked person? He connives to delay her marriage to ensure that she will stay at home and do the housework, sparing him the cost of domestic help, and thereby causes her to sin. (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 76a https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.76a.24?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en)

Here’s another rendering:

Now, how do Abaye and Raba utilize the verse, Do not profane thy daughter to cause her to be a whore? — R. Mani said: [According to them] this refers to one who marries his [young] daughter to an old man.³² As it has been taught: Do not profane thy daughter to cause her to be a whore; R. Eliezer said: This refers to marrying one’s [young] daughter to an old man. R. Akiba said: This refers to the delay in marrying off a daughter who is already a bogereth.³³

R. Kahana said on R. Akiba’s authority: The only poor in Israel is the subtly wicked and he who delays in marrying off his daughter, a bogereth.³⁴ But is not one who thus delays himself subtly wicked?³⁵ Abaye answered: This is its meaning: Which poor man is subtly wicked? He who delays marrying off his daughter, a bogereth.

(32) Since she cannot willingly accept him, she may be led to adultery.

(33) Having attained puberty, she may become unchaste if not married. Marriage, of course, was then at a far earlier age than now.

(34) This is explained further on.

(35) Why ‘and he who delays etc.’: the two are identical. His wickedness consists in that he keeps her unmarried, that he may profit by her labour whilst endangering her chastity. (Rabbi Dr. H. Freedman and Jacob Shachter, Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, pp. 335-336 https://halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Sanhedrin.pdf)

THE QURAN IS THE TORAH

Here’s how the Quran describes Adam’s sin in eating of the forbidden tree:

So the two of them ate of it, and their shameful parts revealed to them, and they took to stitching upon themselves leaves of the Garden. And Adam disobeyed his Lord, and so he erred. S. 20:121 Arberry

Muhammad embarrassingly thought that this was actually written down in the Torah given to Moses!

Abu Huraira reported that God’s messenger told of Adam and Moses holding a disputation in their Lord’s presence and of Adam getting the better of Moses in argument. Moses said, “You are Adam whom God created with His hand, into whom He breathed of His spirit, to whom He made the angels do obeisance, and whom He caused to dwell in his garden; then because of your sin caused mankind to come down to the earth.” Adam replied, “And you are Moses whom God chose to deliver His messages and to address, to whom He gave the tablets on which everything was explained, and whom He brought near as a confidant. How long before I was created did you find that God has written the Torah?”¹ Moses said, “Forty years.” Adam asked, “Did you find in it, ‘And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred’?”² On being told that he did, he said, “Do you then blame me for doing a deed which God had decreed that I should do forty years before He created me?” God’s messenger said, “So Adam got the better of Moses in the argument.”

Muslim transmitted it.

¹ At-Taurat, a general name for the first five books of the Old Testament.

² These words ARE IN QURAN, xx, 121.

Grade: SAHIH (Zubair `Aliza’i)

Reference: Mishkat al-Masabih 81

In-book reference: Book 1, Hadith 75 (Mishkat Al-Masabih English Translation With Explanatory Notes by Dr. James Robson, Volume I [Sh. Muhammad Ahsraf Publishers, Booksellers & Exporters, Lahore-Pakistan, Reprint 1990], p. 23 https://sunnah.com/mishkat:81)

Hence, Muhammad erroneously confused Moses’ Torah with his own Quran!

THE BIBLE IS THE QURAN

If that wasn’t embarrassing enough, Muhammad also thought that David used to recite the Quran!

(But the decision of all things is certainly with Allah.) The decision over all affairs is with Allah Alone, whatever He wills, occurs and whatever He does not will, never occurs. Certainly, he whom Allah misguides, will never find enlightenment and he whom Allah guides, will never be misled. We should state here that it is possible to call other Divine Books, `Qur’an’, since this Qur’an is based on all of them. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Hurayrah said that the Messenger of Allah said…

(Reciting was made easy for (Prophet) Dawud (David) in that he used to order that his animal be prepared for him to ride and in the meantime he would read the entire Qur’an. He used to eat only from what his hand made.) Al-Bukhari collected this Hadith. The Qur’an mentioned here is refers to the Zabur… (Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Q. 13:31 https://quran.com/ms/13:31/tafsirs/en-tafisr-ibn-kathir; https://www.alim.org/quran/tafsir/ibn-kathir/surah/13/?ayah=31; bold emphasis mine)

It is obvious that Muhammad mistook the Psalms (Arabic Zubur) for the Quran, as the following hadiths show:

Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, “The reciting of the Zabur (i.e. Psalms) was made easy for David. He used to order that his riding animals be saddled, and would finish reciting the Zabur before they were saddled. And he would never eat except from the earnings of his manual work.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 628 https://sunnah.com/bukhari:3417)

And:

XXXVII: The words of Allah Almighty, “And We gave Dawud the Zabur.” (4:163)

Zubur are books, and the singular is zabür and zabara means “to write”.

“We gave Da’ud great favour from Us, ‘O mountains and birds, echo with him in his praise!'” (Mujahid said that it is: “Glorify with him”) And We made the iron soft for him (commanding), And We made iron malleable for him. ‘Make full-length coats of mail, measuring the links with care. (Do not make the rivet too small, so that it becomes loose, nor too large so that it breaks.) And act rightly, all of you, for I see what you do.'” (34:10-11)

3235. It is related from Abu Hurayra that the Prophet said, “Recitation was made easy for Da’ud. He used to order that his animals be saddled, and he had done his recitation before they were saddled, and he only ate from the work of his own hand.” (Aisha Bewley, The Sahih Collection of al-Bukhari, Chapter 64. Book of the Prophets)

Note that David is said to have recited the Psalms, not the Quran!

Apparently, Muhammad’s egregious mistake is what led Muslim scholars to come up with the post hoc explanation that the term Quran could be applied to any of the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians.

FURTHER READING

Does Taurat Refer Only to the Revelation Given to Moses?

The following info is taken from Jay Smith’s refutation to Muhammadan Farid’s lies and misinformation regarding the dates of the early sirah and ahadith sources, which can be viewed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaUJ8Y1NNas&t=38s

Here, also, is a lengthy article on this subject: History of Sunni Hadith.

Jay Smith introduces for the first time the dates for the EXTANT MANUSCRIPTS for all of the Traditional compilers.

THE EARLIEST SUPPOSED 7TH – 8TH CENTURY SAHABA AND TABI’UN WRITERS WERE NOT FROM THOSE CENTURIES AT ALL BUT WERE WRITTEN 200 – 600 YEARS LATER:

•The Muwatta ibn Malik is not from the 7th century, but from the 9th century (thus 200 years later)

•The Sahifa Hammam B. Munabbih is not from the 7th century, but from the 12th c. (thus 500 years later)

•The Musnad ibn Hanbal is not from the 7th century, but from the 13th century (thus 600 years later)

•The Musanaf Abdul Razzaq is not from the 7th century, but from the 13th c. (thus 600 years later)

•The Musnad al-Tayalisi is not from the 7th century, but from the 13th century (thus 600 years later)

•Abi Shaybah is not from the 8th century, but from the 13th century (so, a good 600 years later)

THE EARLIEST SUPPOSED 9TH – 10TH CENTURY SIRA AND HADITH COMPILERS WERE NOT FROM THOSE CENTURIES AT ALL BUT WERE WRITTEN 400 – 1,200 YEARS LATER:

•Ibn Hisham’s Sira was not compiled by anyone in the 9th century, but was put together and published in 1860 AD by the German scholar Heinrich Ferdinand Wustenfeld, which is not only 1,000 years too late, but only around 160 years ago!

•Abu Dawud’s Hadith is not from the 9th century, but was written in the 11th century (or 200 years later)

•An-Nasai’s Hadith is not from the 9th century, but was written in the 12th century (so 300 years later)

•Ibn Majah’s Hadith is not from the 9th century either, but was written in the 13th century (thus 400 years later)

•Jami’ At-Tirmidhi’s Hadith is not from the 9th century as well, but was written in the 14th century (or 500 years later)

•Sahih Muslim’s Hadith, the 2nd most important compilation, is not from the 9th century, but was also written in the 14th century (a whopping 500 years later)

•Sahih Bukhari’s Hadith, the most important and supposedly the only “Perfect” compilation, is not from the 9th century at all, but was written in the 14th–15th centuries (which is an embarrassing 500-600 yrs later)!

AL TABARI’S TA’RIKH AND TAFSIR WERE NOT COMPOSED BY ANYONE IN THE 10TH CENTURY, BUT WERE COMPILED 600 YEARS LATER:

•The edition of Al Tabari which everyone uses today was compiled by a Dutch Arab Scholar named Michael Jan De Geoje, who while the professor of Arabic at Leiden University, Germany (between 1879 – 1901), compiled the Ta’rikh, which is now known as the ‘Leiden Edition’. De Goeje used two 13th century Arabic manuscripts

(The Istanbul, Koprului 1041 (C), written in 1244 AD, and the Istanbul, Koprului 1041 (C) from 1253 AD.

CONCLUSIONS:

1) The man whom Muslims are dependent on to know who their prophet is or what he did (the SIRA), is an elderly German linguist who wrote Muhammad’s story 160 years ago, thus over 1,000 years too late!

2) All Muslim scholars believe that the stories surrounding Muhammad’s life were written by the ‘Sahaba’ or the ‘Tabi’un’ (1st and 2nd generations from the prophet); thus by eyewitnesses. Yet, we now find out that they were all written by others over 200 – 600 years later, and simply redacted back to the 7th & 8th centuries! Thus, they are all probably fraudulent

3) All Western and Muslim scholars assume that the SIRA and HADITH compilations were just 200 – 300 years old, which is bad enough. They have yet to be told that they are really much older; between the 11th – 19th centuries, in other words between 400 – 1,200 years too old!

4) Even Al Tabari’s Ta’rikh, and his Tafsir are not 10th century originals, but are much later 13th century compilations which were merely attributed back to Al Tabari 300 years earlier. Yet, they are still 600 years too late! What’s more, it took a German scholar to compile them 1,200 years later!

This suggests that all the Traditions were written by others 100s of years later, proving that they are All REDACTED ATTRIBUTIONS!

FURTHER READING

Hafs: The Lying, Unreliable Transmitter of the Quran

THE 1924 ARABIC QURAN: AN UNINSPIRED HUMAN COMPILATION

IBN KATHIR ON THE QURAN’S CORRUPTION

THE CORRUPT QURAN’S MISSING VERSES PT. 1

THE CORRUPT QURAN’S MISSING VERSES PT. 2

THE IMPERFECTLY PRESERVED QURAN