It is usually held by critics that a number of these mss are merely copies of the Vulgate at I John 5:7, but their wording is carefully couched with subtle qualifying words (i.e., "appears to be") that reveals to the prudent reader that such is by no means certain. Thus, the list of Greek mss presently known to contain the "Comma" is not long, but it is certainly longer (and growing) than what many would have us believe.2

Though there is a paucity of support for the text in the Greek speaking East, there are some late Eastern versions that include the portion under question such as the first Armenian Bible (published 1666) which was based primarily on an Armenian mss dated 1295 and the first printed Georgian Bible, published at Moscow in 1743.³

As to the critics' contention that "the passage is not quoted by any of the Greek Fathers who would have employed it as proof in the Trinitarian controversies had they known of the section", our first reply is that no such controversy existed.⁴ During the first age of the Church, the subjects debated between the Christians and the heretics were over the divinity and the humanity of Christ. The contests maintained with and between these heretics did not extend beyond the consideration of the second Person - whether the Son possessed one subsistence or two persons instead of two subsistences and one person, etc. They did not assume the form of a Trinitarian controversy, hence no suitable occasion arose to cite the verse in question.

Secondly, the early eastern Fathers are silent on nearly everything for the simple reason that their literary works have not survived to the present.5 Relevant to this, Harry A. Sturz has made the point "... there are no earlier Antiochian Fathers than Chrysostom (died 407) whose literary remains are extensive enough so that their New Testament quotations may be analyzed as to the type of text they support".⁶ Moorman notes that there is reason to doubt that any serious search has been carried out on the eastern Fathers from Chrysostom forward or on the versions, for since Westcott and Hort a cloud has fallen on the textual scene and very little attention has been given to I John 5:7.⁷ Yet crucial to the issue at hand is whether there are any references to the passage prior to 1522, the year it was supposedly added to the Bible by Erasmus.

2 Ibid.

3 Ibid., p. 120; also see Scrivener, A Plain Introduction, op. cit., Vol II, p. 401.

4 Nolan, An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, op. cit., pp. 525-557. Dr. Nolan points out that all the heretics would have subscribed to the letter of this text as they all admitted to the existence of "three" powers, or principles, in the "one" Divinity. This included the Gnostics, Ebionites, Valentinians, Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians, etc. Moreover, the Sabellians and Arians agreed as to the existence of "three" making up the Divine Nature. The controversy between the two cults centered on the force of the term "Son" as opposed to the term "Word" or Logos. As the text uses the term "Word" instead of "Son", the term trei'" (three) in the context of the 7th verse was as unsuitable to the purpose of the Sabellians who confounded the Persons as was toV e{n (that one) to Eusebius - for the Arians divided the substance.

5 Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 121.

6 Sturz, The Byzantine Text Type And New Testament Textual Criticism, op. cit., p. 80.

7 Moorman, When The KJV Departs From The "Majority" Text, op. cit., p. 121.