Well, the “Johannine Comma” may not have been in an earlier Greek extant text but it does not mean it is not as authentic as many claim to be, including JW’s Emphatic Diaglot. The counter attestation for the inclusion in the Johannine Cooma are the following:
1. The evidence of certain Greek Texts. Although they were late and had few manuscripts, the question is where did they come from? These few copies are descended from the faithful copies of a master copy. If ascertaining text is based on the "addition", it could be well said it was an "omission" as the style of the writing of John proves the unity of the Godhead.
2. Cyprian quoted this fact. While modern scholarship is trying to disprove this, the fact remains the same. The evidence is quite clear. The updated Nestle-Aland Greek, the NA-28 has it in its footnote of Cyprian and even Primasius.
View attachment 257128
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." Paragraph 6.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html?scrBook=1John&scrCh=5&scrV=7#iv.v.i-p33.1
Obviously, Cyprian quoted scripture for he says “The Lord says” and giving importance of a written text for he said “it is written”.
3. The Internal evidence which demands Greek rendering necessitates the inclusion of the
Johannine Comma . Not familiar with Greek grammars but this one thing is viewed by Greek grammarians that it demands the presence of it. The heavenly witness corresponds to the plural Greek article. Not only that, secular leading Greek expert Georgios Babiniotis justified the need of ”JC” based on its “syntactic parallelism” or stylistic selection. In an email sent to Mr. Nick Sayers here, is what he says:
- I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically —though with another explanation— Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8.
- What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek.
- The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.
- «καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,
- τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα
- καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»
- is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.
- ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,
- ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα
- καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι
- So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical “gender agreement rule” (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender : «καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ…»), but the overruling schema of “syntactic parallelism” which is much more stronger than a simple gender agreement rule.
- Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7.