None of the Greek Fathers cite 1 John 5:7-8

The King James Version (KJV) includes 1 John 5:7-8, also known as the "Johannine Comma," which is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This passage likely appeared later, possibly in Latin translations, and thus wasn't cited by the early Church Fathers.

Key Points to Consider About the KJV:

1. Textual History:

The KJV's inclusion of the "Johannine Comma" stems from its reliance on later Greek manuscripts, particularly those used by Erasmus in compiling the Textus Receptus.

The absence of this passage in early Greek manuscripts indicates it was a later addition, not part of the original text penned by the apostle John.

2. Theological Implications:

The doctrine of the Trinity is well-established through other biblical passages and theological reasoning. The early Church Fathers relied on texts such as John 1:1 and John 10:30 to articulate the Trinity.

The "Johannine Comma," while supporting the Trinity, is not essential for its theological basis, given the robust scriptural evidence elsewhere.

3. Translation Context:

The KJV was produced in the early 17th century, using the best available manuscripts and textual knowledge of that time. Its translators aimed for accuracy and readability, but they did not have access to many of the earlier manuscripts discovered later.

4. Modern Scholarship:

Advances in textual criticism have led to the recognition that the KJV, while historically significant and beloved, contains certain textual variations and additions not present in the earliest manuscripts.

Modern translations, which incorporate a broader and earlier range of manuscript evidence, provide a more accurate reflection of the original New Testament texts.

Conclusion:

The KJV remains a valued and influential translation, known for its majestic language and historical importance. However, it reflects the textual limitations of its time. Understanding this context helps us appreciate the KJV's contribution to biblical scholarship while recognizing the benefits of modern translations in providing a more accurate text based on the earliest and most reliable manuscripts.

As far as internal considerations, there is no reason why it would have been omitted had it been original. The comma also seems tangential to the author’s point in context (5:6–8). Contemporary text-critical scholars and commentaries of all perspectives consider it secondary to the text of 1 John (compare Brown, Epistles, Appendix IV; Metzger, Textual Commentary, 647–49; for an alternative view, see Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7–8).