HOW MANY LANGUAGES are there in the world? If you don’t know, take a quick guess. A thousand? Two thousand? Three thousand?

By some estimates, there are over 7,000 languages. And in how many of those languages can one read the Bible? More than 700 — but that’s only about 10% of the world’s languages. The New Testament fares better, at more than 20%. And more translation work is always underway, so that more and more people around the world can read some or all of the Bible in their own native tongue. So to all you Bible readers out there: hug a translator. Never, never take for granted what a gift and privilege it is to be able to read God’s word in a language you understand.

Moreover, think of the wealth of different English versions available, to read in print or even on your phone. This is something that early translators could never have imagined. Pocket-sized devices like today’s cellphones were pure science fiction when I was a kid. And now, we have dozens and dozens of Bible translations at our fingertips, anywhere we go.

You may have one version as your go-to, and that’s fine — but I would encourage you to shake it up a bit from time to time. In other words, try reading the same passage of Scripture in different versions. Why? Because when we always read familiar passages in the same translation, we already know what to expect. But the small differences between translations can catch us by surprise and give us a new perspective on a text.

These differences exist, of course, because things get lost (and added!) in the translation from one language to another. As our study of 1 John has progressed, for example, I’ve sometimes said things like, “As Jesus said to his disciples in the Upper Room” before quoting from John’s gospel. What I haven’t always said is that (1) Jesus most likely spoke in Aramaic; (2) John probably didn’t transcribe what Jesus said word for word on the spot; (3) John wrote his gospel in Greek, not Aramaic; (4) nobody has the original copy, and there are variations between the ancient Greek manuscripts; (5) the Greek then needs to be translated into English; and (6) English itself is a dynamic, ever-evolving language.

That there are inconsistencies between English translations, then, should be no surprise. But that shouldn’t discourage us. Compared with other ancient texts, the inconsistencies are so minor compared to the consistencies that we should take this as a miracle in itself.

Some of the differences, though, are striking. Probably the most famous example of this is the ending of the gospel of Mark. In the King James Version, as well as the New King James, the final chapter runs to a full twenty verses. But modern translations end the story at verse 8, with the women fleeing in terror from the empty tomb. It’s not exactly the tidy, uplifting Hollywood-type ending we might prefer, and certainly much messier than the King James, which ends with the disciples preaching the gospel and doing miraculous signs. Why the difference? Because newer and earlier Greek manuscripts were discovered after the King James Version was written in the 17th century, and these manuscripts have been judged more reliable.

Why am I telling you all this? Because, as you might guess, another striking difference is found in 1 John 5, and you would never know it unless you read the footnotes in your study Bible, or read your favorite translation side by side with the King James. Here, for example, is how verses 7 and 8 read in the New International Version:

For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.

Short, and a bit cryptic. Now, here’s how the same passage reads in the New King James:

For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one.

The additional words are known collectively as the Johannine comma. “Johannine” is the adjective that means “of or relating to John”; the word “comma” once referred not only to a punctuation mark but an entire phrase. The Johannine comma clearly teaches an understanding of God as triune, or three-in-one: first, the Father; second, the Word (John’s title for the second person of the Trinity who became flesh in the man Jesus), and finally the Holy Spirit. Contemporary biblical scholars agree that the comma was not original to John, but inserted sometime later. How did it get there? The story is one of both mystery and intrigue.

THE KING JAMES Version was translated into English from a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus, produced by a Dutch theologian and philosopher named Erasmus, who lived from the mid-15th to the mid-16th century. Even in Erasmus’ time, there were a variety of Greek manuscripts available, and the manuscripts differed in places. He wanted to publish his own printed version of the Greek New Testament, as opposed to one transcribed by hand. Think of it as wanting to be the first to create an authoritative mass-market reference book, the one everyone would have to cite. Erasmus worked with three Greek manuscripts, with occasional reference to the Latin translation known as the Vulgate to produce a single text. Other scholars were trying to do the same thing, however, and Erasmus wanted to beat them to the punch. It was a rush job. He cut some corners, and he knew it.

But he had his scholarly scruples. While the version of the Latin Vulgate Erasmus had in his possession contained the Johannine comma, his Greek manuscripts did not. Wanting to stay true to the original language, he left the comma out of the first edition of his Greek New Testament. Those familiar with the Latin, of course, cried foul, especially considering the role the text had played in debates about the doctrine of the Trinity. But Erasmus held his ground. Confident that he was right, he boldly challenged his detractors to produce even one Greek manuscript that contained the extra words.

And of course, someone did.

Erasmus, naturally, was suspicious. Today, it’s believed that a Franciscan friar took the words of the comma from the Latin Vulgate, translated it back into Greek, and presented the altered manuscript triumphantly to Erasmus. Erasmus, unfortunately, couldn’t prove that it was a fraud, so he begrudgingly included the Johannine comma in his next edition — though not without a footnote registering his complaint.

That’s the version of the Greek New Testament from which the King James was translated into English, and the reason those words survive today.

So if the King James or the New King James is your go-to translation, my apologies: I won’t be addressing the meaning of the Johannine comma here. That said, let’s take a closer look at the passage in question.