Also those asserting authenticity of the Comma often
claim that heretics doctored all of the early Greek manuscripts
and removed doctrinally offensive passages. Such claims have been
made by Donald A. Waite, Thomas Strouse, Thomas Holland,
Frederick Nolan, and Robert L. Dabney.
Addition theories (verse
spurious)
Those who believe the Johannine Comma is inauthentic
view the text as either an accidental intrusion, which could be a
margin commentary note that a later scribe mistakenly considered
to be the original text,[n 5] or as a deliberate insertion or
forgery.
Hugo Grotius contended that the verse had been added
into the Johannine text by the Arians.[n 6] About the Grotius
view, Richard Simon wrote "… all this is only founded on
conjectures: and seeing every one does reason according to his
prejudices, some will have the Arians to be the authors of that
addition, and others do attribute the same to the Catholicks."[5]
Luther's pastor, John Bugenhagen, like Grotius, wrote of a
conjectured Arian origin.
Isaac Newton took a similar approach as Erasmus, looking
to Jerome as the principal figure in placing the Comma in the
Bible. [n 7] Newton also thought that the Athanasius Disputation
with Arius (Ps-Athanasius) "had been deeply influential on the
subsequent attitude to the authenticity of the passage."[6]
Newton's comment that from Matthew 28:19 "they tried at first to
derive the Trinity" implies that for the conjectured
interpolation, "the Trinity" was the motive.
Richard Simon believed the verse began in a Greek
scholium, while Herbert Marsh posited the origin as a Latin
scholium.[7] Simon conjectured that the Athanasius exposition at
Nicea was the catalyst for the Greek scholium which brought forth
the text.[n 8]
Richard Porson was a major figure in the opposition to
the authenticity of the verse. His theory of spurious origin
involved Tertullian and Cyprian, and also the interpretation by
Augustine which led to a marginal note. And, in the Porson
theory, that marginal note was in the Bible text used by the
author of the Confession of Faith at the Council of Carthage of
484 AD.[n 9] Porson also considered the Vulgate Prologue as
spurious, a forgery not written by Jerome, and this Prologue was
responsible for the entrance into the Vulgate. "… Latin
copies had this verse in the eighth century. It is then that we
suppose it to have crawled into notice on the strength of
Pseudo-Jerome's recommendation."[8]
Johann Jakob Griesbach wrote his Diatribe in Locum 1
Joann V. 7, 8 in 1806, as an Appendix to his Critical
Edition of the New Testament. In the Diatribe, Griesbach
"expresses his conviction that the seventh verse rests upon the
authority of Vigilius Tapsensis."[9]
The 1808 Improved Version, with Thomas Belsham
contributing, followed Griesbach on the idea of Tapsensis
authority, combined with enhancing the forgery intimations of
Gibbon. Thus came the theory that the verse was a forgery by
Virgilius Tapsensis. This emphasis on Tapsensis (Thapsus) was
echoed by Unitarians of the 1800s, including Theophilus Lindsey,
Abner Kneeland, and John Wilson.
John Oxlee, in his journal debate with Frederick Nolan,
accused the African Prelates Vigilius Tapensis and Fulgentius
Ruspensis of thrusting the verse into the Latin
manuscripts.[10]
William Orme, in the Monthly Review, 1825, conjectured
Augustine as the source. "it is probable that the verse
originated in the interpretation of St. Augustine. It seems to
have existed for some time on the margins of the Latin copies, in
a kind of intermediate state, as something better than a mere
dictum of Augustine, and yet not absolutely Scripture itself. By
degrees it was received into the text, where it appears in by far
the greater number of Latin manuscripts now in our hands."[11][n
10]
Scrivener allowed for the authenticity of the Cyprian
citation as a reference to the verse being in Cyprian's Bible. [n
11] To allow for this, Scrivener's theory of the source and
timing of an interpolation cannot be late, and his scenario did
not give estimated dates or any names responsible any more than
the Arian removal theory proposed by Nolan, Forster, and others.
"the disputed words…were originally brought into Latin copies
in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious
and orthodox gloss on v. 8: that from the Latin they crept into
two or three late Greek codices, and thence into the printed
Greek text, a place to which they had no rightful
claim."[12]
Joseph Barber Lightfoot, who similarly worked on the
Revision, included Origen as part of the origin. "not in the
first instance a deliberate forgery, but a comparatively innocent
gloss …. the spirit and the water and the blood—a gloss
which is given substantially by S. Augustine and was indicated
before by Origen and Cyprian, and which first thrust itself into
the text in some Latin MSS .."[13]
Brooke Foss Westcott had a theory of verse origin and
development which said of the Augustine reference in the City of
God – "Augustine supplies the word 'Verbum' which is required to
'complete the gloss'". Even in 1892, in the third edition of
The epistles of St John: the Greek text, with notes and
essays, when Westcott acknowledged the newly discovered
Liber Apologeticus Priscillian reference with
verbum, the Augustine Verbum/gloss assertion
remained in his book. And the assertion "there is no evidence
that it was found in the text of St John before the latter part
of the 5th century" also remained, alongside "The gloss which had
thus become an established interpretation of St John's words is
first quoted as part of the Epistle in a tract of Priscillian (c
385)".
Joseph Pohle, after asking "how did the text of the
three heavenly Witnesses find its way into the Vulgate? All
explanations that have been advanced so far are pure guesswork."
concludes "the Comma Ioanneum was perhaps found in
copies of the Latin Bible current in Africa as early as the third
century", and then considered Cassiodorus as responsible for
inserting the verse into the Vulgate.[n 12] Pohle, like
Scrivener, allows that the Cyprian citation may well indicate
that the verse was in his Bible. [n 13]
In the early 20th century Karl Künstle helped to
popularize a theory that Priscillian of Ávila (c. 350-385)
was the author of the Comma.[n 14] The theory held that
"Priscillian interpolated … in the first epistle of John so as
to justify in this way his unitarian theories. The text was then
retouched in order to appear orthodox, and in this shape found
its way into several Spanish documents."[14] This idea of a
Priscillian origin for the Comma had a brief scholarship flourish
and then quickly lost support in textual circles. The Priscillian
citation had been recently published in 1889 by Georg Schepps. [n
15]
Alan England Brooke, while theorizing that "the growth
of that gloss can be traced back at least as early as
Cyprian"[15] also placed the Theodulfian recension of the
Vulgate, after 800 AD, as a prime point whereby the verse first
gained traction into the Latin text-lines. "It is through the
Theodulfian Recension of the Vulgate that the gloss first gained
anything like wide acceptance".[16]
Adolf Harnack in Zur Textkritik und Christologie der
Schriften des Johannes "argues that the comma johanneum is
the post-augustinian revision of an old addition to the
text".[17]
Raymond Brown expresses a theory of verse development in
which the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian (the sections that
proponents consider Comma allusions) represented the "thought
process" involved, that gave rise to the Comma. The words of the
Comma "appear among Latin writers in North Africa and Spain in
the third century as a dogmatic reflection on and expansion of
the 'three that testify': 'the Spirit' is the Father [Jn 4:24];
'the blood' is the Son; 'the water' is the Spirit (Jn
7:38-39)."[18]
Walter Thiele allows for a Greek origin of the Comma,
before Cyprian. Raymond Brown summarizes: "Thiele,
Beobachtungen 64-68, argues that the I John additions
may have a Greek basis, for sometimes a plausible early chain can
be constructed thus: Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, Augustine,
Pseudo-Augustine, Spanish Vulgate (especially Isidore of Seville
and Theodolfus)."[19]
Church historian Jaroslav Pelikan expresses the common
scholarly view that the words (apparently) crept into the Latin
text of the New Testament during the Early Middle Ages,
"[possibly] as one of those medieval glosses but were then
written into the text itself by a careless copyist. Erasmus
omitted them from his first edition; but when a storm of protest
arose because the omission seemed to threaten the doctrine of the
Trinity, he put them back in the third and later editions, whence
they also came into the Textus Receptus, 'the received
text'."[20][n 16]
Most New Testament scholars today believe that the Comma
was inserted into the Old Latin text based on a gloss to that
text, with the original gloss dating to the 3rd or 4th century,
as expressed with some qualifications by Bruce Metzger.[21] The
summary of Daniel Wallace is short, beginning in the 300s AD with
an unspecified homily: "The reading seems to have arisen in a
fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to
refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into
copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic
Church."[22][n 17]
Forgery
Most opponents of the Comma as inauthentic view the
verse as having arisen by a sequence of events involving scribal
difficulties and error. Often this is a staged understanding,
beginning with an interpretation placed as a margin commentary.
The margin note is later erroneously brought into the text by a
scribe who mistakenly thought the margin note indicated a
superior alternate reading or correction. Those types of proposed
scenarios are based on the limitations inherent in laborious
hand-copying and do not have to impugn motives.
By contrast, the accusations of deliberate textual
tampering and forgery for doctrinal purposes are based on scribes
making deliberate changes away from the original text. A number
of writers have theories of direct forgery as the motive for the
insertion of the Comma into the text. Some of these theories were
developed after the 1883 Priscillian discovery [n 15] and
fingered Priscillian as the culprit.
Voltaire wrote that the verse was inserted at the time
of Constantine. "Lactantius … It was about this time that,
among the very violent disputes on the Trinity, this famous verse
was inserted in the First Epistle of St. John: "There are three
that bear witness in earth—the word or spirit, the water,
and the blood; and these three are one.".[n 18]
The accusation against the verse by Edward Gibbon in
1781, while stating "the Scriptures themselves were profaned by
their rash and sacrilegious hands" stops short of a direct
accusation of forgery by also discussing marginal notes and
allegorical interpretation. In response to Gibbon, George Travis
noted the lack of forgery accusations before the Reformation-era
debate. [n 19]
In 1813, Unitarian Thomas Belsham accused the verse of
being an "impious forgery…spurious and fictitious".[n 20] In
Calm Inquiry in 1817, Belsham had the verse as a
"palpable forgery"[23] and his student, Unitarian minister Israel
Worsley, for more emphasis wrote of "a gross and a palpable
forgery".[24][n 21]
For the next decades, the forgery accusation was
generally made outside the context of textual analysis, usually
by Unitarians and freethinkers, such as Robert Taylor.[25] author
of the Manifesto of the Christian Evidence Society. Everard
Bierer took this approach "This bold interpolation shows
conclusively what Trinitarian fanaticism in the Dark Ages would
do, and leaves us to imagine what renderings it probably gave to
many other texts, and especially somewhat obscure ones on the
same subject."[26]
In 1888, Philip Schaff, church historian who worked on
the American committee of the Revision, brought the accusation to
the mainstream, "Erasmus .. omitted in his Greek Testament the
forgery of the three witnesses".[27]
Charles Taze Russell in 1899 made his accusation
specific and the forgery late: "the spurious words were no doubt
interpolated by some over-zealous monk, who felt sure of the
(Trinity) doctrine himself, and thought that the holy spirit had
blundered in not stating the matter in the Scriptures: his
intention, no doubt, was to help God and the truth out of a
difficulty by perpetrating a fraud."[28]
Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare was a textual scholar who
wrote in 1910 a section specifically about "famous orthodox
corruptions", including "The text of the three witnesses
a doctrinal forgery".[29]
Preserved Smith in 1920 called the verse "a Latin
forgery of the fourth century, possibly due to
Priscillian".[30]
Gordon Campbell, author of Bible: The Story of the
King James Version 1611-2011 asserts that the Comma is "a
medieval forgery inserted into Bibles to support a trinitarian
doctrine that had been erected on a disconcertingly thin biblical
base.".[31]
The popularity of the modern "orthodox corruption" view
of Bart Ehrman has increased the forgery claims, especially on
the Internet. Ehrman calls the Comma "the most obvious instance
of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript
tradition of the New Testament. Nonetheless, in my judgment, the
comma's appearance in the tradition can scarcely be dated prior
to the trinitarian controversies that arose after the period
under examination."[32] Ehrman posits his other
corruptions as around the 2nd century, so Ehrman is
considering the Comma as exceptional and placing the "appearance"
of the Comma in the 300s or 400s, close to Priscillian's verse
usage and citation as from John.
Doctrinal issues, Trinitarianism,
Unitarianism, Arianism.
Theories of both authenticity and
spuriousness often interweave doctrinal and Christology concerns
as part of their analysis of 'Origins', how the verse developed
and was either dropped or added to Bible lines.
John Guyse gave a summary in the Practical Expositor
that was a type of model for many of the later doctrinal
expositions by those defending authenticity from a Trinitarian
perspective.
"the Trinitarians therefore had less occasion
to interpolate this verse, than the Antitrinitarians had
to take it out of the sacred canon, if any, on either side, can
be supposed to be so very wicked as to make such an
attempt ; and it is much more likely that (Guyse describes
homoeoteleuton or other omission) than that any should be so
daring as designedly to add it to the text". [n 22]
Often those who oppose authenticity take the position
that the Comma was included in the Textus Receptus (TR) compiled
by Erasmus of Rotterdam because of its doctrinal importance in
supporting Trinitarianism. The passage is often viewed as an
explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
with notable exceptions.[n 23]
The issue of whether Trinitarian doctrine is supported
by, and dependent on, the heavenly witnesses is an ongoing
dispute. Theophilus Lindsay, a Unitarian who opposed the
authenticity of the verse, wrote:
"passage of scripture … the only one which can be
brought for any shew or semblance of proof of a Trinity in Unity,
of three persons being one God, is 1 John v. 7."[33]
And some defenders of authenticity place doctrinal
Christology issues as only auxiliary or secondary, considering
the primary issue to be the integrity of scripture. Nathaniel
Ellsworth Cornwall wrote:
The genuineness of I. John, v. 7, then, is here
maintained, not to secure a proof-text of the doctrine of the
Trinity, but to preserve the integrity of Holy Scripture. As a
proof-text it would be less important than many others if it were
wholly unquestioned. But as a part of Holy Scripture it is to be
defended with all diligence … it is rather the integrity of
Holy Scripture than the doctrine of the Trinity that is involved
in the question of the genuineness of I. John, v. 7
…[34]
Evidences.
Absence in early authors
The following early church writers are those whose utter
silence on the Comma has been given special note by opponents of
authenticity; Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Treatise on
Rebaptism, Jerome, Augustine, Leo, also Origen, Cyprian and
Athanasius.
Greek and Latin silences
There are many Greek and Latin writers, also Syriac, who
can be referenced as not showing awareness of the Comma. Adam
Clarke, in his 1823 work Observations on the Three Heavenly
Witnesses, compiled a Greek and Latin list of those he
considered to be silent on the verse. The writers require
individual examination, and the significance of the verse
evidence from silence by church writers varies. In
Principles of Textual Criticism, 1848,
pp. 503–507 John Scott Porter wrote similarly, with
information about the specific writings of the omitters. [n
24]
Clement of Alexandria
The comma is absent from an extant fragment of Clement
of Alexandria (c. 200), through Cassiodorus (6th century), with
homily style verse references from 1 John, including verse 1 John
5:6 and 1 John 5:8 without verse 7, the heavenly
witnesses.
"He says, "This is He who came by water and blood;" and
again,- For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, which
is life, and the water, which is regeneration and faith, and the
blood, which is knowledge; "and these three are one. For in the
Saviour are those saving virtues, and life itself exists in His
own Son."[35][n 25]
Another reference that is studied is from Clement's
Prophetic Extracts:
"Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses,
before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom,
as witnesses and helpers, what are called the commandments ought
to be kept."[36]
is seen by some[37] as allusion evidence that Clement
was familiar with the verse.
Tertullian
Tertullian, in Against Praxeas (c. 210),
supports a Trinitarian view by quoting John 10:30:
So the close series of the Father in the Son and the Son
in the Paraclete makes three who cohere, the one attached to the
other: And these three are one substance, not one person, (qui
tres unum sunt, non unus) in the sense in which it was said, 'I
and the Father are one' in respect of unity of substance, not of
singularity of number.[38]
Tertullian's use of tres unum sunt has been
seen by many commentators as supporting authenticity, a textual
connection to 1 John 5:7. "It appears to me very clear that
Tertullian is quoting I. John v. 7. in the passage now under
consideration."[39] While many other commentators have argued
against any Comma evidence here, most emphatically John
Kaye's, "far from containing an allusion to 1 Jo. v. 7, it
furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the
verse".[40] Proponents of authenticity emphasize the
corroborative nature of examining the evidences of the time as
one unit, including the Cyprian quotes and the Old Latin mss.
"… the testimony of these early fathers must stand and fall
together; as St. Cyprian obviously follows his master
Tertullian."[41] Daniel McCarthy, also referencing the views of
Wetstein and Nicholas Wiseman, offers an exegesis that the three
heavenly witnesses are implied by context.[42] Georg Strecker
comments cautiously "An initial echo of the Comma
Johanneum occurs as early as Tertullian Adv. Pax. 25.1 (CChr
2.1195; written ca. 215). In his commentary on John 16:14 he
writes that the Father, Son, and Paraclete are one
(unum), but not one person (unus). However,
this passage cannot be regarded as a certain attestation of the
Comma Johanneum."[43]
References from Tertullian in De Pudicitia
21:16 (On Modesty):
"The Church, in the peculiar and the most excellent
sense, is the Holy Ghost, in which the Three are One, and
therefore the whole union of those who agree in this belief (viz.
that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one), is
named the Church, after its founder and sanctifier (the Holy
Ghost)."[44]
and De Baptismo:
Now if every word of God is to be established by three
witnesses… For where there are the three, namely the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit, there is the Church which is a body
of the three.[45]
have also been presented as verse
allusions.[46]
Treatise on Rebaptism
The Treatise on Rebaptism, placed as a 3rd-century
writing and transmitted with Cyprian's works, has two sections
that directly refer to the earthly witnesses, and thus has been
used against authenticity by Nathaniel Lardner, Alfred Plummer
and others. However, because of the context being water baptism
and the precise wording being "et itsi tres unum sunt", the
Matthew Henry Commentary uses this as evidence for Cyprian
speaking of the heavenly witnesses in Unity of the Church. And
Arthur Cleveland Coxe and Nathaniel Cornwall consider the
evidence as suggestively positive. Westcott and Hort also are
positive. After approaching the Tertullian and Cyprian references
negatively, "morally certain that they would have quoted these
words had they known them" Westcott writes about the Rebaptism
Treatise:
the evidence of Cent. III is not exclusively negative,
for the treatise on Rebaptism contemporary with Cyp. quotes the
whole passage simply thus (15: cf. 19), 'quia tres testimonium
perhibent, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et isti tres unum
sunt.'[47]
Jerome
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 asserts that Jerome
"does not seem to know the text".[48] This is based on the theory
that the Vulgate Prologue is not from Jerome. Proponents of
authenticity also contend that Jerome would be aware of the
writings of Marcus Celedensis and Phoebadius of Agen.
Marcus Celedensis
Coming down to us with the writings of Jerome we have
the statement of faith attributed to Marcus Celedensis, friend
and correspondent to Jerome, presented to Cyrillus:
To us there is one Father, and his only Son [who is]
very [or true] God, and one Holy Spirit, [who is] very God, and
these three are one ; — one divinity, and power, and
kingdom. And they are three persons, not two nor one.[49][n
26]
Phoebadius of Agen
Similarly, Jerome wrote of Phoebadius of Agen in his
Lives of Illustrious Men. "Phoebadius, bishop of Agen,
in Gaul, published a book Against the Arians. There are said to
be other works by him, which I have not yet read. He is still
living, infirm with age."[50] William Hales looks at Phoebadius:
"Phoebadius, A. D. 359, in his controversy with the Arians, Cap,
xiv. writes,"
The Lord says, I will ask of my Father, and He will give
you another advocate." (John xiv. 16) Thus, the Spirit is another
from the Son as the Son is another from the Father ; so, the
third person is in the Spirit, as the second, is in the Son. All,
however, are one God, because the three are one, (tres unum
sunt.)
"Here, 1 John v. 7, is evidently connected, as a
scriptural argument, with John xiv. 16."[51]Griesbach argued that
Phoebadius was only making an allusion to Tertullian[52] and his
unusual explanation was commented on by Reithmayer.[53][n
27]
Augustine
Augustine of Hippo has been said to be completely silent
on the matter, which has been taken as evidence that the comma
did not exist as part of the epistle's text in his time.[54] This
argumentum ex silentio has been contested by other
scholars, including Fickermann and Metzger.[n 28] In addition,
some Augustine references have been seen as verse allusions. [n
29]
The City of God section, from Book V, Chapter
11:
Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy
Spirit (which three are one), one God
omnipotent…[55]
has often been referenced as based upon the scripture
verse of the heavenly witnesses.[56] George Strecker acknowledges
the City of God reference: "Except for a brief remark in De
civitate Dei (5.11; CChr 47.141), where he says of Father,
Word, and Spirit that the three are one. Augustine († 430)
does not cite the Comma Johanneum. But it is certain on
the basis of the work Contra Maximum 2.22.3 (PL
42.794-95) that he interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 in trinitarian
terms."[43]Similarly, Homily 10 on the first Epistle of John has
been asserted as an allusion to the verse:
And what meaneth "Christ is the end"? Because Christ is
God, and "the end of the commandment is charity." and "Charity is
God:" because Father and Son and Holy Ghost are One.[57][n
30]
Contra Maximinum has received attention especially for
these two sections, especially the allegorical
interpretation.
I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle
of John the apostle where he saith, "There are three witnesses:
the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one."
Lest haply thou say that the Spirit and the water and the blood
are diverse substances, and yet it is said, "the three are one:"
for this cause I have admonished thee, that thou mistake not the
matter. For these are mystical expressions, in which the point
always to be considered is, not what the actual things are, but
what they denote as signs: since they are signs of things, and
what they are in their essence is one thing, what they are in
their signification another. If then we understand the things
signified, we do find these things to be of one
substance…
But if we will inquire into the things signified by
these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity
itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son
and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, "There are
Three Witnesses, and the Three are One:" there has been an
ongoing dialog about context and sense. Contra Maximinum
(2.22.3; PL 42.794-95)
John Scott Porter writes "Augustine, in his book against
Maximin the Arian, turns every stone to find arguments from the
Scriptures to prove that tho Spirit is God, and that the Three
Persons are the same in substance, but does not adduce this text;
nay, clearly shows that he knew nothing of it, for he repeatedly
employs the 8th verse, and says, that by the Spirit, the Blood,
and the Water—the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, arc signified (see Contr. Maxim, cap.
xxii.)"[58]
Thomas Joseph Lamy offers a different view based on the
context and Augustine's purpose.[59] Similarly Thomas
Burgess.[60] And Norbert Fickermann's reference and scholarship
supports the idea that Augustine may have deliberately bypassed a
direct quote of the heavenly witnesses.
Leo
In an epistle to Flavianus that was read at the Council
of Chalcedon, Oct. 10, 451 AD,[61] and published in Greek, the
usage of 1 John 5 by Leo the Great (Pope Leo) has Leo moving in
discourse from verse six to verse eight:
"… This is the victory which overcometh the
world, even our faith"; and: "Who is he that overcometh the
world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This
is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by
water only, but by water and blood; and it is the Spirit that
beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three
that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the
three are one." That is, the Spirit of sanctification, and the
blood of redemption, and the water of baptism; which three things
are one, and remain undivided …[62]
This epistle from Leo was considered by Richard Porson
to be the "strongest proof" of verse inauthenticity "… the
strongest proof that this verse is spurious may be drawn from the
Epistle of Leo the Great to Flavianus upon the Incarnation."[63]
and went along with Porson's assertion that the verse was slow to
enter into the Latin lines. Porson asserted that the verse
"remained a rude, unformed mass, and was not completely licked
into shape till the end of the tenth century."[64] In response,
Thomas Burgess points out that the context of Leo's argument
would not call for the 7th verse. And that the verse was
referenced in a fully formed manner centuries earlier than
Porson's claim, at the time of Fulgentius and the Council of
Carthage.[65] And Burgess pointed out that there were multiple
confirmations that the verse was in the Latin Bibles of Leo's
day. Burgess argued, ironically, that the fact that Leo could
move from verse 6 to 8 for argument context is, in the bigger
picture, favorable to authenticity. "Leo's omission of the Verse
is not only counterbalanced by its actual existence in
contemporary copies, but the passage of his Letter is, in some
material respects, favourable to the authenticity of the Verse,
by its contradiction to some assertions confidently urged against
the Verse by its opponents, and essential to their theory against
it."[66] Today, with the discovery of additional Old Latin
evidences in the 1800s, the discourse of Leo is rarely referenced
as a significant evidence against verse authenticity.
Early Church Writer evidences
Cyprian of Carthage
Unity of the Church
The 3rd-century Church father Cyprian (c. 200-258), in
writing on the Unity of the Church, Treatise I section 6
quoted John 10:30 and another scriptural spot:
"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.'"[67]
The Catholic Encyclopedia concludes "Cyprian…seems
undoubtedly to have had it in mind…".[48] Against this view,
Daniel B. Wallace writes that since Cyprian does not quote
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit "this in the
least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording".[n 31]
And the fact that Cyprian did not quote the "exact wording …
indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on
the text by Cyprian".[68] In his position against Cyprian knowing
of the Comma, Wallace is in agreement with the earlier critical
edition of the New Testament (NA26 and UBS3) which considered
Cyprian a witness against the Comma. [n 32]
The Cyprian citation, dating to more than a century
before any extant Epistle of John manuscripts and before the
Arian controversies that are often considered pivotal in verse
addition/omission debate, remains a central focus of Comma
research and textual apologetics. The Scrivener view is often
discussed.[n 11] Westcott and Hort assert: "Tert and Cyp use
language which renders it morally certain that they would have
quoted these words had they known them; Cyp going so far as to
assume a reference to the Trinity in the conclusion of v.
8"[69][n 33]
In the 20th century, Lutheran scholar Francis Pieper
wrote in Christian Dogmatics emphasizing the antiquity
and significance of the reference.[n 34] Frequently commentators
have seen Cyprian as having the verse in his Latin Bible, even if
not directly supporting and commenting on verse authenticity. [n
35] And some writers have seen the denial of the verse in the
Bible of Cyprian as worthy of special note and humor. [n
36]
Ad Jubaianum (Epistle 73)
The second, lesser reference from Cyprian that has been
involved in the verse debate is from Ad Jubaianum 23.12. Cyprian
while discussing baptism writes:
If he obtained the remission of sins, he was sanctified,
and if he was sanctified, he was made the temple of God. But of
what God? I ask. The Creator?, Impossible; he did not believe in
him. Christ? But he could not be made Christ's temple, for he
denied the deity of Christ. The Holy Spirit? Since the Three are
One, what pleasure could the Holy Spirit take in the enemy of the
Father and the Son?[n 37]
Knittel emphasizes that Cyprian would be familiar with
the Bible in Greek as well as Latin. "Cyprian understood Greek.
He read Homer, Plato, Hermes Trismegiatus and Hippocrates… he
translated into Latin the Greek epistle written to him by
Firmilianus…".[70] UBS-4 has its entry for text inclusion as
(Cyprian).
Ps-Cyprian
The Hundredfold Reward for Martyrs and Ascetics: De
centesima, sexagesimal tricesima[71] speaks of the Father,
Son and Holy Spirit as "three witnesses" and was passed down with
the Cyprian corpus. This was only first published in 1914 and
thus does not show up in the historical debate. UBS-4 includes
this in the apparatus as (Ps-Cyprian). [n 38]
Origen and Athanasius
Those who see Cyprian as negative evidence assert that
other church writers, such as Athanasius of Alexandria and
Origen,[n 39] never quoted or referred to the passage, which they
would have done if the verse was in the Bibles of that era. The
contrasting position is that there are in fact such references,
and that "evidences from silence" arguments, looking at the
extant early church writer material, should not be given much
weight as reflecting absence in the manuscripts—with the
exception of verse-by-verse homilies, which were uncommon in the
Ante-Nicene era.
Origen Scholium on Psalm 123:2
In the scholium on Psalm 123 attributed to Origen is the
commentary:
"spirit and body are servants to masters,
Father and Son, and the soul is handmaid to a mistress,
the Holy Ghost;
and the Lord our God is the three (persons),
for the three are one".
This has been considered by many commentators, including
the translation source Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall, as an
allusion to verse 7.[72] Ellsworth especially noted the Richard
Porson comment in response to the evidence of the Psalm
commentary: "The critical chemistry which could extract the
doctrine of the Trinity from this place must have been
exquisitely refining".[73] Fabricius wrote about the Origen
wording "ad locum 1 Joh v. 7 alludi ab origene non est
dubitandum".[74]
Disputation of Athanasius with Arius at the Council of
Nicea, Ps-Athanasius
Traditionally, Athanasius was considered to lend support
to the authenticity of the verse, one reason being the
Disputation with Arius at the Council of Nicea which
circulated with the works of Athanasius, where is
found:
"Likewise is not the remission of sins procured by that
quickening and sanctifying ablution, without which no man shall
see the kingdom of heaven, an ablution given to the faithful in
the thrice-blessed name. And besides all these, John says, And
the three are one."[75]
Today, many scholars consider this a later work
Pseudo-Athanasius, perhaps by Maximus the Confessor.
Charles Forster in New Plea argues for the writing as
stylistically Athanasius. [n 40] While the author and date are
debated, this is a Greek reference directly related to the
doctrinal Trinitarian-Arian controversies, and one that purports
to be an account of Nicea when those doctrinal battles were
raging. The reference was given in UBS-3 as supporting verse
inclusion, yet was removed from UBS-4 for reasons
unknown.
The Synopsis of Scripture, often ascribed to
Athanasius, has also been referenced as indicating awareness of
the Comma.
Priscillian and the Expositio Fidei
Priscillian of Avila
The earliest quotation which some scholars consider a
direct reference to the heavenly witnesses from the First Epistle
of John is from the Spaniard Priscillian c. 380.
"As John says 'and there are three which give testimony
on earth, the water, the flesh the blood,
and these three are in one,
and there are three which give testimony in
heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Spirit,
and these three are one in Christ Jesus.'"[n
41]
Theodor Zahn calls this "the earliest quotation of the
passage which is certain and which can be definitely dated (circa
380)",[76] a view expressed by Westcott, Brooke, Metzger and
others. [n 42]
And Georg Strecker adds context: "The oldest undoubted
instance is in Priscillian Liber apologeticus I.4 (CSEL
18.6). Priscillian was probably a Sabellianist or Modalist, whose
principal interest would have in the closing statement about the
heavenly witnesses ("and these three, the Father, the Word, the
Holy Spirit, are one"). Here he found his theological opinions
confirmed: that the three persons of the Trinity are only modes
or manners of appearance of the one God. This observation caused
some interpreters to suppose that Priscillian himself created the
Comma Johanneum. However, there are signs of the
Comma Johanneum, although no certain attestations, even
before Priscillian…".[43] In the early 1900s the Karl
Künstle theory of Priscillian origination and interpolation
was popular: "The verse is an interpolation, first quoted and
perhaps introduced by Priscillian (a.d. 380) as a pious fraud to
convince doubters of the doctrine of the Trinity."[77]
Expositio Fidei
Another complementary early reference is an exposition
of faith published in 1883 by Carl Paul Caspari from the
Ambrosian manuscript, which also contains the Muratorian (canon)
fragment.
pater est Ingenitus, filius uero sine Initio genitus a
patre est, spiritus autem sanctus processit a patre et accipit de
filio, Sicut euangelista testatur quia scriptum est, 'Tres sunt
qui dicunt testimonium in caelo pater uerbum et spiritus: ' et
haec tria unum sunt in Christo lesu. Non tamen dixit ' Unus est
in Christo lesu.'
Edgar Simmons Buchanan,[78] points out that the reading
"in Christo Iesu" is textually valuable, referencing 1 John
5:7.
The authorship is uncertain, however it is often placed
around the same period as Priscillian. Karl Künstle saw the
writing as anti-Priscillianist, which would have competing
doctrinal positions utilizing the verse. Alan England Brooke[79]
notes the similarities of the Expositio with the Priscillian
form, and the Priscillian form with the Leon Palimpsest. Theodor
Zahn[80] refers to the Expositio as "possibly contemporaneous" to
Priscilian, "apparently taken from the proselyte Isaac (alias
Ambrosiaster)".
John Chapman looked closely at these materials and the
section in Liber Apologeticus around the Priscillian
faith statement "Pater Deus, Filius, Deus, et Spiritus sanctus
Deus ; haec unum sunt in Christo Iesu". Chapman saw an
indication that Priscillian found himself bound to defend the
Comma by citing from the "Unity of the Church" Cyprian
section. [n 43]
Council of Carthage, 484 AD
"The Comma ….was invoked at Carthage in 484 when the
Catholic (anti-Arian) bishops of North Africa confessed their
faith before Huneric the Vandal (Victor de Vita, Historia
persecutionis Africanae Prov 2.82 [3.11]; CSEL, 7, 60)"[81]
The Confession of faith representing the hundreds of orthodox
Bishops[82] included the following section, emphasizing the
heavenly witnesses to teach luce clarius (clearer than
the light):
And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear
that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will,
he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to
bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the
judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he
distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot
exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but
power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the
Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son
still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the
testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: There are three
who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy
Spirit, and these three are one.' Surely he does not say 'three
separated by a difference in quality' or 'divided by grades which
differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?'
No, he says that the 'three are one.' But so that the single
divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son
might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things,
you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as a creator: 'It is
the divine Spirit …[83][n 44]
Books on the Trinity and Contra Varimadum
There are additional heavenly witnesses references that
are considered to be from the same period as the Council of
Carthage, including references that have been attributed to
Vigilius Tapsensis who attended the Council. Raymond Brown gives
one summary:
…in the century following Priscillian, the chief
appearance of the Comma is in tractates defending the Trinity. In
PL 62 227-334 there is a work De Trinitate consisting of
twelve books… In Books 1 and 10 (PL 62, 243D, 246B, 297B) the
Comma is cited three times. Another work on the Trinity
consisting of three books Contra Varimadum … North
African origin ca. 450 seems probable. The Comma is cited in 1.5
(CC 90, 20-21).[84]
One of the references in De Trinitate, from
Book V.
"But the Holy Ghost abides in the Father, and in the Son
[Filio] and in himself; as the Evangelist St. John so absolutely
testifies in his Epistle : And the three are one. But how,
ye heretics, are the three ONE, if their substance he divided or
cut asunder? Or how are they one, if they be placed one before
another? Or how are the three one. if the Divinity be different
in each? How are they one, if there reside not in them the united
eternal plenitude of the Godhead?[85]
These references are in the UBS apparatus as
Ps-Vigilius.The Contra Varimadum reference:
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.[n
45]
This is in the UBS apparatus as Varimadum.Ebrard, in
referencing this quote, comments, "We see that he had before him
the passage in his New Testament in its corrupt form (aqua,
sanguis et caro, et tres in nobis sunt) ; but also, that the
gloss was already in the text, and not merely in a single
copy, but that it was so widely diffused and acknowledged in
the West as to be appealed to by him bona fide in his contest
with his Arian opponents."[86]
Fulgentius of Ruspe
In the 6th century, Fulgentius of Ruspe, like Cyprian a
father of the North African Church, skilled in Greek as well as
his native Latin, used the verse in the doctrinal battles of the
day.
Contra Arianos
From Responsio contra Arianos "Reply against
the Arians" Migne (Ad 10; CC 91A, 797).
In the Father, therefore, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, we acknowledge unity of substance, but dare not confound
the persons. For St. John the apostle, testifieth saying,
There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.
Then Fulgentius discusses the earlier reference by
Cyprian, and the interweaving of the two Johannine verses, John
10:30 and 1 John 5:7.
Which also the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle
de unitate Ecclesiae (Unity of the Church), confesseth,
saying, Who so breaketh the peace of Christ, and concord, acteth
against Christ: whoso gathereth elsewhere beside the Church,
scattereth. And that he might shew, that the Church of the one
God is one, he inserted these testimonies, immediately from the
scriptures; The Lord said, I and the Father are one..
And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written,
and these three are one[87]
Contra Fabianum
Another heavenly witnesses reference from Fulgentius is
in Contra Fabianum Fragmenta Migne (Frag. 21.4: CC
01A,797)
The blessed Apostle, St. John evidently
says ;
And the three are one ;
which was said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit,
as I have before shewn, when you demanded of me
for a reason.'[88]
De Trinitate ad Felicem
Also from Fulgentius in De Trinitate ad
Felicem:
See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the
Son another, and the Holy Spirit another, in Person, each is
other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard He says:
"The Father and I, we are one." He teaches us that one refers to
Their nature, and we are to Their persons. In like manner it is
said: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one." [n
46]
Today these references are generally accepted as
probative to the verse being in the Bible of Fulgentius. [n
47]
Adversus Pintam Episcopum Arianum
A reference in De Fide Catholica adversus Pintam
episcopum Arianum that is a Testimonia de
Trinitate:
in epistola Johannis, tres sunt in coelo, qui
testimonium reddunt,
Pater , Verbum, et Spiritus: et hi tres unum
sunt[89]
has been assigned away from Fulgentius to a "Catholic
controvertist of the same age".[90]
Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles
Many Vulgate manuscripts, including the Codex Fuldensis,
the earliest extant Vulgate manuscript, contain the Prologue
to the Canonical Epistles. The Prologue reads as a
first-person account from Jerome written to Eustochium, to whom
Jerome dedicated his commentary on the prophets Isaiah and
Ezekiel. The internal evidence of the authorship is contested,
with claims since the 1600s, after the heavenly witnesses verse
debate began, that a forger pretended to be Jerome.
This translation is by Thomas Caldwell of Marquette
University, as explained on the blog of Kent Brandenburg. Also
available online is the Codex Fuldensis Latin.
Prologue to the Canonical Epistles
The order of the seven Epistles which are called
canonical is not the same among the Greeks who follow the correct
faith and the one found in the Latin codices, where Peter, being
the first among the apostles, also has his two epistles first.
But just as we have corrected the evangelists into their proper
order, so with God"s help have we done with these. The first is
one of James, then two of Peter, three of John and one of
Jude.
Just as these are properly understood and so translated
faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity
for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict,
especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is
placed in the first letter of John, where 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 in
which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity
of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is
attested.
In the other epistles to what extent our edition varies
from others I leave to the prudence of the reader. But you,
virgin of Christ, Eustocium, when you ask me urgently about the
truth of scripture you expose my old age to being gnawed at by
the teeth of envious ones who accuse me of being a falsifier and
corruptor of the scriptures. But in such work I neither fear the
envy of my critics nor deny the truth of scripture to those who
seek it.
This Prologue, its historical accuracy and textual
significance, has been a major point in the Comma debate since
its start at the times of Erasmus. [n 48] And its authenticity
and authorship became an issue in the late 1600s, when a new
theory came forth that the Prologue was spurious. This theory
claimed that the Prologue was not created until hundreds of years
after Jerome, by an unknown writer pretending to be Jerome "the
preface has been commonly rejected by critics, and looked upon as
an impudent forgery of the ninth century."[91][n 49] Westcott is
among those who have contended that the actual purpose of the
theorized forgery was specifically to bring the verse into the
Latin Vulgate text line; it "seems to have been written with this
express purpose".[92] And Raymond Brown implies verse acceptance
as the motive for the Vulgate Prologue: "Jerome's authority was
such that this statement, spuriously attributed to him, helped to
win acceptance for the Comma.".[93] Metzger makes no reference of
the Prologue, even while referencing the absence of the verse in
the Johannine epistle of Fuldensis in order to assert that
Jerome's original edition did not have the verse. "The passage
… is not found …in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome (codex
Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before
a.d. 716])".[94]
Major figures in the early dialogue from about 1650-1725
were John Selden, Christopher Sandius, John Fell, Richard Simon,
Isaac Newton, Jean Leclerc, Jean Martianay and Augustin Calmet.
The discovery in the Bible scholarship community in the latter
1800s that the Prologue was in the well-respected Codex
Fuldensis[95] (while the Codex lacked the Comma in the text, an
unusual discordance) contradicted many earlier forgery chronology
scenarios. [n 50]
Summaries of Latin evidences 400-550 AD
Raymond Brown and Georg Strecker are two modern scholars
available in English who reference the series of evidences above,
at least briefly, and who point out that the verse references
were frequently in Christological and Trinitarian controversies.
Strecker writes:
Thus, although there is no clear attestation of the
Comma Johanneum in the time before Priscillian, after
him the addition is cited more frequently, most often in order to
adduce a proof for the Trinity contrary to Priscillian"s own
ideas. As examples one may cite the twelve books De
Trinitate and three books Contra Varimadum. Their
authors and time of composition are unknown, but a date in the
fifth century is probable. In addition one should mention the
Historia persecutionis by Victor, the bishop of Vita in
North Africa (ca. 485), as well as the Responsio contra
Arianos by Fulgentius (10; CChr 91.93); and finally a
prologue to the Catholic Letters from the period
550.[43]
By contrast, these verse expositions and commentary are
bypassed in two frequently quoted scholarly sources, Bruce
Metzger and the NETBible.
Cassiodorus
Cassiodorus wrote Bible commentaries, and was familiar
with Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts,[n 12] seeking out sacred
manuscripts. Cassiodorus was also skilled in Greek. In
Complexiones in Epistolis Apostolorum, first published
in 1721 by Scipio Maffei, in the commentary section on 1 John,
from the Cassiodorus corpus, is written:
On earth three mysteries bear witness,
the water, the blood, and the spirit,
which were fulfilled, we read, in the passion of the
Lord.
In heaven, are the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit,
and these three are one God. [n 51]
Thomas Joseph Lamy describes the Cassiodorus section [n
52] and references that Tischendorf saw this as Cassiodorus
having the text in his Bible. However, earlier "Porson
endeavoured to show that Cassiodorius had, in his copy, no more
than the 8th verse, to which he added the gloss of Eucherius,
with whose writings he was acquainted."[96] Westcott in Notes on
Selected Readings, 1882 p. 105 says that Cassiodorus
paraphrased the verse. However, in The Epistles of St.
John, 1886, p. 204 Westcott writes "…the language of
Cassiodorus (c. 550) seems to me to show that he did not find the
gloss in his text of St John, though he accepted it as a true
interpretation of the apostle's words.", following Porson and
Turton (as indicated in the 1883 edition).[n 53]
Isidore of Seville
In the early 7th century, the Testimonia Divinae
Scripturae et Patrum is often attributed to Isidore of
Seville:
De Distinctions personarum, Patris et Filii et
Spiritus Sancti.
In Epistola Joannis. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium
dant in terra Spiritus, aqua, et sanguis; et tres unum sunt in
Christo Jesu; et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in coelo,
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt.[97]
Arthur-Marie Le Hir asserts that evidences like Isidore
and the Ambrose Ansbert Commentary on Revelation show early
circulation of the Vulgate with the verse and thus also should be
considered in the issues of Jerome's original Vulgate text and
the authenticity of the Vulgate Prologue.[98] Cassiodorus has
also been indicated as reflecting the Vulgate text, rather than
simply the Vetus Latina. [n 54]
Ambrose Ansbert, Commentary on Revelation
Ansbert refers to the scripture verse in his Revelation
commentary:
Although the expression of faithful witness found
therein, refers directly to Jesus Christ alone, — yet it
equally characterises the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;
according to these words of St. John. There are three which bear
record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and
these three are one.[99]
"Ambrose Ansbert, in the middle of the eighth century,
wrote a comment upon the Apocalypse, in which this verse is
applied, in explaining the 5th verse of the first chapter of the
Revelation".[100]
Middle Ages evidences
Fourth Lateran Council
In the Middle Ages a Trinitarian doctrinal debate arose
around the position of Joachim of Florence (1135-1202) which was
different from the more traditional view of Peter Lombard (c.
1100-1160). When the 4th Lateran Council was held in 1215 at
Rome, with hundreds of Bishops attending, the understanding of
the heavenly witnesses was a primary point in siding with
Lombard, against the writing of Joachim.
For, he says, Christ's faithful are not one in the sense
of a single reality which is common to all. They are one only in
this sense, that they form one church through the unity of the
catholic faith, and finally one kingdom through a union of
indissoluble charity. Thus we read in the canonical letter of
John : For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the
Father and the Word and the holy Spirit, and these three are one;
and he immediately adds, And the three that bear witness on earth
are the spirit, water and blood, and the three are one, according
to some manuscripts.[101]
The Council thus printed the verse in both Latin and
Greek, and this may have contributed to later scholarship
references in Greek to the verse. The reference to "some
manuscripts" showed an acknowledgment of textual issues, yet this
likely related to "and the three are one" in verse eight, not the
heavenly witnesses in verse seven.[102] The manuscript issue for
the final phrase in verse eight and the commentary by Thomas
Aquinas were an influence upon the text and note of the
Complutensian Polyglot.
Latin commentaries
In this period, the greater portion of Bible commentary
was written in Latin. The references in this era are extensive
and wide-ranging. Some of the better-known writers who utilized
the Comma as scripture, in addition to Peter Lombard and Joachim
of Fiore, include Gerbert of Aurillac (Pope Sylvester), Peter
Abelard, Bernard of Clairvaux, Duns Scotus, Roger of Wendover
(historian, including the Lateran Council), Thomas Aquinas (many
verse uses, including one which has Origen relating to "the three
that give witness in heaven"), William of Ockham (of razor fame),
Nicholas of Lyra and the commentary of the Glossa
Ordinaria.
Greek commentaries
Emanual Calecas in the 14th and Joseph Bryennius (c.
1350-1430) in the 15th century reference the Comma in their Greek
writings.
The Orthodox accepted the Comma as Johannine scripture
notwithstanding its absence in the Greek manuscripts line. The
Orthodox Confession of Faith, published in Greek in 1643 by the
multilingual scholar Peter Mogila specifically references the
Comma. "Accordingly the Evangelist teacheth (1 John v. 7.) There
are three that bear Record in Heaven, the Father, the Word, and
the Holy Ghost and these three are one …"[103]
Armenia – Synod of Sis
The Epistle of Gregory, the Bishop of Sis, to Haitho c.
1270 utilized 1 John 5:7 in the context of the use of water in
the mass. The Synod of Sis of 1307 expressly cited the verse, and
deepened the relationship with Rome.
Commentators generally see the Armenian text from the
1200s on as having been modified by the interaction with the
Latin church and Bible, including the addition of the Comma in
some mss.
Manuscripts and special notations
There are a number of special manuscript notations and
entries relating to 1 John 5:7. Vulgate scholar Samuel Berger
reports on MS 13174 in the Bibliothèque nationale in Paris
that shows the scribe listing four distinct textual variations of
the heavenly witnesses. Three are understood by the scribe to
have textual lineages of Athanasius, Augustine and
Fulgentius.[104] The Franciscan Correctorium gives a note about
there being manuscripts with the verses transposed.[105] The
Regensburg ms. referenced by Fickermann discusses the positions
of Jerome and Augustine. The Glossa Ordinaria discusses the
Vulgate Prologue in the Preface, in addition to its commentary
section on the verse. John J. Contrini in Haimo of Auxerre,
Abbot of Sasceium (Cessy-les-Bois), and a New Sermon on I John v.
4-10 discusses a 9th-century manuscript and the Leiden
sermon.
Erasmus and the Textus
Receptus
The central figure in the 16th-century history of the
Comma Johanneum is the humanist Erasmus,[106] and his efforts
leading to the publication of the Greek New Testament. The Comma
was omitted in the first edition in 1516, the Novum Instrumentum
omne : diligenter ab Erasmo Roterodamo recognitum &
emendatum and the second edition of 1519. The verse is placed in
the third edition, published in 1522, and those of 1527 and
1535.
Ratio Seu Methodus and
Paraphrase
Erasmus included the Comma, with commentary, in his
paraphrase edition, first published in 1520.[n 55] And in "Ratio
seu Methodus compendio perveniendi ad veram theologiam", first
published in 1518, Erasmus included the Comma in the
interpretation of John 12 and 13. Erasmian scholar John Jack
Bateman, discussing the Paraphrase and the Ratio
verae theologiae, says of these uses of the Comma that
"Erasmus attributes some authority to it despite any doubts he
had about its transmission in the Greek text."[107]
This photograph shows Greek text of 1 John 5:3-10[n 56]
which is missing the Comma Johanneum. This text was published in
1524.
Controversies
The New Testament of Erasmus provoked critical responses
that focused on a number of verses, including his text and
translation decisions on Romans 9:5, John 1:1, 1 Timothy 1:17,
Titus 2:13 and Philippians 2:6. The absence of the Comma from the
first two editions received a sharp response from churchmen and
scholars, and was discussed and defended by Erasmus in the
correspondence with Edward Lee and Lopez de Zúñiga
(Stunica), and Erasmus is also known to have referenced the verse
in correspondence with Antoine Brugnard in 1518. [n 57] The first
two Erasmus editions only had a small note about the verse. The
major Erasmus writing regarding Comma issues was in the
Annotationes to the third edition of 1522, expanded in
the fourth edition of 1527 and then given a small addition in the
fifth edition of 1535.
The 'Erasmus Promise'
Erasmus is said to have replied to his critics that the
Comma did not occur in any of the Greek manuscripts he could
find, but that he would add it to future editions if it appeared
in a single Greek manuscript.[108] Such a manuscript was
subsequently produced, some say concocted, by a Franciscan, and
Erasmus, true to his word, added the Comma to his 1522 edition,
but with a lengthy footnote setting out his suspicion that the
manuscript had been prepared expressly to confute him. This
Erasmus change was accepted into the Received Text editions, the
chief source for the King James Version, thereby fixing the Comma
firmly in the English-language scriptures for
centuries.[108]
Although the story of Erasmus' promise has been accepted
as fact by scholars, repeated by even so eminent an authority as
Bruce M. Metzger, Metzger later, on pg 291 (n2) of the (new) 3rd
edition of The Text of the New Testament, writes: "What is said
on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma
Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it,
and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to
force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the
research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who
finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made
assertion.[109] In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8,
Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the
Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), a
recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a
promise in 1980, stating that Metzger's view on Erasmus' promise
"has no foundation in Erasmus' work. Consequently it is highly
improbable that he included the difficult passage because he
considered himself bound by any such promise." In a letter of
June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:
Dear Mr. Maynard,
Leiden, 13 June 1995
I have checked again Erasmus' words quoted by Erika
Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus'
Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes in his Liber
tertius quo respondet … Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records
that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John
because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus
replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many
copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle.
He cannot accept, therefore, Lee's reproach of negligence and
impiety.
'Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult
manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at
least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a
Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let
him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can
he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.'
From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not
challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is
that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he
demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which
the Comma johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a
MS. containing the Comma johanneum. He denies Lee the right to
call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that
Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.
In short, Rummel's interpretation is simply wrong. The
passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she
cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage
becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in
speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other
passage on the subject.[110]
The 'Textus Receptus'
The term Textus Receptus commonly refers to one
of Erasmus's later editions or one of the works derived from
them. The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, a Protestant
reference published in 1914, offers a quote on the TR from Ezra
Abbot (1819–1884), who worked with Philip Schaff on the
American Revision committee translating from the Westcott-Hort
text:
The textus receptus, slavishly followed, with
slight diversities, in hundreds of editions, and substantially
represented in all the principal modern Protestant translations
prior to the nineteenth century, thus resolves itself essentially
into that of the last edition of Erasmus, framed from a few
modern and inferior manuscripts and the Complutensian Polyglot,
in the infancy of Biblical criticism. In more than twenty places
its reading is supported by the authority of no known Greek
manuscript.[111]
From a position of defending the Textus Receptus, Edward
Freer Hills would consider this quote from Ezra Abbot as the "The
Naturalistic, Critical View of the Textus Receptus" and
summarized his overall understanding:
We believe that the formation of the Textus Receptus was
guided by the special providence of God. There were
three ways in which the editors of the Textus Receptus
Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevirs, were providentially
guided. In the first place, they were guided by the
manuscripts which God in His providence had made available to
them. In the second place, they were guided by the
providential circumstances in which they found themselves. Then
in the third place, and most of all, they were guided by
the common faith.[112]
History of modern study
Verse debate, 1500 to
today[edit]
Comma in Codex Ottobonianus (629
Gregory-Aland)
He Kaine Diatheke 1859, with Griesbach's text of the
New Testament. The English note is from the 1859 editor,
with reasons for omitting the Comma Johanneum.
"…the authenticity of this passage has been
controverted, from the beginning of the 16th century, down to the
present day … no passage in the Bible has ever occasioned a
dispute so violent and so general in the Church. Catholics,
Lutherans, Calvinists, Socinians, in short all Religious Sects
whatever, who appeal to the New Testament as authority, have
taken part in the contest."[113]
The history of the Comma in the centuries following the
development of the Textus Receptus in the 1500s has been one of
initial general acceptance as scripture, to a period of spirited
debate, and then to the general modern scholarship rejection,
with continued studies and limited exceptions.
3 stages, up to early 1800s (Charles Butler
analysis)[edit]
In 1807 Charles Butler[114] described the dispute to
that point as consisting of three distinct phases.
Phase 1, Erasmus and the Reformation era[edit]
The 1st phase began with the disputes and correspondence
involving Erasmus with Edward Lee followed by Jacobus Stunica.
And about the 16th-century controversies, Thomas Burgess
summarized "In the sixteenth century its chief opponents were
Socinus, Blandrata, and the Fratres Poloni; its defenders, Ley,
Beza, Bellarmine, and Sixtus Senensis."[115] In the 17th century
John Selden in Latin and Francis Cheynell and Henry Hammond were
English writers with studies on the verse, Johann Gerhard and
Abraham Calovius from the German Lutherans, writing in
Latin.
Phase 2, Authenticity attacked and defended, Richard Simon
into the 1700s, Newton, Mill and Bengel[edit]
The 2nd dispute stage begins with Sandius, the Arian
around 1670. Francis Turretin published De Tribus Testibus
Coelestibus in 1674 and the verse was a central focus of the
writings of Symon Patrick. In 1689 the attack on authenticity by
Richard Simon was published in English, in his Critical
History of the Text of the New Testament. Many responded
directly to the views of Simon, including Thomas Smith,[116]
Friedrich Kettner,[n 58]James Benigne Bossuet,[117] Johann Majus,
Thomas Ittigius, Abraham Taylor[118] and the published sermons of
Edmund Calamy. There was the famous verse defenses by John Mill
and later by Johann Bengel. Also in this era was the David Martin
and Thomas Emlyn debate. There were attacks on authenticity by
Richard Bentley and Samuel Clarke and William Whiston and defense
of authenticity by John Guyse in the Practical Expositor. There
were writings by numerous additional scholars, including
publication in London of Isaac Newton's Two Letters in
1754, which he had written to John Locke in 1690. The mariner's
compass poem of Bengel was given in a slightly modified form by
John Wesley. [n 59]
Phase 3, Travis and Porson debate, 1800s
scholarship[edit]
Travis and Porson Debate[edit]
The third stage of the controversy begins with
the quote from Edward Gibbon in 1776 :
"Even the Scriptures themselves were profaned by their
rash and sacrilegious hands. The memorable text, which asserts
the unity of the three who bear witness in heaven, is condemned
by the universal silence of the orthodox fathers, ancient
versions, and authentic manuscripts. It was first alleged by the
Catholic bishops whom Hunneric summoned to the conference of
Carthage. An allegorical interpretation, in the form, perhaps, of
a marginal note, invaded the text of the Latin Bibles, which were
renewed and corrected in a dark period of ten centuries."[n
60]
Followed by the response of George Travis that led to
the Porson-Travis debate. In the 1794 3rd edition of Letters
to Edward Gibbon, George Travis included a 42-part appendix
with source references. Another event coincided with the
inauguration of this stage of the debate: "a great stirring in
sacred science was certainly going on. Griesbach's first edition
of the New Testament (1775-7) marks the commencement of a new
era."[119] The Griesbach GNT provided an alternative to the
Received Text editions to assist as scholarship textual
legitimacy for opponents of the verse.
Early 1800s scholarship[edit]
Butler also mentions Michaelis and Herbert Marsh, along
with Adam Clarke, leading up to the time of his publication.
Griesbach included his Diatribe[120] with his Greek New
Testament which omitted the verse. Frederick Nolan, John Oxlee,
William Hales, Thomas Burgess,[n 61] Thomas Turton, William
Brownlee and John Jones were among the major contributors in the
third stage in the early 1800s. Also Franz Anton Knittel
was translated into English by William Evanson and William Aldis
Wright wrote a forty page Appendix that was added to his
translation of Biblical Hermeneutics by Georg Friedrich
Seiler. The principal language of the debate switched from the
earlier Latin preponderance, to more English, and some
German.
Modern phases[edit]
The next period, from approximately 1835 to 1990, was
comparatively quiet, yet still vibrant.
1800s after major debate decades[edit]
Some highlights from this era are the Nicholas Wiseman
Old Latin and Speculum scholarship, the defense of the verse by
the Germans Sander, Besser and Mayer, the Charles Forster New
Plea book which revisited Richard Porson's arguments, and
the earlier work by his friend Arthur-Marie Le Hir,[121]
Discoveries included the Priscillian reference and Exposito
Fidei. Also Old Latin manuscripts including La Cava, and the
moving up of the date of the Vulgate Prologue due to its being
found in Codex Fuldensis. Ezra Abbot wrote on 1 John V.7 and
Luther's German Bible and Scrivener's analysis came forth in Six
Lectures and Plain Introduction. In the 1881 Revision came the
full removal of the verse.[n 62] Daniel McCarthy noted the change
in position among the textual scholars,[n 63] and in French there
was the sharp Roman Catholic debate in the 1880s involving Pierre
Rambouillet, Auguste-François Maunoury, Jean Michel Alfred
Vacant, Elie Philippe and Paulin Martin.[122] In Germany Wilhelm
Kölling defended authenticity, and in Ireland Charles
Vincent Dolman wrote about the Revision and the Comma in the
Dulbin Review, noting that "the heavenly witnesses have
departed".[123]
20th century[edit]
The 20th century saw the scholarship of Alan England
Brooke and Joseph Pohle, the RCC controversy following the 1897
Papal declaration as to whether the verse could be challenged by
Catholic scholars, the Karl Künstle Priscillian-origin
theory, the detailed scholarship of Augustus Bludau in many
papers, the Eduard Riggenbach book, and the Franz Pieper and
Edward Hills defenses. There were specialty papers by Anton
Baumstark (Syriac reference), Norbert Fickermann (Augustine),
Claude Jenkins (Bede), Mateo del Alamo, Teófilo Ayuso
Marazuela, Franz Posset (Luther) and Rykle Borger (Peshitta).
Verse dismissals, such as that given by Bruce Metzger, became
popular.[n 64] There was the fine technical scholarship of
Raymond Brown. And the continuing publication and studies of the
Erasmus correspondence, writings and Annotations, some with
English translation. From Germany came Walter Thiele's Old Latin
studies and sympathy for the Comma being in the Bible of Cyprian,
and the research by Henk de Jonge on Erasmus and the Received
Text and the Comma.
Recent scholarship to the 21st century[edit]
The last 20 years have seen a popular revival of
interest in the historic verse controversies and the textual
debate. Factors include the growth of interest in the Received
Text and the Authorized Version (including the King James Version
Only movement) and the questioning of Critical Text theories, the
1995 book by Michael Maynard documenting the historical debate on
1 John 5:7, and the internet ability to spur research and
discussion with participatory interaction. In this period, King
James Bible defenders and opponents wrote a number of papers on
the Johannine Comma, usually published in evangelical literature
and on the internet. In textual criticism scholarship circles,
the book by Klaus Wachtel Der byzantinische Text der
katholischen Briefe: Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der Koine
des Neuen Testaments, 1995 contains a section with detailed
studies on the Comma. Similarly, Der einzig wahre
Bibeltext?, published in 2006 by K. Martin Heide. Special
interest has been given to the studies of the Codex Vaticanus
umlauts by Philip Barton Payne and Paul Canart, senior
paleographer at the Vatican Library. [n 65] The Erasmus studies
have continued, including research on the Valladolid inquiry by
Peter G. Bietenholz and Lu Ann Homza. Jan Krans has written on
conjectural emendation and other textual topics, looking closely
at the Received Text work of Erasmus and Beza. And some elements
of the recent scholarship commentary have been especially
dismissive and negative.[n 66]
Isaac Newton[edit]
Isaac Newton (1643–1727), best known today for his
many contributions to mathematics and physics, also wrote
extensively on Biblical matters. In a 1690 treatise entitled
An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of
Scripture, he summed up the history of the comma and his own
belief that it was introduced, intentionally or by accident, into
a Latin text during the 4th or 5th century, a time when he
believed the Church to be rife with corruption:[124]
In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy
about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long
enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never
once thought of. It is now in everybody"s mouth and accounted the
main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too
with them, had it been in their books.[125][n 67]
Arguments against authenticity from 1808
"improved version"[edit]
In the 1808 New Testament in an improved version,
upon the basis of Archbishop Newcome's new translation,
which did not contain the Comma Johanneum, the editors
explained their reasons for rejecting the Textus Receptus for the
verse as follows: "1. This text concerning the heavenly witnesses
is not contained in any Greek manuscript which was written
earlier than the fifteenth century. 2. Nor in any Latin
manuscript earlier than the ninth century.[n 68] 3. It is not
found in any of the ancient versions. 4. It is not cited by any
of the Greek ecclesiastical writers, though to prove the doctrine
of the Trinity they have cited the words both before and after
this text 5. It is not cited by any of the early Latin fathers,
even when the subjects upon which they treat would naturally have
led them to appeal to its authority. 6. It is first cited by
Virgilius Tapsensis, a Latin writer of no credit, in the latter
end of the fifth century, and by him it is suspected to have been
forged. [n 69] 7. It has been omitted as spurious in many
editions of the New Testament since the Reformation:—in the
two first of Erasmus, in those of Aldus, Colinaus, Zwinglius, and
lately of Griesbach. 8. It was omitted by Luther in his German
version. [n 70] In the old English Bibles of Henry VIII, Edward
VI, and Elizabeth, it was printed in small types, or included in
brackets: but between the years 1566 and 1580 it began to be
printed as it now stands; by whose authority, is not
known."[126]
Textual analysis
summarized[edit]
The Comma is not in the two oldest pure Vulgate
manuscripts, Fuldensis and Amiatinus, although it is referenced
in the Prologue of Fuldensis. Overall, it is estimated that over
95% of the thousands of Vulgate MSS. contain the verse. The
Vulgate was developed from Vetus Latina manuscripts, updated by
Jerome utilizing the Greek fountainhead.
The earliest extant Latin manuscripts (m q l) supporting
the Comma are dated from the 5th to 7th century. The Freisinger
fragment[n 71] and the Codex Legionensis (7th century), besides
the younger Codex Speculum, New Testament quotations extant in an
8th- or 9th-century manuscript.[48]
The Comma does not appear in the older Greek
manuscripts. Nestle-Aland is aware of eight Greek manuscripts
that contain the comma.[127] The date of the addition is late,
probably dating to the time of Erasmus.[128] In one manuscript,
back-translated into Greek from the Vulgate, the phrase "and
these three are one" is not present.[108]
No Syriac manuscripts include the Comma, and its
presence in some printed Syriac Bibles is due to back-translation
from the Latin Vulgate. Coptic manuscripts and those from
Ethiopian churches also do not include the verse, although these
churches similarly have accepted the Comma into their modern
print editions. UBS-4 indicates arm-mss in support of the verse,
and also arm-mss against, indicating that some but not all
Armenian manuscripts include the Comma.
Roman Catholic Church[edit]
The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in
1546 defined the Biblical canon as "the entire books with all
their parts, as these have been wont to be read in the Catholic
Church and are contained in the old Latin Vulgate." "On the
Catholic side, the Comma appeared in both the Sixtine (1590) and
the Clementine (1592) editions of the Vulgate, the latter of
which became the official Bible of the Roman Catholic
Church."[93] Although the revised Vulgate contained the Comma,
the earliest known copies did not, leaving the status of the
Comma Johanneum unclear.[48] On 13 January 1897, during a period
of reaction in the Church, the Holy Office decreed that Catholic
theologians could not "with safety" deny or call into doubt the
Comma's authenticity. Pope Leo XIII approved this decision two
days later, though his approval was not in forma
specifica[48]—that is, Leo XIII did not invest his
full papal authority in the matter, leaving the decree with the
ordinary authority possessed by the Holy Office. Three decades
later, on 2 June 1927, Pope Pius XI decreed that the Comma
Johanneum was open to dispute. [n 72]
Defenders of authenticity[edit]
King James Only[edit]
In more recent years, the Comma has become relevant to
the King-James-Only Movement, a largely Protestant development
most prevalent within the fundamentalist and Independent Baptist
branch of the Baptist churches. Many proponents view the Comma as
an important Trinitarian text.[129] The defense of the verse by
Edward Freer Hills in 1956 as part of his defense of the Textus
Receptus The King James Version Defended The Johannine
Comma (1 John 5:7) was unusual due to Hills' textual criticism
scholarship credentials.
Received text and preservation[edit]
In addition, defenders of the verse as Johannine
scripture include many who highly regard the writers coming out
of the Puritan movement and the Reformation era, such as Francis
Turretin, Matthew Henry and John Gill. These men had defended the
verse as scripture in their Latin, Greek Received Text, English
and vernacular Bibles. William Alleyn Evanson, writing the
Preface to Knittel's New Criticisms p.xxx-xxxiii
expresses the stance that preservation should not be sacrificed
on even one verse. Thomas Turton (as Clemens Anglicanus) wrote
Remarks upon Mr. Evanson's preface and William Orme
summarizes his counter-arguments to Evanson Memoir of the
controversy, pp. 178-180.
Commentary and
interpretation[edit]
There have been a wide variety of verse interpretations.
This is true for those who accept as authentic as well as for
those who offer commentary on the Johannine writings, the Epistle
of 1 John, or the singular chapter five, with the Comma
absent.
For those accepting the verse, one major issue is
whether the unity is one of essence or testimony. Sometimes the
commentaries include textual and internal analysis, often not.
These quote extracts are the parts that emphasize exegesis and
interpretation.
John Calvin[edit]
"There are three than bear record in
heaven"
… And the meaning would be, that God, in order to
confirm most abundantly our faith in Christ, testifies in three
ways that we ought to acquiesce in him. For as our faith
acknowledges three persons in the one divine essence, so it is
called in so really ways to Christ that it may rest on
him.
When he says, These three are one, he refers
not to essence, but on the contrary to consent; as though he had
said that the Father and his eternal Word and Spirit harmoniously
testify the same thing respecting Christ. Hence some copies have
e?? ??, "for one." But though you read ?? e?s??, as in other
copies, yet there is no doubt but that the Father, the Word and
the Spirit are said to be one, in the same sense in which
afterwards the blood and the water and the Spirit are said to
agree in one.[130]
Manuscript evidence[edit]
Sangallensis 63, Comma at the bottom
Both Novum Testamentum Graece (NA27) and the
United Bible Societies (UBS4) provide three variants. The numbers
here follow UBS4, which rates its preference for the first
variant as { A }, meaning "virtually certain" to reflect the
original text. The second variant is a longer Greek version found
in only four manuscripts, the margins of three others and in some
minority variant readings of lectionaries. All of the hundreds of
other Greek manuscripts that contain 1 John support the first
variant. The third variant is found only in Latin, in one class
of Vulgate manuscripts and three patristic works. The other two
Vulgate traditions omit the Comma, as do more than a dozen major
Church Fathers who quote the verses. The Latin variant is
considered a trinitarian gloss,[131] explaining or paralleled by
the second Greek variant.
No Comma. µa?t?????te?, t? p?e?µa
?a? t? ?d?? ?a? t? a?µa. [… witnessing, the spirit and
the water and the blood.] Select evidence: Codex Sinaiticus,
Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and other codices;
Uncial 048, 049, 056, 0142; the text of Minuscules 33, 81,
88, 104, and other minuscules; the Byzantine majority text;
the majority of Lectionaries, in particular the menologion of
Lectionary 598; the Vulgate (John Wordsworth and Henry Julian
White edition and the Stuttgart), Syriac, Coptic (both
Sahidic and Bohairic), and other translations; Clement of
Alexandria (died 215), Origen (died 254), and other
quotations in the Church Fathers.The Comma in Greek. All non-lectionary
evidence cited: Minuscules Codex Montfortianus (Minuscule 61
Gregory-Aland, c. 1520), 629 (Codex Ottobonianus, 14th/15th
century), 918 (16th century), 2318 (18th century).The Comma at the margins of Greek at the
margins of minuscules 88 (Codex Regis, 11th century with
margins added at the 16th century), 221 (10th century with
margins added at the 15th/16th century), 429 (14th century
with margins added at the 16th century), 636 (16th century);
some minority variant readings in lectionaries.The Comma in Latin. testimonium
dicunt [or dant] in terra, spiritus
[or: spiritus et] aqua et sanguis, et hi tres
unum sunt in Christo Iesu. 8 et tres sunt, qui
testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater verbum et spiritus.
[… giving evidence on earth, spirit, water and blood, and
these three are one in Christ Jesus. 8 And the three, which
give evidence in heaven, are father word and spirit.] All
evidence from Fathers cited: Clementine edition of Vulgate
translation; Pseudo-Augustine's Speculum Peccatoris
(V), also (these three with some variation) Cyprian,
Ps-Cyprian, & Priscillian (died 385) Liber
Apologeticus. And Contra-Varimadum, and Ps-Vigilius,
Fulgentius of Ruspe (died 527) Responsio contra
Arianos, Cassiodorus Complexiones in Ioannis Epist.
ad Parthos.
 Página anterior | Volver al principio del trabajo | Página siguiente  |