Gregory of Nazianzen and the Grammar of the Johannine Comma

Gregory Nazianzen (aka Gregory of Nazianzus) (329-390), in his Fifth Theological Oration (Oration 31), section XIX, is sometimes quoted in the battle over the Johannine Comma, because he provides one of the more notable citations of 1 John 5:7-8.  As Gregory was a Greek speaker, one presumes he did not have access to the Latin interpolation, known as the Johannine Comma, but only to the original Greek of the epistle.

Recently, certain folks have tried to argue that there is some kind of glaring grammatical error in the text of 1 John, one that would be obvious to any Greek speaker, and consequently one that would call out for correction.  The Latin interpolation is then brought forward as the possible correction to this supposed error in God's Word.

Gregory provides useful insight as someone who was fluent in Greek and who was specifically interested in Greek grammatical rules.  It is worthwhile, therefore, to consider his comments: not as being an infallible interpreter, but rather as being someone who commented on the grammatical issue before the grammar of the text was ever used to try to justify the Latin interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses. 

First, a word about the translation.  I found this interesting observation from Stephen Reynolds, who provided his own translation (link).  Reynolds writes:

The standard English translation of Gregory’s Five Theological Orations has been the one produced by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow for the Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, volume 7 (1893). I have used this translation in the past, but with mounting misgivings. So, for this course, I went back to the Greek text and began to revise Browne and Swallow’s version. It turned out to be a major undertaking. Browne and Swallow produced a truly awful translation – it is so literal as to be incomprehensible as English, and at many others points it is not only inaccurate but downright wrong. In my revision, I have used The Five Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, ed. Arthur James Mason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899); and besides the Greek text there established, it will be clear that I have been heavily indebted to Mason’s notes on the text.

For those who would like to check the Greek, Mason's Greek is this (link):

I am not here to focus on the claims of Reynolds, as such, but rather to highlight the value of updating translations of works that were previously translated in the Schaff series (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers).

First, the Browne and Swallow translation (from the CCEL):

XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

Stephen Reynolds' translation:

§ 19. “But to my mind,” our opponent says, “those things are said to be numbered together and of the same essence when they are reciprocally designated by the same name – for example, ‘three humans’ or ‘three gods’. But this does not apply to a group of three composed of different things.” What does this retort amount to? It befits someone laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. I also will concede that Peter, Paul, and John are not three and are not “of the same being [homoousioi],” insofar as I cannot say “three Peters,” or “three Pauls,” or “three Johns”. counting them under one designation [i.e. “master”] despite the vast difference between them, I should probably be even more ridiculous in your eyes for my method of numbering things together.

What does John say? In his Catholic Epistles he says: There are three that bear witness: the Spirit and the water and the blood. For what you have reserved for names which are common to a general class of things, we claim – in conformity with your analytical figment – for proper names as well; otherwise, you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you arrogate for yourself.  Do you think he is talking nonsense? – Talking nonsense, first, because he has been so bold as to assign a single numeral to things which are not “of the same being [homoousia],” though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are “of the same being”. For who would assert that these three “witnesses” have the same essence? Talking nonsense, secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he happened upon his terms. For after using three in the masculine gender [τρεις – treis], he adds three words which are neuter [τα τρια – ta tria], contrary to the rules and regulations which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine-gender three first, and then adding one and one and one in the neuter gender, or after a masculine-gender one and one and one to use the three not in the masculine but in the neuter gender? Is this not what you yourself reject in the case of the divinity?

What have you to say about the word καρκινος [karkinos], which can mean an animal, an instrument, and a constellation? And what about the word “dog”? – now something which runs on the ground, now something which swims in the sea, now something which sits in the heavens? Do you not see that three crabs or three dogs are being spoken of? – “Why, certainly.” – Well then, are they therefore of the same essence [homoousia]? – “Only a fool would say that.” – So you see how completely your argument – that only things of the same essence [homoousia] can be counted together – has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things of same essence are not always designated by the same numeral, and things not of the same essence can be designated by the same numeral, and if the nouns in both cases are stated with the numerals – what remains of your teachings?

There is also a Williams & Wickham translation:

But, someone may say, what I am talking about is things of the same substance being counted together that have nouns, which are mentioned as well, to match them. For example: Three men, three gods—not three odds and ends.

What answer are we to make? This is the behavior of a man who lays down the law for words, not one who uses them to speak the truth. What I am talking about is Peter, Paul, and John’s not being three or consubstantial, so long as three Pauls, three Peters, and as many Johns cannot be spoken of. We shall demand that you apply to more specific nouns the new-fangled rule you have kept to in the case of the more generic ones. Or will you break the rule by not conceding whatever rights you have assumed? Why does John in the Catholic Epistles say that there are “three who bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood?” Is he not talking nonsense in your opinion? First, because he has been rash enough to count together things that are not consubstantial—and that right you only allow to things that are consubstantial. Who could call these “of one substance”? Secondly, because he happens to have got his grammar wrong. He puts the Greek word for “three” in the masculine and then tacks on three words in the neuter, in defiance of your definitive rules of grammar. Yet what is the difference between putting “three” in the masculine and tacking on single things in the neuter, and using “one” thrice in the masculine without calling them “three” in the masculine but instead “three” in the neuter? This is the very proposition you reject in the case of the Godhead!

What do we make of the fact that the same Greek word can mean the animal a crab, a pair of tongs, or the sign of the zodiac, Cancer? What about the word that can denote a dog, a dog-fish, or the dog-star in the sky? Do you not agree that people talk about “three crabs” or “three dogs”? Of course you do. Does that mean that they are of the same substance? What man in his senses would assert that? You see how your argument about counting things together has collapsed under the weight of so many proofs to the contrary. If consubstantial things are not always counted together and nonconsubstantial things are counted together, and if in both cases nouns are used along with the numerals, what is left of your doctrinaire pronouncement?

Gregory's explanation is significant in three respects.

First, Gregory is not aware of any interpretation of "Spirit, water, and blood" as being Father (who is spirit), Spirit (who hovered over the water), and Son (who shed his blood on the cross).  If He did hold to such an interpretation, he would certainly not deny that Spirit, water, and blood are consubstantial.  In context, Gregory is arguing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, but his opponent is arguing that they are not.

Second, Gregory is aware of the difference in gender between "three" and the nouns that follow, and of the fact that this violates the gender agreement rule, but he does not think this means that the next needs to be corrected.  

Third, Gregory discards the supposed "consubstantiality rule" as a being a legitimate grammatical rule.  This is, of course, less relevant to the argument of the advocates of the Latin interpolation. 

I suppose we could add that if Gregory were aware of the so-called TR reading of 1 John 5:7-8, it would be so helpful to his argument on this point, that it seems impossible that he would not cite it.  It would satisfy his objector's so-called rule, and it would support his view that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

So, Gregory's citation is a powerful testimony that the Greek of 1 John 5:7-8 as it is found in the Greek manuscripts today was also the Greek of 1 John 5:7-8 in the 4th century.  This conclusion is further supported by the fourth century manuscripts of 1 John that we have. 

Assyrian Church of the East and the Canon

In 2006 (apparently), "The Rev’d C H Klutz, B.A., B.Th., M.Th." and "The Rev’d George Toma, B.A., M.A., D.Min," released a "Catechism," which their forward describes in these words: "We had laid before us a work which would involve many long hours and serious thought. It is the teaching (dogma) embraced within The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East. These are the Orthodox, Sacred Traditions and teachings."

The catechism offers the following definition of "Holy Scriptures":

4) What is that which you call “Holy Scriptures”?

The Holy Scriptures is a collection of books written under the inspiration of the Spirit of God, through men who were sanctified by God, these men are known as Prophets and Apostles. These books of Sacred Scriptures are collected, canonized, and are entitled “The Holy Bible.” It is written: “. . . all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”(II Timothy 3:16)

I bring this up in case someone might question what canon they have in mind, such as suggesting that they are merely reproducing a Jewish canon.

When it comes to discussing the Old Testament, they write:

7) We number how many books for the Old Testament?

According to the earliest records of The Church, we have a system of numbering which may confuse the faithful; however let us state that there are a total of 46 books of the Old Testament. The early Church Fathers number a total of 22 Old Testament books, having arrived at that particular, number agreeing with the Jerusalem Jewish community, who had so reckoned them with the ancient original “Hebrew” tongue.

8) Why do we need to assent to the Jewish Jerusalem reckoning of these books?

We refer you to the writings of St Paul the Treasurer of the Church, where he states in the Epistle to the Roman Church, “. . . much every way: chiefly, because that, unto them was committed the oracles of God.” (3:2), which is by interpretation, meaning simply, that The Holy Writings of the Old Testament had been received from the Hebrew Church (in Jerusalem) by the Christian Church of the New Testament of Jerusalem.

Notice that this reasoning is similar to our view.  The church is not authorized to add to the Old Testament: we just receive what was handed down.  They then go on to provide the 

9) How do the Church Fathers of the early Church enumerate The Books of the Old Testament?

 1. The Book of Genesis;

 2. The Book of Exodus;

3. The Book of Leviticus;

4. The Book of Numbers;

5. The Book of Deuteronomy;

6. The Book of Joshua, son of Nun;

7. The Book of Judges, and with it as an appendix

 The Book of Ruth;

8. The I & II Books of Kings, as two parts of one

9. The III and IV Books of Kings;

10. The I and II Paralipomenon (I & II Chronicles);

11. The I Book of Esdras, and the II or, as it is

 Named in Nehemiah;

12. The Book of Esther;

13. The Book of Job;

14. The Psalms;

15. The Proverbs of Solomon;

16. The Ecclesiastes, also by Solomon;

17, The Song of Songs, also by Solomon;

18. The Book of the Prophet Isaiah;

19. The Book of Jeremiah;

20. The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel;

21. The Book of the Prophet Daniel;

22. The Book of the Twelve Prophets.

Notice that this is is simply the same canon as the Protestant Old Testament canon.  However, for the ACE folks, this raises a natural next question:

10) We have other Old Testament Books, but they are not noted here, such as The Wisdom of the son of Sirach, and of others, why?

These books do not exist in the Hebrew language, but they are in the Greek texts.

11) How does the Church of the East regard these other books which are not included in the original Hebrew?

St Athanasis, as a Church Father, had declared that these books were included in the reading requirements of the proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Holy Church through Holy Baptism.

Now, unfortunately for them, they go on also to have twenty-two book New Testament canon, by excluding II Peter, II John, III John, Jude, and Revelation.  They also make other errors, such as affirming the perpetual virginity of Mary and insisting on including an Icon of Christ as one part of the liturgical environment of the "Holy Qurbana" ("Holy Offering").

My reason for citing this catechism is, of course, not for endorsement of that catechism. Instead, I point it out as being of interest to folks who try to suggest that there is something "Protestant" about the 22 book Old Testament canon.  For those have the same question as I do, as to why "Lamentations" is not separately listed from Jeremiah, I have no good answer - perhaps it is just a typographic error in the Catechism.

The "46" number seems to be the 39 of the protocanon plus the seven deuterocanonical books, although they do not enumerate the deuterocanonical books.  Moreover, when discussing prayers for the dead, they write:

18) Can we substantiate through the Sacred Writing that the prayer intentions offered in behalf of the righteous deceased will benefit the soul departed?

Consider the book of Maccabees (II Maccabees 12:43) at the time of Judah who had sent to Jerusalem an offering to be presented for forgiveness at the Temple for one who had died. ...

They do go on to use actual Scripture, and it seems clear that they do not accept the Western invention of Purgatory.  To wit:

9) Where or in what state are the souls of the deceased kept until the Day of the General Resurrection?

They are kept in a place called Sheol or Abraham’s Bosom. This place is also called Paradise, the Land of the Light or the land of The Rest. Those righteous souls are kept in that land of Perpetual Light or in the Presence of Jesus our Lord; it is only a foretaste of the glorious promises of our Lord and God. Whereas the wicked and ungodly will be kept in the lower regions of Sheol which is the region of darkness and torments, and is only a foretaste of eternal damnation. The Church Fathers have written for us: “. . . as to the wicked, they shall remain upon the earth in darkness, in which none can walk, and shall be consumed with the flames of remorse; for those which denied Him, their sinfulness betrayed everlasting bliss for the temporal and deceptive enjoyments and a real possession for the dung of the Earth. This is the true Hell,’ whose fire will not quench and the worm will not die’... ” (Matthew 25:30-41, see also, Luke 16:19-26)

So, they are not Roman Catholics (even though they make some errors in common with Roman Catholics), and they are not Protestants (even though they agree with us on a number of important issues). 

 

Did Augustine Change his Mind on the Canon?

In his Revisions (aka Retractiones), Augustine offers a number of corrections to his previous work.  He is the only author that comes to mind as having engaged in such systematic self-criticism.  The recent translation of his works "The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century," uses the title "Revisions," while some others have used "Retractions."  Retractions is a more natural cognate, but Revisions is probably more accurate as an overall description of his work.

One of the revisions he proposes relates to his Two Books on Genesis Against the Manichaeans.  The citation is Revisions, First Book, 10 (9), section 3, he writes (p. ):

Again, I do not seem to have been correct in referring to what is written, Why are earth and ashes proud? (Sir 10:9), as prophetic words, because they are not read in the book of someone who we are certain ought to be called a prophet.

The reference is to what Augustine said in On Genesis: A Refutation of the Manichees, Book II, 5 (6) (trans. from the WSAT21 series, vol. I/13, p. 74):

When the soul was being watered by such a spring as that, it had not yet "cast out its innards" through pride. The beginning, you see, of man's pride is to apostatize from God (Sir 10:12); and since his swelling out through pride to exterior things has put a stop to his being watered from that interior spring, he is very properly jeered at by these words of the prophet, and told: What has earth and ashes to be proud of, since in its lifetime it has cast out its innards? (Sir 10:9).

Later on, in Revisions, Second Book, 4 (31), section 2, he writes (p. 113):

In the second book, concerning the author of the book that many call the Wisdom of Solomon, namely, that Jesus Sirach wrote it just as he did Ecclesiasticus, I afterwards learned that this was not as agreed upon as it was said to be by me, and in all probability the book's author is not discoverable.

When I said, "The authority of the Old Testament is confined within these forty-four books," I referred to the Old Testament according to the Church's customary way of speaking. The Apostle, however, seems to refer only to what was given on Mount Sinai as the Old Testament.

Finally, in Revisions, Second Book, 20 (47), he writes (p. 128):

In the first [book], then, it did not occur to me that what I said about the manna--that it tasted in each person's mouth as he himself wished it to-- could not be demonstrated by any text apart from the Book of Wisdom, which the Jews do not accept as having canonical authorship. 

The "first [book]" in question is found in Augustine's works as Letter 54, and the specific citation is Letter 54,3,4. (trans. from the WSAT21 series, Letter 54, p. 212)

It also serves as a comparison in that in the earlier people the manna tasted in the mouth of each one as the individual wanted, just as that sacrament by which the world is conquered has a different taste in the heart of each Christian.

What's particularly interesting here is that Augustine's original argument does not hinge on Jewish acceptance of his argument.  He's writing to Januaris and the section is dealing with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Why is Jewish acceptance relevant? The only answer staring us in the face is a tacit acknowledgment that Jerome is right about the canon.  Maybe the churches read and use Sirach and Wisdom, but they do not have full canonical status to establish doctrine.  Likewise, Wisdom is neither a book by Solomon (as originally thought by the North African councils) nor even a book by Jesus Ben Sira (as had been speculated).  Instead, it's a book of uncertain authorship, despite its obvious claims to be by Solomon.

Abbot Pirminius: a Witness Against Purgatory

Abbot Pirminius, also known as Saint Pirmin, (c. 670 to 753)  is attributed with a fascinating treatise that has attached to it the title, "Scarapsus de singulis libris canonicis."  The title of the book itself is what initially caught my eye, since to first glance it would seem to imply something like "Extracts from each of the canonical books."  Naturally, therefore, I was rather disappointed to discover that the contents were not some kind of canonically ordered set of quotations from Scripture. As noted in my initial sentence, the authorship of the work is not something that is well-established. 

Indeed, I'm not sure that the title fits the book.  The book is more of a set of canons for behavior derived from the Bible (some more explicitly than others: many are direct quotations with citation). Now, certainly there are errors in Abbot Pirminius' hamartiology: he is not representative of later Protestant orthodoxy.  In particular, Pirminius has adopted the idea (drawn presumably from Tobit) that doing alms can purge one's personal sins. Nevertheless, it is fascinating to note the absence of Purgatory in his discussion of sin.  

The final substantive paragraph of the work is this exhortation to right living:

Let no one deceive himself, brothers, because every man who, after baptism, commits mortal crimes— such as murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false testimony, perjury, drunkenness, or any similar mortal crimes—if he has not done penance, has not given just alms, and has not persevered in good works, he will never enter the kingdom of God nor possess eternal glory; rather, he will descend with the devil into hell, because the Apostle says: “Those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” 

Therefore, it is written: “By no means does God spare the sinner,” for He either strikes the sinner with temporal scourging to purify him, or leaves him to be punished by eternal judgment, or the man himself, by punishing himself, purges what he has done wrong. So then it is justly said that God does not spare the one who sins. 

And elsewhere it is written: “God leaves no sin unpunished”—that is, without vengeance— because surely either we ourselves punish our sins here by penance, or God punishes them with the severity of judgment.

And believe with certainty this: that every man, however much a sinner, however much a criminal he may have been, no matter how great the evils he has committed—if he has done true penance, has given just alms, and death finds him in good devotion with righteous deeds, he will never go to hell, but will be lifted up by the angels into heaven, and will possess eternal glory.

Wherefore the Lord said: “He will not be judged twice for the same thing.” And the Apostle says: “If we judged ourselves, we would not be judged by the Lord” — that is, he who in this present life judges himself by penance will not be judged again, if he finishes his life in this present world in such a state. Hence it is written: “If we do perfect penance, not only does God forgive our faults, but after our faults, He promises rewards.”

Nemo se circumveniat, fratres, quia omnis homo qui post baptismum mortalia crimina committit, homicidium et adulterium, fornicationem, furtum, falsum testimonium, perjurium, ebrietatem, vel his similia mortalia crimina perpetratus fuerit, si poenitentiam non egerit, et eleemosynas justas non fecerit, et in bonis operibus non perseveraverit, nunquam intrabit in regno Dei, nec possidebit gloriam aeternam; cum diabolo descendet in inferna, quia Apostolus dicit: Qui talia agunt, regnum Dei non possidebunt. Proinde scriptum est: Nequaquam Deus delinquentibus parcit, quoniam peccatorem aut flagello temporale ad purgationem ferit, aut aeterno judicio puniendum relinquit, aut ipse in se homo quod male commisit, puniendo purgat. Ita proinde est quod Deus delinquenti non parcit. Et alibi scriptum est: Nulla peccata inulta dimittit Deus, hoc est, sine vindicta, quia certe aut nos hic vindicabimus peccata nostra per poenitentiam, aut vindicat illa Deus per severitatem judicii. Et illud certissime credite, quod omnis homo, quamvis peccator, quamvis criminosus fuisset, quanta mala perpetrasset, si veram poenitentiam egerit, eleemosynas justas fecerit, et in bona devotione cum operibus justis mors illum invenerit, nunquam infernum, sed ab angelis elevatur in coelum, et gloriam possidebit aeternam. Unde Dominus dixit: Non judicabitur bis in idipsum. Et Apostolus dicit: Si nos judicaremus, utique a Domino non dijudicaremur, hoc est, ut ille qui hic in praesentem vitam seipsum per poenitentiam judicat ad judicium, iterum non dijudicabitur, qui hic in praesente vita terminabit. Unde scriptum est: Quod si nos perfecte poenitentiam agimus, non solum nostras culpas Deus dimittit; sed post culpas praemia promittit.

Notice that Pirminius offers only two options: (1) "he will descend with the devil into hell" (cum diabolo descendet in inferna) or (2) "he will never go to hell, but will be lifted up by the angels into heaven, and will possess eternal glory" (nunquam infernum, sed ab angelis elevatur in coelum, et gloriam possidebit aeternam).  There is no third way, where the person goes to hell for a bit to be purged, before going to heaven, nor any third place, such as Purgatory.

There is one place where Pirminius offers three options: "Therefore, it is written: “By no means does God spare the sinner,” for He either strikes the sinner with temporal scourging to purify him, or leaves him to be punished by eternal judgment, or the man himself, by punishing himself, purges what he has done wrong" (Nequaquam Deus delinquentibus parcit, quoniam peccatorem aut flagello temporale ad purgationem ferit, aut aeterno judicio puniendum relinquit, aut ipse in se homo quod male commisit, puniendo purgat).  In short the three options are (1) God punishes in this life, (2) God punishes us with eternal judgment, or (3) we punish ourselves.  There is no option "God punishes us in the afterlife with something less than eternal judgment."

While this is not Purgatory, it is still both hamartiologically and soteriologically flawed, and in a serious way.  God punished Christ for our sins. That is the way by which God leaves no sin unpunished. We may be chastised or disciplined in this life because of our sins, but the punishment of the sins is borne by our Savior.  Moreover, the guilt of sin is too great for us to somehow expiate it through self-inflicted punishments in this life.  So, Pirminius has simultaneously underestimated the severity of sin and the role of Christ in taking our sin debt on Himself.

So, I do not post this extract of the Extract by way of approval, except inasmuch as it avoids adopting the fiction of Purgatory.

Lamy on the Complutensian Polyglot and the Rhodian Codex

The American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. XVII (Vol. VII of new series) (1897) included an article, "The Decision of the Holy Office on the Comma Joanneum," by "The Right Rev." Thomas Jos. Lamy, D.D., University of Louvain, Belgium, which runs for over 30 pages starting from p. 449.  

The subject of the Complutensian and its alleged sources comes up a few times:

"Within a few years, the Polyglotta Complutensis, the publication of which had been retarded a long time, finally appeared. It contained a Greek text of the New Testament printed before that followed by Erasmus, and there was the celebrated verse.¹

FN1 Most likely after the Codex Rhodiensis of which Stunica speaks."  (p. 452)

"And previous to that, Lopez Stunica had called Erasmus' attention to the Codex Rhodiensis, which likewise had the verse." (p. 477)

"But two other codices are cited for it : the Codex Rhodiensis of Stunica, and the Codex Britannicus of Erasmus, which by some is held to be the Codex Monfortianus of Dublin." (p. 480)

As we have seen, however, Stunica does not say that the Rhodian codex has the reading of the CP, but instead says that the Greek is corrupt (which is not how he describes the Greek when citing the Rhodian codex). Of course, Lamy himself could not tell anyone where the Rhodian codex was, much less could he produce any collation of its various readings.

To try to buttress the Complutensian text, he states:

The Codex Ravianus which is in the Library of Berlin, has the verse in the same terms as the Editio Complutensis. Tischendorf claims that it belongs to the seventeenth century and Martin declares it to be only a copy of the Editio Complutensis; but the matter remains doubtful despite the assertions of Wetstein, of Griesbach, of Tapelbaum and of Martin." (p. 476)

The Codex Ravianus has indeed been demonstrated to be a copy of the Complutensian Polyglot (see the discussion of manuscript 110 here, for example).  It is not included in the GA list of NT manuscripts for that reason.

As for the Rhodian Codex, its identity remains a mystery, despite the efforts of some great scholars to track it down (see the discussion in Bentley, J. H. (1980). NEW LIGHT ON THE EDITING OF THE COMPLUTENSIAN NEW TESTAMENT. Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance, 42(1), 145–156.)

Of particular interest to my ongoing discussion with some pro-CJ folks, Bentley's article notes that the then-recently analyzed annotations did not cover 1 John 5:7-8, alone among the four major notes in the Complutensian Polyglot.  

Stunica's Annotations on 1 John

In a previous post, I focused on the secondary (with a nod to the tertiary) literature on the relationship of Stunica's alleged testimony to the Johannine Comma. However, upon reading his annotations (which can be found here), it seems that Stunica agrees that the Complutensian Polyglot reading was not following a Greek codex, but was correcting the Greek based on the Latin, as my first post in this series had already suggested.  Stunica argues, "in this place the Greek codices are most clearly corrupted," but argues for the originality of a longer reading from a ps-Jerome prologue to the Catholic epistles.  The Rhodian Codex (Codex Rhodiensis).

Interestingly enough, I find myself in the company of Isaac Newton, who wrote (Two Notable Corruptions ...):

A third reason why I conceive the Complutensian Greek to have been in this place a translation from the Latin is because Stunica, who, as I told you, was one of the Divines employed by the Cardinal in this Edition & at that very time wrote against Erasmus, when in his Objections he comes to this text of the testimony of the three in heaven, he cites not one Greek Manuscript for it against Erasmus, but argues wholly from the authority of the Latin. On the contrary he sets down by way of concession, the common reading of the Greek Manuscripts (his own & others,) in these words Ὅτι τρεις ἐισιν ὁι μαρτυρουντες τὸ πνευμα καὶ τὸ ὑδωρ καὶ τὸ ἁιμα καὶ ὁι τρεις ἐις τὸ ἕν ἐισι, & then he condemns them all together without exception & justifies the Latin against them by the [] authority of Jerome. Be it known, saith he, that in this place the Greek Manuscripts are most evidently corrupted, but ours (that is the Latin ones) contain the truth itself as they are translated from the first original. Which is manifest by the Prologue of S. Jerome upon the Epistles, &c And this Prologue ... is all he urges in favor of the testimony of the three in heaven. In other places of scripture where he had Greek Manuscripts on his side, he produces them readily. ... After this manner does Stunica produce the manuscripts used in the Complutensian edition when they make for him & here he produces them too but 'tis for Erasmus against himself. Know, saith he, that in this place the Greek manuscripts are most evidently corrupted. In other places if he hath but one manuscrip {sic} on his side, he produces it magnificently enough, as the Codex Rhodiensis in his discourse upon 2 Cor. 2.3 James 1.22. 2 Pet. 2.2. & other texts: here he produces all the Manuscripts against himself without excepting so much as one. 

For those interested, the following are all the annotations of Stunica on 1 John (first my halting translation and then the Latin).

*** 

FROM THE FIRST EPISTLE OF JOHN, CHAPTER I

Old translation. What has been (fuit) from the beginning.

John. ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς.

Erasmus. What was (erat) from the beginning.

And in the annotations. What has been (fuit) ὃ ἦν, that is, what was (erat).

Stunica. It must be known that the word ἦν among the Greeks signifies both has been (fuit) and was (erat). For in the conjugation of the substantive verb, the παρατατικὸς and παρακειμένος, that is, the imperfect past and the perfect, are placed together, such that a single word—namely ἦν—serves for both: for there are not, as in Latin, distinct words for these tenses in the verb εἰμί, that is, I am. For which reason, this passage may be rendered in either way—namely, what has been (fuit) from the beginning or what was (erat) from the beginning.

[TF note: it's actually also similarly challenging to express "past imperfect" of "to be" in English in contrast to the perfect of "to be".  The main nuance of meaning is that "fuit" implies completion, whereas "erat" does not necessarily imply completion. Normally, we would just translate either Latin word as "was", but the different translation above is to try to bring out Stunica's point.]

FROM CHAPTER III

Old translation. In this we have known the love of God.

Erasmus in the annotations. Of God is superfluous according to the Greek codex.

Stunica. In the Rhodian Greek codex of the apostolic epistles, which we have often cited, of God was read in this place: for it has ἐν τούτω ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ, and it is necessary that of God be added, because it follows: because he laid down his life for us.

FROM CHAPTER V

Old translation. For there are three who bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. And there are three who bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one.

John. Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

Erasmus. For there are three who bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and these three are one.

And in the annotations. In the Greek codex I find only this concerning the threefold witness, etc.

Stunica. It must be known that in this place the Greek codices are most clearly corrupted, but our Latin ones contain the very truth as it was delivered from the beginning. This clearly appears from the prologue of blessed Jerome on the canonical epistles. For he says: If those things which were arranged by them had likewise been faithfully translated by the interpreters into Latin expression, they would cause no ambiguity for readers; nor would the variety of expressions contradict each other—especially in that place where, in the First Epistle of John, the unity of the Trinity is set forth. In which also we have found that the unbelieving translators erred much from the truth of the faith, since they placed in their edition only three words—namely, water, blood, and spirit—and omitted the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, in which the Catholic faith is most strongly confirmed, and the one substance of divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is established.

Old translation. That we may know the true God.

Erasmus in the annotations. God is not in the Greek, but τὸν ἀληθινόν, that is, him who is true.

Stunica. God is in the Greek. For indeed in the Rhodian codex, of which we spoke above, it is read in this place: ίνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν θεόν, that is, that we may know the true God. And thus also Ambrose reads it in the first book On the Vocation of All the Nations, chapter 6.

*** 

EX EPISTOLA IOANNIS PRIMA. CAP. I.

Vetus translatio. Quod fuit ab initio. 

Ioannes. ὃ ἦν ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς. 

Erasmus, Quod erat ab initio. 

Et in annotationibus. Quod fuit ὃ ἐν, id est, quod erat.

Stunica. Sciendum est dictionem ἦν apud Graecos ἦν et fuit et erat significare. Siquidem in declinatione verbi substantivi παρατατικὸς καὶ παρακειμένος, imperfectum praeteritum et perfectum simul ponuntur, quod unica vox, id est,  ἦν utrisque deserviat: necque enim distinctas in verbo εἰμί, id est sum quantum ad haec tempora ut Latini habent voces idest fuit et erat. Qua ex re utroque modo hic locus transferri potest, id est, quod fuit ab initio aut quod erat ab initio.

EX CAP. III.

Vetus translatio. In hoc cognovimus caritatem dei. 

Erasmus in annotationibus. Dei redundat iuxta graecum codicem.

Stunica. In graeco codice Rhodiensi epistolarum apostolicarum quem saepe citavimus dei hoc loco legebatur: sic enim habet ἐν τούτω ἐγνώκαμεν τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦ θεοῦ et necesse est ut dei addatur quia sequitur quoniam ille animam suam pro nobis posuit.

EX CAP. V.

Vetus translatio. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo pater verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis et hi tres unum sunt.

Ioannes. Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

Erasmus. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis et hi tres unum sunt.

Et in annotationibus. In graeco codice tantum hoc reperio de testimonium triplici etc.

Stunica. Sciendum est hoc loco graecorum codices apertissime esse corruptos: nostros vero veritatem ipsam vt a prima origine traducti sunt continere. Quod ex prologo beati Hieronymi super epistolas canonicas manifeste apparet. Ait enim: Quae si sic vt ab eis digestae sunt ita quoque ab interpretibus fideliter in Latinum verterentur eloquium: nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent: nec sermonum sese varietas impugnaret illo praecipue loco ubi de unitate trinitatis in prima Ioannis epistola positum legimus. In qua etiam ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse a fidei veritate comperimus trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentibus et patris verbiquum ac spiritus testimonio ommittentibus in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur et patris et filii et spiritus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur.

Vetus translatio. Ut cognoscamus deum verum.

Erasmus in annotationibus. Deum apud Graecos non est sed τὃν ἀληθινόν idest eum qui verus est.

Stunica. Deum apud Graecos esse. Siquidem in codice Rhodiensi de quo supra diximus sic hoc loco legitur: ίνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν θεόν idest ut cognoscamus verum deum. Atquum ita etiam legit Ambrosius libro primo de vocatione omnium gentium cap. 6.

Second Death in Jewish Targums (aka Targumim) and Philo

Harry Sysling in Tehiyyat Ha-metim : The Resurrection of the Dead in the Palestinian Targums of the Pentateuch and Parallel Traditions in Classical Rabbinic Literature, has the most comprehensive treatment on the second death in the Targumim -- at least the most comprehensive that I was able to find.

He analyzes:

• Targum Onqelos of Deut 33:6 (p. 211)
• The Palestinian Targumim of Deut 33:6 (p. 214)
• The second death in the Targum of the Prophets (tgYon) (p. 219)
• The second death in the Targum of the Psalms (p. 221)

He also considers Greek sources including the Apocalypse of John (as well as other rabbinical tradition). 

Sysling's summary offers at least the following various usage of "the second death":

• as the death by which the wicked die;
• the retribution in Gehinnom "which burns all day long";
• as exclusion from life in the world to come (and from the resurrection?);
• as identical with the punishment in Gehinnom; and
• as exclusion from the resurrection.

Sysling's comments seem essentially consistent with those of the great Calvinistic Baptist author, John Gill.  John Gill, commenting on Revelation 2:11, states:

shall not be hurt of the second death; by which is meant eternal death, in distinction from a corporeal and temporal one; and lies in a destruction of both body and soul in hell, and in an everlasting separation from God, and a continual sense of divine wrath; but of this the saints shall never be hurt, they are ordained to eternal life; this is secured for them in Christ, and he has it in his hands for them, and will give it to them. The phrase is Jewish, and is opposed to the first death, or the death of the body; which is the effect of sin, and is appointed of God, and which the people of God die as well as others; but the second death is peculiar to wicked men. So the Jerusalem Targum on Deuteronomy 33:6; paraphrases those words, "let Reuben live, and not die," thus; "let Reuben live in this world, and not die anyynt atwmb, "by the second death," with which the wicked die in the world to come." Of which sense of the text and phrase Epiphanius makes mention {q}. See the same phrase in the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel, in Isaiah 22:14; and in Jeremiah 51:39; and in Philo the Jew {r}.

{q} Contr. Haeres. Haeres. 9. 

{r} De Praemiis & Poenis, p. 921.

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology, includes, within its entry for "Second Death" the following:

This phrase is found only in Revelation 2:11,20:6,20:14 , and 21:8. The Targums use it (Deuteronomy 33:6; Psalm 49:11 ). Philo uses the term to refer to all miseries arising from sin causing physical death followed by hopelessness in the afterlife (Rewards and Punishments 2.419). Revelation 2:10-11 contrasts it with the life given to the faithful. Death is the loss of the only kind of life worthy of the name.

Section XII of Philo's "Rewards and Punishments" has the following account:

XII. (67) Therefore those rewards which were thus long since assigned to the good, both publicly and privately, have now been described though somewhat in outline, but sufficiently to enable anyone to comprehend with tolerable ease what has been omitted. We must now proceed in regular order to consider in turn the punishments appointed for the wicked, speaking of them in a somewhat general way since the time does not allow of my enumerating all the particular instances. (68) Now there was at the very beginning of the world when the race of men had not as yet multiplied, a fratricide: this is the first man who ever was under a curse; the first man who imprinted on the pure earth the unprecedented pollution of human blood; the first man who checked the fertility of the earth which was previously blooming, and producing all kinds of animals, and plants, and flourishing with every kind of productiveness; the first man who introduced destruction as a rival against creation, death against life, sorrow against joy, and evil against good. (69) What then could possibly have been inflicted upon him, which would have been an adequate punishment for him, who thus in one single action left no description of violence and impiety unperformed? Perhaps some one will say he should have been put to death at once; this is a human mode of reasoning, fit for one who does not consider the great tribunal of all for men look upon death as the extreme limit of all punishments, but in the view of the divine tribunal it is scarcely the beginning of them. (70) Since then the action of this man was a novel one, it was necessary that a novel punishment should be devised for him; and what was it? That he should live continually dying, and that he should in a manner endure an undying and never ending death; for there are two kinds of death; the one that of being dead, which is either good or else a matter of indifference; the other that of dying, which is in every respect an evil; and the more protracted the dying the more intolerable the evil. (71) Consider now then how it is that death can be said to be never ending in this man's case; since there are four different affections to which the soul is liable, two of them being conversant with good either present or future, namely, pleasure and desire; and two with evil either present or expected, namely, sorrow and fear; it cuts up the pair of those which are conversant with good by the roots, in order that the man may never receive pleasure from any accident of fortune, nor ever feel a desire even for anything pleasant; and it leaves him only those affections conversant about evil, sorrow without any mixture of cheerfulness, and unmingled fear, (72) for the scripture Says{2}{#ge 4:14.} that God laid a curse upon the fratricide, so that he should be continually groaning and trembling. Moreover he put a mark upon him, that he might never be pitied by any one, so that he might not die once, but might, as I have said before, pass all his time in dying, amid griefs, and pains, and incessant calamities; and what is most grievous of all, might have a feeling of his own miseries, and be afflicted both with the evils which were before him, and also from a foresight of the number of misfortunes which were constantly impending over him, which nevertheless he was unable to guard against, since hope was wholly taken from him, which God has implanted in the race of mankind, in order that thus, having an innate comfort in themselves, they might feel their sorrows relieved, provided they had not committed any inexpiable crimes. (73) Therefore, as a man who is being carried away by a torrent shudders at the nearest waves by which he is being hurried away, and still more at those coming upon him from above, since the one is continually and incessantly propelling him forward with violence, but the other being raised above him threatens to overwhelm him utterly, so in the same manner those evils which are present are grievous, but those which proceed from fear of the future are more grievous still; for fear continually supplies sorrowful feelings as from an everlasting spring.

I would love to agree that Philo "uses the term" or "the same phrase" but I do not see it. That said, he does seem to discuss two senses of "death," one of which fits quite well with Johannine theology. 

The Second Death in (pre-Christian) Greek Literature

The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae does not provide any examples of pre-incarnation Greek writers who use the phrase "the second death."  The only non-Christian Greek author using the phrase that I could find prior to Origen is Plutarch (c. AD 40 - 120).  His "On the Face which appears on the Orb of the Moon" is the one work that I found with the phrase.  I offer the following translation by Arthur Octavius Prickard (1843-1939)(pp. 44-45):

XXVII. When I marvelled at this, and asked for clearer statements, he went on : — " Many tales, Sylla, are told among the Greeks about the gods, but not all are well told. For instance, about Demeter and Cora, they are right in their names, but wrong in supposing that they both belong to the same region ; for the latter is on earth, and has power over earthly things, the former is in the moon and is concerned with things of the moon. The moon has been called both Cora and Persephone, Persephone because she gives light, Cora because we also use the same Greek word for the pupil of the eye, in which the image of the beholder flashes back, as the sunbeam is seen in the moon. In the stories told about their wanderings and the search there is an element of truth. They yearn for one another when parted, and often embrace in shadow. And what is told of Cora, that she is sometimes in heaven and in light, and again in night and darkness, is no untruth, only time has brought error into the numbers ; for it is not during six months, but at intervals of six months, that we see her received by the earth, as by a mother, in the shadow, and more rarely at intervals of five months ; for to leave Hades is impossible to her, who is herself a ' bound of Hades,' as Homer well hints in the words, (Od., ix, 563.) 'Now to Elysian plains, earth's utmost bound.' For where the shadow of the earth rests in its passage, there Homer placed the limit and boundary of earth. To that limit comes no man that is bad or impure, but the good after death are conveyed thither, and pass a most easy life, not, however, one blessed or divine until the second death."

Based on where this quotation ends, at the end of section XXVII, one might think that the idea of "the second death" was one that was well-established in Greek mythology/religion already. The way that Plutarch continues, however, suggests otherwise:

 XXVIII. "But what is that, Sylla?" "Ask me not of these things, for I am going to tell you fully myself. The common view that man is a composite creature is correct, but it is not correct that he is composed of two parts only. For they suppose that mind is in some sense a part of soul, which is as great a mistake as to think that soul is a part of body; mind is as much better a thing and more divine than soul, as soul is than body. Now the union of soul with body makes up the emotional part, the further union with mind produces reason, the former the origin of pleasure and pain, the latter of virtue and vice. When these three principles have been compacted, the earth contributes body to the birth of man, the moon soul, the sun reason, just as he contributes light to the moon. The death which we die is of two kinds; the one makes man two out of three, the other makes him one out of two ; the one takes place in the earth which is the realm of Demeter, and is initiation unto her, so that the Athenians used in ancient times to call the dead 'Demetrians,' the other is in the moon and is of Persephone; Hermes of the lower earth is the associate of the one, the heavenly Hermes of the other. Demeter parts soul from body quickly and with force; Persephone parts mind from soul gently and very slowly, and therefore has been called ' Of the Birth to Unity,' for the best part of man is left in oneness, when separated by her. Each process happens according to nature, as thus (Plato, Timaeus, end.): — It is appointed that every soul, irrational or rational, when it has quitted the body, should wander in the region between earth and moon, but not all for an equal time; unjust and unchaste souls pay penalties for their wrong doings; but the good must for a certain appointed time, sufficient to purge away and blow to the winds, as noxious exhalations, the defilements which come from the body, their vicious cause, be in that mildest part of the air which they call 'The Meadows of Hades'; then they return as from long and distant exile back to their country, they taste such joy as men feel here who are initiated, joy mingled with much amazement and trouble, yet also with a hope which is each man's own. For many who are already grasping at the moon she pushes off and washes away, and some even of those souls which are already there and are turning round to look below are seen to be plunged again into the abyss. But those which have passed above, and have found firm footing, first go round like victors wreathed with crowns of feathers called 'crowns of constancy,' because they kept the irrational part of the soul obedient to the curb of reason, and well ordered in life. Then with countenance like a sunbeam, and soul borne lightly upwards, as here by fire, in the air about the moon, they receive tone and force from it, as iron takes an edge in its bath ; for that which is still volatile and diffuse is strengthened and becomes firm and transparent, so that they are nourished by such vapor as meets them, and well did Heraclitus say that 'Souls feed on smell in Hades.'

It is interesting to see a purgatorial concept in Plutarch (the final highlighted portion above).  However, the main point is to note that the "second death" in Plutarch is a second separation.  Not this time between corporeal and incorporeal, but between two incorporeal aspects of man: mind and soul.

Second Death in John's Writings

The phrase "second death" appears in four verses in Revelation:

Revelation 2:11 [KJV] He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

NA28 Ὁ ἔχων οὖς ἀκουσάτω τί τὸ πνεῦμα λέγει ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις. Ὁ νικῶν οὐ μὴ ἀδικηθῇ ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου τοῦ δευτέρου.

There does not seem to be any significant textual difference between the so-called Textus Receptus and the NA28 at Revelation 2:11.

To be hurt or injured (ἀδικηθῇ) by the second death is already some hint at what the second death constitutes.  However, it is necessarily a bit vague.  In the New Testament, it is not used of annihilation or even conventional death.  It often refers to receiving an injustice, though in this case it seems to relate more to physical harm as in Revelation 9:10 with the scorpions.

Thus, the second death is portrayed has having the ability to injure people (though not those who overcome).

Revelation 20:6 [KJV] Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

NA28 μακάριος καὶ ἅγιος ὁ ἔχων μέρος ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τῇ πρώτῃ· ἐπὶ τούτων ὁ δεύτερος θάνατος οὐκ ἔχει ἐξουσίαν, ἀλλ’ ἔσονται ἱερεῖς τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ βασιλεύσουσιν μετ’ αὐτοῦ [τὰ] χίλια ἔτη.

The TR has "ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος" instead of "ὁ δεύτερος θάνατος" and does not include the bracketed [τὰ].  The meaning seems to be the same. 

The word "power" here is part of the coordinated words ἐξουσίαν and ἐπὶ, which together refer to having "power over" something, effectively a question of authority or jurisdiction.  The angel that had "power over" fire is mentioned in Revelation 14:18 and God is said to have "power over" the plagues in Revelation 16:9, for example. 

Thus, the second death is portrayed has having effectively a jurisdiction, or authority, though not over those who are part of the first resurrection.

Revelation 20:14 [KJV] And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

NA28 καὶ ὁ θάνατος καὶ ὁ ᾅδης ἐβλήθησαν εἰς τὴν λίμνην τοῦ πυρός. οὗτος ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερός ἐστιν, ἡ λίμνη τοῦ πυρός. 

The TR (of the KJV) has "οὗτος ἐστιν ὁ δεύτερός θάνατος" (this is the second death) rather than "this second death is the lake of fire" (my translation of the NA28).  I have not carefully studied the textual evidence for the difference between the readings.

Under either reading, the sentence serves to explain what the "second death" is with reference to the lake of fire, as opposed to the opposite.

Revelation 21:8 [KJV] But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

NA28 τοῖς δὲ δειλοῖς καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ φονεῦσιν καὶ πόρνοις καὶ φαρμάκοις καὶ εἰδωλολάτραις καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ψευδέσιν τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ τῇ καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ, ὅ ἐστιν ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος.

TR δειλοῖς δὲ καὶ ἀπίστοις καὶ ἐβδελυγμένοις καὶ φονεῦσιν καὶ πόρνοις καὶ φαρμακεῦσιν καὶ εἰδωλολάτραις καὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ψευδέσιν τὸ μέρος αὐτῶν ἐν τῇ λίμνῃ τῇ καιομένῃ πυρὶ καὶ θείῳ ὅ ἐστιν δεύτερος θάνατος

While there are some minor differences between the NA28 and TR text, it seems that the relevant phrase, "ὅ ἐστιν ὁ θάνατος ὁ δεύτερος," is essentially the same between them (regardless of whether the articles should be present or not, a question I have not yet carefully examined).

In Revelation:

• John uses "ὅ ἐστιν" in Revelation 2:7 to introduce an explanation of the location of the tree of life;
• John uses "ὅ ἐστιν" in Revelation 20:12 to explain which book was opened; and
• John uses "ὅ ἐστιν" in Revelation 21:17 to associate the 144 cubit measurement "of a man" is "of an angel."

Based on such usage, the most we can say is that like TR Revelation 20:14, the point seems to be link the "lake of fire" and the "second death." 

Stunica vs Erasmus on the Johannine Comma?

In a recent video, Nick Sayers points out that my recent post on the Complutensian Polyglot and the Johannine Comma does not interact with arguments related to Stunica (aka Diego López de Zúñiga). and his interaction with Erasmus.  I certainly agree that my recent post does not interact with statements from Stunica.  However, I must acknowledge that I am not aware of what statements from Stunica Nick Sayers has in mind.  Obviously, it's very hard for me to evaluate arguments that are merely alluded to, so this post should not be taken as a rebuttal to Nick Sayers' argument, which I still haven't heard in its substance.

You may recall that my observation was that although the Complutensian Polyglot is an early (presumably the first) printed Greek example of a version of the Johannine Comma, there are good reasons to believe that the "heavenly witnesses" portion of 1 John 5:7-8 in the CP is the product of translation from Latin to Greek, not the result of transcribing a Greek manuscript.  The two or three main clues are (1) the non-inclusion of the "these three agree in one" after the earthly witnesses, (2) the placement of the "these three agree in one" after the heavenly witnesses (i.e. combining (1) and (2), the Greek phrase found in the exemplar has been moved to try to conform to the Latin), and (3) the presence of the phrase "ἐπὶ τῆς γης," which is a better Greek translation of "in terra" than the usual "ἐν [τῇ] γῇ." 

Reaching to the shelves of secondary literature on the subject, I noticed the following paragraph in Erasmus and the Johannine Comma (1 John 5.7-8), by Grantley McDonald (Universität Wien)(pp. 48-49)

Soon after Lee’s book appeared, another set of criticisms appeared from a more substantial critic, Jacobus Stunica. Stunica’s opposition to Erasmus may have been motivated in part by personal animus, since he was one of the editors of the Complutensian Polyglot edition of the Bible. When Erasmus published his diglot New Testament in 1516, he narrowly snatched the honour of publishing the first Greek New Testament from the Spanish editors, and they never forgot it. Stunica asserted that the text  of 1 John 5.7-8 as transmitted in the Greek manuscripts was corrupt, but that the “true” reading was transmitted in the Latin Vulgate.  ... Stunica’s comments seem to admit that the editors, dismissing their Greek manuscripts as corrupt at this point, had simply made good the lack by translating the Comma from Latin into Greek.

In the next paragraph, McDonald continues:

Erasmus wrote a reply to Stunica’s book between June and September 1521.10 Erasmus taunted Stunica with the fact that he could not produce any Greek manuscript in support of the Comma. He also pointed out that the Greek fathers who cited the immediate context of 1 John 5 in their writings against the Arians all failed to mention the Comma. Although absence of evidence does not necessarily amount to evidence of absence, this is still a remarkable circumstance. Erasmus also reported the absence of the Comma from a number of old manuscripts he had seen in Bruges, and from the Codex Vaticanus.

In the following paragraph, McDonald explains:

Erasmus kept his last surprise until the end. He announced to Stunica that a Greek manuscript had been found in England which contained the Comma, and lacked the phrase “these three are one” in 1 John 5.8. He used this manuscript to restore the Comma to his text, splicing it into the reading he had established for his 1516 edition. However, he expressed his reservations about this manuscript, suggesting that it had been adapted to agree with the Latin Vulgate.

The most interesting paragraph, however, comes from page 50:

Erasmus’s suspicions about this “British codex”—housed since the seventeenth century in the library of Trinity College Dublin (ms 30)—were well founded. One of its parent manuscripts was copied in England in the late fifteenth century. This fact gives an earliest possible date for the creation of the codex, and suggests that it was probably written in England. The watermark in its paper indicates that it was manufactured in the decades around 1500. One of the first owners of the manuscript was Francis Frowyk, minister general of the Observant Franciscans in England. It later belonged to John Clement, foster-son of Thomas More, who arrived in Leuven in the late summer of 1520. At Leuven, Clement spent time with Erasmus and studied with Erasmus’s friend Juan Luis Vives. Erasmus did not mention the manuscript in his response to Lee, published in early 1520, but had evidently seen it before publishing his first response to Stunica in October 1521. It is likely that Clement brought the manuscript with him from England, and showed it to Erasmus some time over the coming year. Despite his suspicions about the textual value of the manuscript, Erasmus recognized it as a way out of the dispute with Lee and Stunica. He adapted its reading of the Comma for the third edition of his New Testament (1522), and inserted a long discussion of the Comma, lifted primarily from his first response to Stunica, in the accompanying annotations. Erasmus had thrown a sop to those readers who believed that the Comma was a genuine part of Scripture, but had also provided critical readers with further evidence of its spuriousness. The ambivalence of this decision caused considerable disagreement amongst those who read his work.

Likewise, H. J. de Jonge has provided Four unpublished letters on Erasmus from J. L. Stunica to pope Leo X (1520), (p. 147-160 of Colloque érasmien de Liège), in which Stunica tattles to Pope Leo X about a lot of things Erasmus has said that Stunica believes Leo X will find objectionable.  The non-inclusion of the JC is not explicitly mentioned in the letters, although in letter 4 he writes: "Furthermore, those ancient orthodox men—what an abominable thing to believe—he says added certain things of their own into the Sacred Scriptures in order either to exclude or to refute the errors of heretics." (Priscos praeterea illos orthodoxos, quod nepharium est credere, in Sacris Scripturis nonnulla ait de suo addidisse, aut excludendos aut refellendos haereticorum errores.)(source of Latin)

These letters seem to support the characterization offered by Richard Homer Graham in Erasmus and Stunica: A Chapter in the History of New Testament Scholarship (pp. 9-10):

Throughout this period, and particularly from 1520 until about 1524, no critic of Erasmus caused him more concern than the Spaniard Jacobus Stunica. Writing for the most part from Rome, Stunica functioned as a sort of professional anti-Erasmian, a man whose intention, as one of Erasmus' informers told him, was "to make Erasmus odious to the ecclesiastical orders." 

Stunica attacked especially the work of Erasmus on the New Testament, his text, translation, and notes, and he caused Erasmus enough anxiety to earn himself a place among those whom the Dutchman seems to have hated and feared. Erasmus himself described Stunica in August of 1522 as "very sneaky, stupid, and ignorant, " and a little later he told one of his correspondents bluntly, "I have always despised Stunica. " Until quite recently most Erasmus scholars have agreed in presenting Stunica either as a figure of no importance or else as an example of reactionary Catholicism at its worst. But lately other work has argued that Stunica was "the most competent critic Erasmus as a New Testament scholar was ever to have.... " And in a work subtitled "New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance," Jerry H. Bentley reached the conclusion that Stunica was "Erasmus' most formidable critic" in the realm of New Testament studies. Even a cursory reading of Stunica's work against Erasmus' New Testament shows that the Spaniard was a learned and serious man, driven to oppose Erasmus because of his scholarly and ecclesiastical interests and because of his own search for fame and recognition.

Graham goes on to recommend an introduction from volume IX/2 of Erasmus' works: Erasmus and His Catholic Critics: 1, 1515-1522 (Nieuwkoop, 1989), pp. 145-177.

In short, based on the secondary scholarship (as well as the primary source of four letters to Leo X), I'm not sure what Nick Sayers would like me to see in Stunica that would provide a different result to my previously set forth analysis. A thread over at the PureBibleForum (link thereto, with neither commendation nor condemnation thereof intended by my link) seems to be an example of the tertiary works out there being in agreement with the secondary sources.

Vetus Latina at 1 John 5:7-8

 Vetus Latina at 1 John 5:7-8 is very messy.

(Vetus Latina, 26.1, p. 363)

(Vetus Latina, 26.1, pp. 364-65)

Note well that there is not a single "Old Latin Version" of 1 John.  There are multiple old Latin translations of 1 John.

Discussion of the various text types can be found here (link).

Codex Perpinianensis on Revelation 16:5

Codex Perpinianensis is dated to the second half of the 12th century and referred to as "VL 54 (p)."  It is available from the French library (link).

(folio 216v)

The Latin text is:

et audiui angelum aquarium dicente Iustus es qui est et qui eras sanctus. qui hec uiudicasta

Codex Gigas at Revelation 16:5

 Codex Gigas is considered an "Old Latin" edition.  It contains the following reading for Revelation 16:5:

(image 551/629)

Et audim angelum quarum dicente Justus es qui es et qui eras et sanctus. quia hec iudiasti 

After reading this, I realized how it was that Manetti's Latin has "fourth" instead of "of the water" and that is because of an "a" dropping off in the Latin.  Of course "fourth" and "of the water" are not at all visually similar in Greek.

Death of Antiochus IV according to the books of the Maccabees

2 Maccabees 9 describes Antiochus:

2 Maccabees 9:1-6

About that time Antiochus retreated in disgrace from the region of Persia. He had entered the city called Persepolis and attempted to rob the temples and gain control of the city. Thereupon the people had swift recourse to arms, and Antiochus’ forces were routed, so that in the end Antiochus was put to flight by the people of that region and forced to beat a shameful retreat. On his arrival in Ecbatana, he learned what had happened to Nicanor and to Timothy’s forces. Overcome with anger, he planned to make the Jews suffer for the injury done by those who had put him to flight. Therefore he ordered his charioteer to drive without stopping until he finished the journey. Yet the condemnation of Heaven rode with him, because he said in his arrogance, “I will make Jerusalem the common graveyard of Jews as soon as I arrive there.” So the all-seeing Lord, the God of Israel, struck him down with an incurable and invisible blow; for scarcely had he uttered those words when he was seized with excruciating pains in his bowels and sharp internal torment, a fit punishment for him who had tortured the bowels of others with many barbarous torments.

 He initially became even more enraged, but then his flesh started rotting off and:

2 Maccabees 9:12 When he could no longer bear his own stench, he said, “It is right to be subject to God, and not to think one’s mortal self equal to God.”

Then he promised to free Jerusalem and treat the Jews like the Athenians (i.e. with great respect), and even become a Jew himself.  But his sufferings did not decrease, so he wrote a letter of supplication to the Jews while at the same time naming his son (also named Antiochus) to be his successor.

After the conclusion of the letter, the epitomizer opines:

2 Maccabees 9:28-29

So this murderer and blasphemer, after extreme sufferings, such as he had inflicted on others, died a miserable death in the mountains of a foreign land. His foster brother Philip brought the body home; but fearing Antiochus’ son, he later withdrew into Egypt, to Ptolemy Philometor.

2 Maccabees 10 then turns to the purification of the temple, and in case you think it's just an unrelated topic, 2 Maccabees 10:9 says "Such was the end of Antiochus surnamed Epiphanes."

This is somewhat different from the account of the death of Antiochus offered in the letter to Aristobulus, contained in the first chapter of 2 Maccabees.  

2 Maccabees 1:11-17

Since we have been saved by God from grave dangers, we give him great thanks as befits those who fought against the king; for it was God who drove out those who fought against the holy city. When their leader arrived in Persia with his seemingly irresistible army, they were cut to pieces in the temple of the goddess Nanea through a deceitful stratagem employed by Nanea’s priests. On the pretext of marrying the goddess, Antiochus with his Friends had come to the place to get its great treasures as a dowry. When the priests of Nanea’s temple had displayed the treasures and Antiochus with a few attendants had come inside the wall of the temple precincts, the priests locked the temple as soon as he entered. Then they opened a hidden trapdoor in the ceiling, and hurling stones at the leader and his companions, struck them down. They dismembered the bodies, cut off their heads and tossed them to the people outside. Forever blessed be our God, who has thus punished the impious!

As different as these accounts are, they are also different from the account of the death of Antiochus in 1 Maccabees.  In 1 Maccabees, the death of Antiochus is recounted in 1 Maccabees 6, prior to the defeat of Nicanor in 1 Maccabees 7, but after the defeat of Timothy in 1 Maccabees 5.

The story has some similarities to the story from 2 Maccabees 9.  The text says:

1 Maccabees 6:1-8

As King Antiochus passed through the eastern provinces, he heard that in Persia there was a city, Elam, famous for its wealth in silver and gold, and that its temple was very rich, containing gold helmets, breastplates, and weapons left there by the first king of the Greeks, Alexander, son of Philip, king of Macedon. He went therefore and tried to capture and loot the city. But he could not do so, because his plan became known to the people of the city who rose up in battle against him. So he fled and in great dismay withdrew from there to return to Babylon. While he was in Persia, a messenger brought him news that the armies that had gone into the land of Judah had been routed; that Lysias had gone at first with a strong army and been driven back; that the people of Judah had grown strong by reason of the arms, wealth, and abundant spoils taken from the armies they had cut down; that they had pulled down the abomination which he had built upon the altar in Jerusalem; and that they had surrounded with high walls both the sanctuary, as it had been before, and his city of Beth-zur. When the king heard this news, he was astonished and very much shaken. Sick with grief because his designs had failed, he took to his bed.

You should notice some similarities to the previous stories.  There is reference to a failed temple robbery, although it is in Persepolis in 2 Maccabees and Elam in 1 Maccabees.  He does not live and die by his wits as in the Letter to Aristobulus, but instead attempts to use force.  News that his forces have been routed reaches him.  

The differences, however, are also noticeable.  The news he gets includes news that they have purged the temple and rebuilt the temple walls.  He is not rotting away in stench but instead is dying from grief and anxiety.  

The purification and rededication of the temple is in 1 Maccabees 4 and thus not only before the death of Antiochus, but also before the defeat of Timothy.

In short, remarkably, we have three different accounts of the death of Antiochus in two books (partly because 2 Maccabees is a combination of two introductory letters and an epitome of a history by Jason of Cyrene).

Codex Gigas at 1 John 5:7-8 (And Codex Sangermanensis primus and Codex Colbertinus and Codex Perpinianensis and Book of Armagh

I thought I would check the Vetus Latina manuscripts (a helpful list can be found here) to see what they actually say it when it comes to the Johannine Comma.  I should point out that while these manuscripts have been characterized by someone as Old Latin manuscripts and given a "VL" designation, all of these manuscripts are later than Jerome's translation.  I am not sure whether anyone has checked/verified whether the text is in fact Vetus Latina, either in general or specifically for the text of 1 John.  It is always possible that these manuscripts have been characterized based on having at least one section that is VL, or that they have been mischaracterized.  As this is a research-intensive post, it is quite possible that it will be updated from time to time, possibly without formally identifying each update.  The initial version of the article covered: VL 6, 7, 51, 54, and 61, of which VL 7, 51, and 61 are witnesses against the JC.

One of the largest and most expensive Bibles ever produced is Codex Gigans, a 13th century manuscript produced in area that is now part of the Czech Republic. It is part of the "Vetus Latina" family and is referred to by the manuscript designation, "VL 51 (gig)."  It does not only include Biblical texts but also Isidore of Seville's Etymologies, among other things.

At 1 John 5:7-8, the manuscript has this:

(548 of 629)

The text reads:

qui tres sunt qui testumonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt.

Codex Sangermanensis primus is dated to around 810.  It is referrred to as "VL 7 (g1)."  It is available from the Paris library (link).

 

(source)

The Latin text is: 

qui tres sunt qui testumonium dant spiritus, aqua, et sanguis et tres unum sunt.

Codex Colbertinus is dated to the 12th century and referred to as "VL 6 (c)."  It is available from the Paris library (link).

(source)

The Latin text is: 

qui tres sunt qui testumonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in celo pater, verbum, et spiritus sanctus. Et hi tres unum sunt.

Codex Perpinianensis is dated to the second half of the 12th century and referred to as "VL 54 (p)."  It is available from the French library (link).

(folio 216v)

The Latin text is:

qui tres sunt qui testumonium dant in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt. Et [some damage/erasure change here] tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in celo pater, verbum, spiritus sanctus. Et hii tres unum sunt.

The Liber Ardmachanus or Book of Armagh is dated to 807/08 and is referred to as "VL 61 (ar, D)." 

Book of Armaugh is available in a full scan from the Trinity College, Dublin.

(source)

A sort of facsimile via Archive.org provides the following "transcription":

quia -iii- sunt qu'i' testimonium dant spiritus eiaqua c/sanguis et •iii' unum Sunt

(Liber Ardmachanus: the book of Armagh, folio 157v)

I would suggest instead:

quia III sunt qui testimonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis et III unum sunt

I may expand this post in the future, as noted at the beginning of the post.

Frisingensia Fragmenta (aka Freising Fragments) include a few folios dated to first half of the 7th century and containing (in fragmentary form) 1 John 5:7-8.  The designation for this is "VL 64":

(scan 53)

The text of 1 John 5:7-8 is mostly lost, but one can see the "in terra" and "in caelo," which suggests that *some form* of the JC was present.

For future study:

VL 62

VL 65 (Z)

...