C Jay Cox (CJC) in Un-Apologetics Ep.#67: Talking Textual Criticism with Jonathan Sheffield came to the topic of 1 John 5:7 around 1 hour and 13 minutes into the presentation (link to start of discussion). The following is lightly cleaned-up transcript of the question and answer, interspersed with my comments.
Question from CJC:
I’ll hold off on the wrap-up really quick just to ask very briefly about 1 John 5:7. I’m just going to read it really quickly here for the people:
“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
The common objection is that this first appears in the works of Erasmus around the early 1300s. Is that a fair assessment as far as what we have in the historical record? Obviously, if you believe that it goes before then, then you wouldn’t think it’s a fair assessment in its totality. But as far as the historical record, does anybody reference it before then? Is there any manuscript evidence before then?
Erasmus was not around in the 1300s. Erasmus famously introduced a form of the Comma into his third edition in AD 1522 (he had not included it in his first two editions). Possibly there was some kind of conflation on CJC's part, because the oldest known manuscript with an insertion into the Greek from the Latin is GA 629, which is dated to AD 1362–1363. GA629 is a Greek-Latin diglot, and there are multiple differences between the reading found in GA629 and the reading now viewed as the "TR" reading, most notably the absence of Greek articles, which is evidence of back translation from the Latin.
Erasmus's Third Edition, showing the absence of Greek articles:
(Novum Testamentum omne (C.2.9),
596/643)
The TR reading first appears in Erasmus' fourth edition (1527), based -- as far as anyone can tell -- on Erasmus' conjecture of how to improve the reading he first published in his third edition (1522).
On the other hand, no one who is familiar with the evidence would say that this Latin variant first appears either in the works of Erasmus or GA629. Instead, of course, this Latin variant shows up first in Latin. There are examples of Latin manuscripts with such a reading that significantly predate the 1300s. The earliest identifiable evidence of some related variant being possibly as early as the 300s. Some have argued that it may have appeared in Latin as early as the late 100s, though the evidence for that idea falls short of compelling.
Jonathan Sheffield:
Yes, there is. That is the way they kind of detract and try to say, you know, the King James Bible editors added it in, or that it was Erasmus where it first showed up.
In the case with Erasmus, it wasn’t in his first edition, which prompted a response from the team of Cardinal Jiménez, who reached out to him and said, “Hey,” because in the [Complutensian] Polyglot it was included. And they actually provided citations for why they included it in their documents. So that is not the first case.
Jacobus Stunica (aka Zuniga) was part of the Complutensian team, and did publish a response to Erasmus' New Testament. Sheffield is a bit vague in his explanation here, but as we have discussed in a previous post (link to post), Stunica acknowledged that the Greek manuscripts do not have this reading but insisted that the Latin manuscripts maintain the correct reading, citing Jerome in support of his position. It turns out that Stunica was citing Ps-Jerome and a significantly corrupted version of Ps-Jerome at that (as explained here).
Jonathan Sheffield:
Actually, we have two allusions very early on from the North African church, both with Tertullian and with Cyprian, that appear to hold the passage. But definitive quotes we have not only in Spain in the fourth century, but we actually have it used at an official council in the West, responding to the Goths, who were Arians.
The council was called by Huneric, the Vandal king, who was in support of the Goths, or the Arians in the West. He called the council and wrote a letter to all the Trinitarian bishops of the North African province, and we’re talking about Spain and all those little areas and islands around North Africa, to convene a council in 484 and to go to Scripture to defend their homoousian faith.
Let's break this down into four: Tertullian, Cyprian, Spain in the 4th Century, and Victor of Vita (author of the book against the Vandals, which Sheffield is indirectly citing).
As to Tertullian, there are at least three different works that are sometimes cited as allegedly showing reliance on the Johannine Comma. The first is De Baptismo (On Baptism), in which Tertullian refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as "three witnesses" that are united in the Church: "Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under three witnesses, there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body of three." (On Baptism, Chapter 6) The second is De Pudicitia (On Modesty), in which the Church is similarly said to unity the three: "For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three." (On Modesty, Chapter 21)
One challenge to viewing these as an allusion to the Johannine Comma is that the church as the unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit is not really a suitable match to the usual readings of the Johannine Comma. Moreover, in the case of On Baptism, the "three witnesses" is taken either from Paul (2 Corinthians 13:1; Cf. 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28) or Christ (Matthew 18:16) or possibly, though less likely, from Moses (Deuteronomy 17:6 & 19:15).
A third passage that is sometimes cited is Tertullian's, Against Praxeas, in which Tertullian states (Against Praxeas, Chapter 25): "These Three are one [essence], not one [Person], as it is said, I and my Father are One, (John 10:30) in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." While this translation may obscure the point, Tertullian's Latin is: "qui tres unum sunt, non unus". Tertullian is relying on the difference between the neuter and masculine, a difference that also exists in his Latin of John 10:30.
The major problem for the theory that this is an allusion to the Johannine Comma is as follows: why not quote the entirety of the text if Tertullian is referring to something from 1 John? The chapter in question contains numerous quotations from John's gospel: why then wouldn't the epistle be quoted if a helpful statement were found there? So, it seems that instead Tertullian is explaining the unity of the Trinity, not quoting a verse that allegedly supports his conclusion.
Turning to Cyprian of Carthage, James Snapp (source) provides this succinct explanation:
In his Treatise on the Unity of the Universal Church (1:6), Cyprian says: “Dicit Dominus, ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus,’ et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: ‘Et tres unum sunt.’” In English: “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one,” and again, it is written of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”
This is a quotation, not an allusion. The use of the formula, "it is written," suggests that Cyprian is referencing Scripture, not Tertullian (or another merely human author). The question remains, however, whether Cyprian is referencing the shorter original reading or the interpolated Latin reading. The former is possible, if Cyprian believes that the spirit, blood, and water are references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Cyprian does not explain, so it is difficult to be sure. On the other hand, again, if the interpolation were present in Cyprian's text, why does he not quote it more fully? Why say that it is about the Father, Son, and Spirit instead of quoting "Father, Word, and Spirit"? It's hard to find a good answer to that question, and in this very brief discussion, Sheffield does not offer one.
Turning to Spain in the fourth century, we have what is generally viewed as the earliest clear reference to some form of the Comma. As discussed in a previous post (link), this form of the comma has a few notable differences, especially that it says that the Father, Word, and Spirit are one in Christ Jesus. Also, the author who provides this quotation is someone who did not hold to proper Trinitarian doctrines.
Finally, we turn to the first evidence of a shorter form of the comma that became more widespread in medieval Europe. This is evidence is from a work by Victor of Vita, who records persecution by Huneric, including a time when Huneric is said to have summoned 466 (or so) bishops to Carthage, in an effort to make them conform to the Arian religion of the Vandals.
Huneric did not call them to "convene a council" as that expression is usually used. The homousian bishops were, instead, essentially being put on trial. The synod was run by the Vandal king's bishop of choice, a man named Cyrila. There was an offer to hold a debate between the Vandal bishops and the homousian bishops. The homousian bishops of North Africa selected ten representatives to attend the debate. However, this offer of debate was declined. Nevertheless, Victor says that four bishops had prepared a written treatise on the beliefs of the homousians. Victor includes a version of this document in his account, and his version of that document (as best as it has been critically reconstructed) includes a reference to a form of the Comma.
The Vandals invaded North Africa via Spain at the start of the 5th century, but I'm not sure whether any of the bishops summoned to Carthage were from Spain. Huneric's territory did not, as far as I can tell, include Spain in 484, and he only summoned bishops from his territory.
While Vandals and Goths are related, they were different Germanic tribes.
Jonathan Sheffield:
So the Trinitarian North African bishops came to that council with a written confession, not only in their own language but in the language of the Goths and other dialects, and presented a specific quote from John, referencing the Epistle of John, where he quotes 1 John 5:7.
So the bishops of North Africa crafted this statement in response to the Arians of the West, the Gothic Arians, and used this specific passage to defend the Trinitarian position. And this is a council of over 400 bishops in attendance.
So the question is: we have a major council that is quoting this passage against the Arians. We know the type of text that the Arians used, so why would the North African bishops use something that was questionable, which would have meant their death over there in North Africa, if the passage was disputed?
The treatise cites John the Evangelist, without specifying whether it was in John's first epistle or somewhere else. However, it seems reasonable to think that the author meant to refer to John's first epistle.
The treatise was not written in multiple languages: it was written in Latin. Latin, however, was not the language of the Vandals. In fact, the reason Cyrila gave (according to Victor) for declining to hold a debate was that he didn't know Latin.
Victor does not say that the treatise was crafted by all the bishops, but attributes the treatise to four bishops. As the treatise does not seem to have circulated apart from Victor's work, we have no way to tell how much Victor himself contributed to the work. Indeed (as discussed in this previous post), the discussion of the Comma breaks the flow of the work, suggesting that it may have been a revision (Victor would be the most obvious source of this revision).
There is no evidence that using something questionable or disputed would have "meant their deaths". We also do not know what type of text the Vandals used. Very little of Vandalic has survived to the present time, the longest sentence being "eils ... scapia matzia ia drincan!" (source) Even if we were to assume that the Vandals read the Gothic Bible, John's epistles (if they were ever translated into Gothic) have not survived.
On the other hand, we do know that Augustine who died during the Vandal siege of Hippo in 430, had a text of 1 John without the Latin interpolation (link to example of Augustine's discussion of 1 John 5). So, it is reasonable to suppose that if the Vandals had taken up Latin texts from the places they conquered, they would have found at least some without the interpolation.
Likewise, it is unreasonable to call this a "major council." There was no meaningful participation in person by any of the homousian bishops.
Jonathan Sheffield:
And if we look back to the allusions of Cyprian and Tertullian, that follows that same textual line of the North African bishops. They had no doubt that this passage was Scripture at all.
The common retort against the North African council is, “Well, this passage was sort of made up because they looked at verse 8 and John, and it became sort of a version of verse 8 and became verse 7.” So they have to make up these wild conspiracies to generate verse 7.
Sheffield seems to be conflating a few things. The question is less about the council or even just Victor specifically, and more about how such an interpolation could come to be. The answer to that question is that it can come to be by an unreliable (or at least, not strictly literal) translator providing an interpretive gloss on the three witnesses that are actually mentioned in the text: the spirit, the blood, and the water. This fault seems to have been identified at least as early as the 6th century (see the original reading of the Ps-Jerome prologue).
Jonathan Sheffield:
The passage is a majority reading in the West. So while the Greek evidence is very—it has very little testimony to it in the Greek—when the official Greek Orthodox churches, I’m talking about the official churches of Alexandria, North Africa, and Constantinople, all met in 1904 to create their standardized Greek text for use throughout the Greek Orthodox Church, they discussed the issue of 1 John 5:7.
That is not in their textual tradition. That is not basically witnessed by the Byzantine text form. The holy bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church voted this passage to be included in the 1904 [text].
So when all the magisterial Reformers, basically all the magisterial Reformers except for Luther, all basically came to the same conclusion that this passage was witnessed by the ancient church and included in their editions of the TR. It’s a majority reading in the West, and when the Greek Orthodox Church met and discussed this issue, they included this passage.
The only people who seem to reject this passage are the textual critics based in the German rationalism of the late eighteenth and seventeenth century. So it’s not the official churches rejecting this passage. It’s basically the critical-text proponents of German rationalism.
This comment about "the only people who seem to reject this passage" is unsupportable. It's also misleading to say that it is "a majority reading in the West." It may well be a majority in the later Vulgate manuscripts. It is not a majority reading in the oldest Vulgate manuscripts. If you survey the Latin manuscripts from the 6th to the 10th centuries (as I did in this post), none of them have the Comma as it was ultimately imposed on the Greek text:
- 22 manuscripts originally lacked the Comma (many of these were later deliberately altered to include it)
- 1 manuscript had the "son" variant (i.e., not "Word" but "Son")
- 1 manuscript without "in earth" and with the comparative variant
- 1 manuscript with the "in Christ Jesus" variant
So, it's misleading at best to make comments about the "majority reading" in the West. The earliest Latin exegesis of 1 John 5 (from an anonymous Irish author around AD 680) does not have the interpolated reading. Neither did the Venerable Bede in the 8th century.
