The Greek Manuscripts of the Johannine Comma

The present post is largely drawn from Elijah Hixon's helpful post (link to post) over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.  

Hixon writes:

There are 10 Greek manuscripts that have the CJ, but only three of them have it in the same form as in Stephanus’ 1550 edition and Scrivener’s edition reprinted by the TBS—these three are 221marg, 2318 and 2473. All ten of these manuscripts are indexed for 1 John 5:7–8 at the INTF’s VMR, so you are free to verify them yourself. 

Hixon goes on to note: "Before I get there, I want to mention that sometimes an eleventh Greek manuscript is cited. GA 635 is sometimes cited as having the CJ in the margin, but it does not."

In addition to what Hixon has mentioned, I've added a line for the Complutensian Polyglot, since some folks like to suggest that the Complutensian editors transcribed their text from a manuscript, rather than emending based on the Latin (despite Stunica himself acknowledging the opposite, as explained here).

In a nutshell, before Erasmus' fourth edition, what is today the "TR" Johannine Comma did not exist. Of the four manuscripts with something Comma-like in the main text, the only one that is before the time of Erasmus is transparently a back-translation from the Latin, in the context of a Greek-Latin diglot text.  The only one from the time of Erasmus likewise appears to be a back-translation from the Latin, because it lacks the articles.  The remaining two match the TR text, but both are from long after the age of printing (i.e., 16th or 17th century), and are thought to be based on a printed Greek text.

Even if we were to consider the marginal readings in manuscripts that contain them, only one of the marginal notes is a viable candidate to be before the time of Erasmus, and this one is likewise a transparent back-translation from Latin.

In short, the Greek evidence confirms that the Comma Johanneum (CJ) is a Latin interpolation.   

Manuscript	Evidence of Latin influence	Has the TR reading?	Margin/Main Text
GA 635 (11th Century)	Hixon notes that GA 635 is sometimes cited as containing the Comma, but does not. Others have suggested that this has been cited in error for 636 (see below)	Does not actually contain the Comma.	N/A
GA 629 (14th century)	Latin-Greek diglot; the Greek lacks articles before the heavenly witnesses, suggesting translation from Latin.	No; has ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ / ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, lacks articles, reads Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, and has εἰς τὸ ἕν.	Main text
GA 61 (15th-16th)	Franciscan provenance; copied from GA 326 while adding Vulgate-derived readings, and the Comma lacks Greek articles.	No; lacks the articles and reads Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον.	Main text
GA 429marg (margin after 1522)	Marginal addition copied from Erasmus’s third edition, the article-less form of the Comma.	No; lacks the articles and follows Erasmus’s third-edition form.	Margin
GA 918 (late 16th century)	Spanish Catholic provenance; the Comma appears to have been added from Erasmus’s third edition.	No; lacks the articles and follows Erasmus’s third-edition form.	Main text
GA 2473 (17th century)	Apparently copied from a later printed Textus Receptus edition rather than from an independent Greek manuscript tradition.	✓	Main text
GA 2318 (18th century)	Late commentary manuscript; Wachtel considered its biblical text copied from a later Textus Receptus edition.	✓	Main text
GA 177marg (margin 18th century)	Marginal addition by the Catholic priest Ignatius Hardt in 1785; the verse numbering points to a printed source.	No; lacks articles and οὗτοι, reads εἰς τὸ ἕν, and omits the continuation into v. 8.	Margin
GA 221marg (margin 19th century)	Marginal addition made after a 1854 catalogue stated that the manuscript lacked 1 John 5:7, suggesting dependence on a printed source.	✓	Margin
GA 88marg (16th or later century)	Later marginal hand; Latin note, Counter-Reformation provenance, Latin-looking alpha, and no nomina sacra suggest printed or Latin influence.	No; apparently lacks the articles before the heavenly witnesses.	Margin
GA 636marg (15th or later)	Later marginal hand; lacks definite articles and appears amid Greek and Latin notes, suggesting possible translation from Latin.	No; lacks the articles and omits οὗτοι.	Margin
Complutensian Polyglot (16th)	Printed Greek-Latin New Testament; the Comma is printed in the Greek column alongside the Latin tradition.	No; includes καί before ὁ λόγος, omits οὗτοι, and reads εἰς τὸ ἕν.	Main text

Work Dubiously Attributed to Isaac "the Jew" and the Three Heavenly Witnesses

Isaac Iudaeus (aka Isaac the Jew) was a Jew who converted to Christianity and flourished around the time of Pope Damasus (Damasus, bishop of Rome), specifically AD 384, according to the editor of the Corpus Christianorum Series Latina, who is identified as "A. Hoste," probably Dom Anselm Hoste (CCSL, Vol. 9, p. 333).  There is a tractate, known as "Fides Isatis ex Iudeao" or "Fide Isacis" (Faith of Isaac the Jew), which Hoste acknowledges to be genuine.  

On the other hand, there is a work sometimes ascribed to this same Isaac the Jew, known as the "Expositio Fidei Catholicae" (Exposition of the Catholic Faith), but which the Clavis Patrum Latinorum (n. 190) is reluctant to acknowledge as authentic and multiple scholars agree.  The work is preserved in a single 8th century manuscript.

The critically restored text in CCSL, vol. 9, is as follows:

(p. 347)

(p. 348)

Here's my transcription of the Latin text:

EXPOSITIO FIDEI CATHOLICAE

Credimus unum deum secundum scripturam esse credendum, non sicut Iudaei aut haeretici, solitarium, sed in mysterio trinitatis, id est patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, tres personas, non tamen tres deos. 

Personas autem sic dicimus, ut non diuinitatem haeretico sensu membris, sicut hominem, conponamus, quia diuinitas quae est incorporalis tam inmensa est, tam inextimabilis, ut intra se omnia contineat, ipsa autem circumscribi non possit, sed ut patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum unum et indiuisum esse ita in diuinitate ac uirtute <credamus>, ut tres in personis, id est ut patrem credamus non esse filium, filium uero credamus non esse patrem, spiritum autem sanctum nec patrem esse nec filium; quia pater est ingenitus, filius uero sine initio genitus a patre est, spiritus autem santus processit a patre et accipit de filio, sicut euangelista testatur, quia scriptum est: Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo: pater, uerbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu. Non tamen dixit: unus est in Christo Iesu. 

Et in euangelio dicit: Ite, baptizate gentes in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti. Et denuo ipse dominus dicit: Ego et pater unum sumus. Et in psalmis legimus: Dicit dominus domino meo: Sede a dextris meis. Et in euangelio Iohannis sic dicit: In principio erat uerbum, et uerbum erat apud deum, et deus erat uerbum. 

Deum ergo dicendum uerbum, id est filium qui est apud patrem. Deum bis nominando deum patrem et filium designauit personas. Et in Genesi deus pater ad deum filium dicit: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Et denuo: Fecit deus hominem ad imaginem dei. 

Igitur ter deum dicendo non tres deos dixit, sed unum deum in tribus personis demonstrauit, nullum sane, sicut Arrius, altero maiorem. Quia autem tempore aut mensura aut honore unus quisque alio maior <non> est, ideo nos credimus, filium dei sine tempore a patre genitum. Quomodo potest minor esse tempore, qui ante tempore est? Aut quomodo mensura minor creditur, qui inmensus et inextimabilis est? et infinitus est? ac honore minor est, cum sit filius dei et deus? Vnum enim dei nomen est. 

Quando autem sit filius a patre genitus, aut ubi, aut quomodo, non licet dici, neque amplius scrutari. Quando autem dicendo tempus designas, ubi requirendo locum significas, quomodo scrutando mensuram uideris exprimere. Et haec tria in domino non cadunt, quia est inextimabilis, inmensus, infinitus, et quia locum non capit, quem mens nostra, quae modo concluditur, <inuestigare possit>. 

Inuestigare nemo potens factorem et dominum suum. Sicut ergo in hac trinitate una et inseparabilis est substantia atque diuinitas, ita et una est omnipotentia, non tres. Omnipotentia enim in eo dicitur, quod potentia et uirtute sua deus ex nihilo fecit uniuersa, id est caelestia et terrestria, carnalia et spiritalia, lucem atque tenebras, uisibilia et inuisibilia, angelos et animas et quidquid praeter deum mens humana crediderit. 

Et haec bona per filium facta sunt, sanctificata spiritu sancto, quem paracletum appellamus, qui super apostolis...

Here is my unprofessional translation of the Latin text (I would welcome a more professional translation):

Exposition of the Catholic Faith

We believe that one God, according to Scripture, is to be believed—not, as the Jews or heretics, solitary, but in the mystery of the Trinity, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, three persons, yet not three gods.

But we speak of persons in this way: not so that we may compose the divinity, in a heretical sense, with limbs, as a human being, because the divinity, which is incorporeal, is so immense, so inestimable, that it contains all things within itself, but itself cannot be circumscribed; but so that we may believe the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit to be one and undivided in divinity and power, while three in persons—that is, so that we believe the Father not to be the Son, and we believe the Son not to be the Father, and the Holy Spirit to be neither the Father nor the Son. For the Father is unbegotten, but the Son was begotten by the Father without beginning, and the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father and receives from the Son, as the evangelist testifies, because it is written: “There are three who speak testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” Yet he did not say: “This is [TF note: i.e., in the singular] one in Christ Jesus.”

And in the Gospel he says: “Go, baptize the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” And again the Lord himself says: “I and the Father are one.” And in the Psalms we read: “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand.” And in the Gospel of John he speaks thus: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.”

Therefore the Word is to be called God, that is, the Son who is with the Father. By naming God twice, he designated the persons, God the Father and the Son. And in Genesis God the Father says to God the Son: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness.” And again: “God made man according to the image of God.”

Therefore, by saying “God” three times, he did not speak of three gods, but showed one God in three persons—certainly no one, as Arius, greater than another. But because each one is not greater than another in time or measure or honor, therefore we believe the Son of God to have been begotten by the Father without time. How can he be lesser in time, who is before time? Or how is he believed to be lesser by measure, who is immeasurable and inestimable? And is he infinite? And is he lesser in honor, since he is the Son of God and God? For there is one name of God.

But when the Son was begotten by the Father, or where, or how, it is not permitted to say, nor to investigate further. For when, by saying “when,” you indicate time; by asking “where,” you signify place; by investigating “how,” you seem to express measure. And these three things do not fall upon the Lord, because he is inestimable, immeasurable, infinite, and because he does not take up place—whom our mind, which is now enclosed, is not able to investigate [TF note: the scholarly conjecture "investigare possit" suggests we "can investigate" it, but see the next line of the text].

No one is able to investigate his Maker and Lord. Therefore, just as in this Trinity there is one and inseparable substance and divinity, so also there is one omnipotence, not three. For omnipotence is spoken of in this, that God, by his own power and strength, made all things out of nothing, that is, heavenly and earthly things, fleshly and spiritual things, light and darkness, visible and invisible things, angels and souls, and whatever the human mind might believe besides God.

And these good things were made through the Son, sanctified by the Holy Spirit, whom we call the Paraclete, who upon the apostles...

A few observations about the form of the Johannine Comma as found here.  First, the text of the comma is: "Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo: pater, uerbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Jesu."

We cannot tell from this quotation whether this comes before or after the earthly witnesses for Ps-Isaac.  The text, such as is present, differs only slightly from Priscillian's text: "tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, uerbum et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Jesu." (see more complete discussion of Priscillian here)

Thus, like Priscillian's text, "in Christ Jesus" is present and the phrase "these three are one in Christ Jesus" uses neuter forms of "these" and "three". Also like Priscillian's text, the word "holy" does not accompany "spirit".  Additionally, like Priscillian's text, the concept of testifying is expressed in terms of uttering testimony, although the order of the words is swapped.  Notably, perhaps, "three" and "which" are masculine in the first instance, in contrast to Priscillian.   

Ps-Isaac does not explicitly identify John as the author, but does ascribe the phrase to the "evangelist."  By contrast, Priscillian says John said it, but does not specify whether it is John the Evangelist.

Among scholarly references to the work, we have:

• "32. Dubie Isaac Iudaeus (fl. c. 384), Expositio fidei catholicae; CPL 190; PF/EF." (Gyug, R. F. (2017). Ritual, Text and Law: Studies in Medieval Canon Law and Liturgy Presented to Roger E. Reynolds. United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.  link)
• "18] f. 74r-v, <Expositio fidei catholica, mutila alla fine> (<inter dubia> di Isaac = Ambrosiaster ? CPL 190, da questo solo codice; <in Africa saec. V-VI composita >, F. Stegmüller, Repertorium Biblicum Medii Aevi, VI, ..." (Italia medioevale e umanistica. (1989). Italy: Editrice Antenore.. link)
• "The other critic is the author of an Expositio fidei catholicae[52], a text which is related to the Fides of Isaac the Jew.[53] Here the phrase clearly occurs as a variant of the Comma Johannaeum. The Expositio reads: Tres sunt qui dicunt testimonium in caelo: pater, uerbum et spiritus, at haec tria unum sunt in Christo Jesu. Then follows the criticism: Non tamen dixit: 'unus est in Christo Iesu.'" (Bijdragen tijdschrift voor filosofie en theologie. (1991). Netherlands: Redactie Bijdragen. p. 362)

There is a problem of trying to date this work.  Clare K. Rothschild sums up the state of the scholarship this way:

(Rothschild, C. K. (2022). The Muratorian Fragment: Text, Translation, Commentary. Germany: Mohr Siebeck., p. 132)

In short, there are some scholars who date the text (as distinct from the manuscript) to the fifth or sixth century, others that date it as early as the second half of the fourth century.  The dating of the text is, unhelpfully for us, tied to the emergence of the Johannine Comma.  There may be other theological issues that could assist dating of the work.  For example, while the late 5th century work of Victor (discussed here) describes the procession of the Spirit as being from the Father, but makes no mention of the Son in this context, the author of the present work suggests that the Spirit, in addition to proceeding from the father, "et accipit de filio" (and receives from the Son).  

From my standpoint, this suggests the possibility of later doctrinal development, although it is hard to be sure.  Given that the manuscript itself is dated to the 8th century, that provides an outer bound on the date of composition. If we were to take a late 7th or even 8th century date as the date of composition, the reference to "heretics" could be a reference to the Unitarianism of the Muslims of those centuries. 

I sought in vain for any researcher on the historical development of the Filioque providing any other historical example of "receives from the Son" in any language.  If anyone knows, I would love to update this discussion with such a detail.

I certainly concur with Karl Künstle that this seems very unlikely to be the work of the same Isaac whose "Faith of Isaac the Jew" is known to us.  Given that the comma is the first text that the present author cites in this relatively short work, it is unlikely that the same author would not have mentioned the comma in his longer work.  So, it seems safe to say that the author is simply unknown, although he stands against both Unitarian and Arian views.

Ultimately, this text stands as another witnesses to a form of the Johannine Comma similar to that of Priscillian from the late 4th century, arguably the earliest discernable form of the interpolation.  

Priscillian of Avila and the Latin Insertion of the Three Heavenly Witnesses

Priscillian of Avila (AD 340-85) provides the earliest (undisputed) attestation to the Latin insertion into the text of 1 John, known as the Johannine Comma.  Priscillian's death in 385 was by way of capital punishment for allegedly practicing sorcery.  Priscillian is, therefore, sometimes viewed as being the first professing Christian put to death (through the use of the power of the state) by professing Christians on what appear to be religious grounds. 

Priscillian's works were long thought to be lost or existent only as fragments quoted by others, but in 1885, Georg Schepss (re-)discovered several tractates by him and/or a close follower.  These tractates are significant to our evaluation of the teachings of Priscillian and the Priscillianism that followed him, but also significant to the history of the textual transmission of the Latin insertion of the heavenly witnesses found in many later Latin manuscripts of 1 John.

Interestingly, the version of the Johannine Comma that Priscillian attributes to John is one in which the earthly witnesses are presented first and three are said to be one "in Christ Jesus."  In other (later-attested) versions of the Johannine Comma, the heavenly witnesses are presented first and "in Christ Jesus" is not present.  Additionally, the expression translated as "testify" is presented as "testimonium dicunt" (lit. declare testimony). Finally, there is an interesting difference as to what the earthly witnesses are in Priscillian.

Interesting for my friend Nick Sayers, Priscillian describes Christ as him "qui fuit, est et futurus est" (lit. which has been, is, and will be), which one would expect Nick to see as a reference (or possible reference) to KJV Revelation 16:5, although neither the CSEL nor Marco Conti make that connection.  

The controversy over Priscillianism came to the attention of Jerome. In his "Of Illustrious Men," Jerome's 121st entry (written around AD 393, less than a decade after Priscillian's death) reads:

Priscillianus, bishop of Abila, belonged to the party of Hydatius and Ithacius, and was put to death at Trèves by the tyrant Maximus. He published many short writings, some of which have reached us. He is still accused by some, of being tainted with Gnosticism, that is, with the heresy of Basilides or Mark, of whom Irenaeus writes, while his defenders maintain that he was not at all of this way of thinking.

However, Jerome's Letter 133, to Ctesiphon, approximately AD 415 (thirty years after Priscillian's death), states (section 3):

Then there is Priscillian in Spain whose infamy makes him as bad as Manichaeus, and whose disciples profess a high esteem for you. These are rash enough to claim for themselves the twofold credit of perfection and wisdom. Yet they shut themselves up alone with women and justify their sinful embraces by quoting the lines:

The almighty father takes the earth to wife;

Pouring upon her fertilizing rain,

That from her womb new harvest he may reap.

These heretics have affinities with Gnosticism which may be traced to the impious teaching of Basilides. It is from him that you derive the assertion that without knowledge of the law it is impossible to avoid sin. But why do I speak of Priscillian who has been condemned by the whole world and put to death by the secular sword? 

Similarly, in section 4: 

Leaving ancient history I will pass to times nearer to our own. Arius intent on leading the world astray began by misleading the Emperor's sister. The resources of Lucilla helped Donatus to defile with his polluting baptism many unhappy persons throughout Africa. In Spain the blind woman Agape led the blind man Elpidius into the ditch. He was followed by Priscillian, an enthusiastic votary of Zoroaster and a magian before he became a bishop. A woman named Galla seconded his efforts and left a wandering sister to perpetuate a second heresy of a kindred form. Now also the mystery of iniquity is working. 2 Thessalonians 2:7 Men and women in turn lay snares for each other till we cannot but recall the prophet's words: the partridge has cried aloud, she has gathered young which she has not brought forth, she gets riches and not by right; in the midst of her days she shall leave them, and at her end she shall be a fool.

Thus, we see that Jerome's information about Priscillian seems to have evolved and that his opinion did not improve over time.

Oxford University Press published a translation by Marco Conti of Priscillian's Tractate 1 (among other writings).  Lines 46-48 of the Tractate are relevant portion, found in the Latin original (taken from CSEL 18) at p. 34 and in the English translation at p. 35.  The Latin text is taken from a manuscript that the CSEL places in the 5th or 6th century.

Latin (ll. 28-48) (corresponding to the Latin at pp. 5-6 of CSEL 18, specifically p. 5, l. 6, to page 6, l. 9):

Quis enim est qui legens scribturas et unam fidem unum baptisma unum deum [Eph 4:5-6.] credens hereticorum dogmata stulta non darnnet, qui, dum uolunt humanis conparare diuina, diuidunt unitam in dei uirtute substantiam et magnitudinem Christi tripertito ecclesiae fonte uenerabilem Binionitarum scelere partiuntur, cum scribtum sit: ego sum deus et non est alius praeter me iustus [Is 45:21.] et saluator non es praeter me, [Hos 13:14.] et: ego primus et ego posthaec et praeter me non est deus, [Is 44:6.] quis sicut ego? [Is 44:7.] item alibi: ego sum et ante me non fuit alius, et post me non erit similis mihi; ego deus et non est praeter me qui saluos faciat, [Is 43:10-11.] et iterum Moyse dicente: dominus deus noster deus unus est,[Deut 6:4.] et Hieremias ait: hic est deus noster nec reputabitur alius absque eum qui inuenit omnem uiam sapientiae et dedit eam Jacob puero suo et Istrahel dilecto suo; posthaec in terris uisus est et cum hominibus conuersatus est.[Baruch 3:36-8.] Ipse est enim qui fuit, est et futurus est et uisus a saeculis uerbum caro factus inhabitauit in nobis [Jn 1:14.] et crucifixus deuicta morte uitae heres effectus est ac tertia die resurgens factus futuri forma spem nostrac resurrectionis ostendit et ascendens in caelos uenientibus ad se iter construit totus in patre et pater in ipso, [Cf. Jn 14:11.] ut manifestaretur quod scribtum est: gloria in exeelsis deo et pax hominibus in terra bonae uoluntatis;[Lk 2:14.] sicut Iohannes ait: tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua, caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt, et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, uerbum et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Jesu.[1 John 5:8,7.]

English:

For who is that who, reading the Scriptures and believing 'in one faith, one baptism, one God', [Eph 4:5-6.] does not condemn the foolish doctrines of the heretics who, while they want to put divine things in the same class with the human, divide the substance united in the power of God and break up the venerable greatness of Christ in the tripartite fountain of the church with the crime of the Binionites, because it was written: 'I am God and there is no other who is just but me', [Is 45:21.] and 'there is no saviour besides me',[Hos 13:14.] and 'I am the first and I am after this and besides me there is no god';[Is 44:6.] [and] 'who is like me?';[Is 44:7.] and likewise in another passage: 'I am and before me there shall be no similar to me; I am God and besides me there is nobody who may save';[Is 43:10-11.] and Moses says again: 'The Lord is our God, the only God,'[Deut 6:4.] and Jeremiah declares: 'This is our Lord and no other but him shall be considered, who found all the way of wisdom and gave it to Jacob his servant to Israel his beloved; after this he was seen on earth and lived with men'?[Baruch 3:36-8.] He is that who was, is, and shall be, and appeared as 'the Word' from eternity, 'was made flesh, dwelled in us and',[Jn 1:14.] after being crucified, since death had been conquered, was made heir of life; and by rising on the third day, as he was made the type of future, he showed the hope of our resurrection, and be ascending to the heavens he built the path for those who came to him, while he was 'all in the Father and the Father in him',[Cf. Jn 14:11.] so that what was written might be manifested: 'Glory to God in the highest and peace on earth to people of good will;'[Lk 2:14.] [and] as John says: 'There are three who testify on earth, the water, the flesh, and the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three who testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Jesus Christ.'[1 John 5:8,7.] 

I have preserved (or at least attempted to accurately transcribe) Conti's English as it is found at p. 35 of the work.  I note that the inclusion of the quotation around the "and" for John 1:14 is probably an error in the English (as it does not align with the Latin).  

The quotation is of interest as it pertains the prologue of Ps-Jerome.  While it possible that a Priscillianist scribe added the comma reference to bolster Priscillian's tractate after Priscillian's death, the existence of a 5th or 6th century manuscript having such a text demonstrates, at least, that this was not a medieval insertion into Priscillian's work.  It is an interesting question for scholars of Priscillian to try to determine the extent to which Priscillian's followers may have interpolated his works after his passing. In the specific case of the tractates re-discovered by Schepss, it is believed that four of the eleven tractates were written by a close follower of Priscillian, rather than by Priscillian himself, even though the tractates are attributed to Priscillian. 

Assuming that the tractate is genuine (as is generally accepted) and that this portion is original to the tractate (which has not been, to my knowledge, disputed), this would provide a fourth-century date for the first clear emergence of a form of the Johannine Comma.

This emergent form is not, however, the same as the form of the Johannine Comma provided in Theodore Beza's 1598 edition (the most likely source for the KJV text of 1 John 5:7-8)(p. 506):

Beza's Latin based on Beza's Greek:

Nam tres sunt qui testificantur in caelo, Pater, Sermo, & Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testificantur in terra, Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt.

Latin Vulgate as reported by Beza:

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.

Compare with Priscillian's Latin:

... tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua, caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt, et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, uerbum et spiritus et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Jesu.

You can see that there is a slight difference between "deliver testimony" (Priscillian) "give testimony" (Beza's Vulgate) and "testify" (Beza's own).  There is also a different word choice by Beza of "Sermo" instead of "Verbum," the former connoting the spoken word.  The difference between "tres" and "tria" is the difference between masculine and neuter, but the meaning of each is "three".  Similarly, "hi" is masculine, whereas "haec" is neuter, but each mean "these". Likewise, "quae" is neuter and "qui" is masculine, but both mean "which". There is also the difference between "nam" (Beza) and "quoniam" (Vulgate), with the latter being more specifically "because," but the meaning being roughly the same. Priscillian's also includes the "in" from the Greek regarding the three earthly witnesses, whereas the others do not. As noted above, the three earthly witnesses are first for Priscillian, but second for Beza and his Vulgate.  Also, Priscillian's version includes "in Christ Jesus," which Beza and his Vulgate omit. Moreover, Priscillian's version has "Spiritus" but lacks "sanctus."  Finally, the order of the three earthly witnesses is different and "caro" (flesh) is found rather than "spiritus" (spirit).

Assuming for the sake of argument that Jerome was familiar with Priscillian's Tractate I in the form we know it, such familiarity would make it possible for Jerome to have opined on the difference in translation between that set forth by Priscillian and the more common Old Latin translation that did not mention the three heavenly witnesses.  On the hypothesis that Jerome saw the tractate and the spurious addition to John's epistle, this would explain his mention of "unfaithful" translators adding to the words that were written.  On the other hand, I see no evidence that Jerome knew of our interacted with this treatise anywhere (and I do not believe the Ps-Jerome prologue to be Jerome's).  

Interestingly, though, Basilides (mentioned by Jerome) is believed to have produced a lengthy commentary on the Gospel of John, all of which is now lost.  If - as Jerome avers - Priscillian was influenced by Basilides, then it is possible that Priscillian's attribution to John is dependent on his reception of Basilides work.  If that were the case, that would push the Johannine Comma back to the second century (Basilides was apparently active from AD 117-161).  However, we are now firmly in the realm of speculation. 

The work of Priscillian, who lived in what is now Spain, also has potential interest as it relates to the presumably later citation found in Victor of Vita's work (discussed here).  Although there is variation in the text of Victor's work among the extant manuscripts thereof, the reconstructed text is this:

(p. 60)

tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo, pater, uerbum et spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt.

You will notice that the relation to the earthly witnesses is not able to be determined from this quotation.  One assumes that "in Christ Jesus" is not present in the text from which Victor's work quotes.  Like Beza's Vulgate text, masculine pronouns and masculine "three" are used, and the spirit is called "holy," but "testimonium perhibent" (lit. present testimony) is used.  According to the critical notes for Victor's work, at least one copies uses "dant" like Beza's Vulgate, and at least one omits "sanctus" like Priscillian's.  Moreover, seemingly the consensus of three manuscripts is "et filius" (and the son) rather than uerbum (word).  

Suffice to say that it does not seem that the text in Victor is precisely the text in Priscillian, whether or not the reconstruction has been done correctly.  Note as well the difficulty in drawing firm conclusions about the exact wording of the text from the manuscripts of Victor's writings, and consider how this is heightened in the case of Priscillian, for whom we are apparently reliant on a single manuscript.

Victor of Vita - a Fifth Century Witness to the Emergence of Johannine Comma?

Borrowing from Brownlee, Mike Ferrando has argued that "460 Bishops" gave witness to the Johannine Comma as being a part of Scripture. (The Comma Calmly Considered)  Mike specifically stated: "In the same way that the 500 witnessed Christ’s resurrection, so here too the 460 give witness to these verses as part of Scripture." (p. 3)  Let's evaluate this claim.

First, we must track down the source of Mike's "460" number.  The primary/ultimate source for Mike's claims is a work by Victor of Vita.  In 1992, as volume 10 of the Translated Texts for Historians series, Liverpool University Press published John Moorhead's translation of History of the Vandal Persecution by Victor of Vita.  The copy I'm working from for this article appears to be a "print on demand" printing by Lightning Source LLC, but I'm optimistic that the pagination is consistent with the original 1992 printing. 

According to Moorhead's introduction, Victor's book was nearly all written in 484, about the time period from 429 to 484 (p. x), with the starting point of that range corresponding to the entrance of the Vandals into north Africa (429) after passing through what is today Spain preceding decades (p. ix).  Victor's focus is on the persecution of the Christians who referred to themselves as "Catholics" by folks who referred to them as "homousians" and were referred to as "Arians" by Victor.  My point in this article is not to get into the interesting distinctions amongst Arianism, Semi-Arianism, and the like, nor to get into the distinction between "Catholic" in the 5th century African sense and "Catholic" in today's contemporary parlance. An attempt to "impose Arianism on Catholics" (p. xii) appears to have provided the impetus for the writing of this work in 484. Before leaving the question of labels, it is interesting to note that those who Victor called Arians took offense at Victor's side referring to themselves as "Catholics" (Book 3, section 1, p. 64).

Returning to Mike's claim about "460," it seems that Mike gets this from Brownlee (a 19th century author), who states: "At the time fixed by the royal edict, there appeared, says Gibbon in his Roman History, four hundred and sixty bishops from the orthodox African churches." (p.546)  Gibbon's "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," pp. 550-1 states: "At the command of Hunneric, four hundred and sixty-six orthodox bishops assembled at Carthage...."  Gibbon himself is reliant on Dom Ruinart's 1694 edition of Victor's work as the source for his information.  

How does Gibbon arrive at the number of bishops? Gibbon explains it this way (p. 551):

• 1 Martyr
• 1 Confessor
• 28 Fled
• 88 Conformed
• 46 Sent to Corsica
• 302 Banished to various parts of Africa

That sums to 466.  Moreover, this does not come from Victor's work itself, but rather from another document (see p. 123 of Ruinart's work)

(Ruinart, p. 140)

How reliable this further document is, I do not venture a guess. But let us set aside the 466 vs. 460 discrepancy for the moment.

Mike uses the heading: "Confession of the 460 Bishops Read Aloud" (p. 6).  What is the work being discussed, and whose work is it?  As mentioned earlier, Victor of Vita presents his account as being a history.  He says that "The Book of the Catholic Faith" (section 56-101 of Book 2 of his work, pp. 44-63) was presented in lieu of debate, after their opponent, Cyrila claimed to be unable to speak Latin (Book 2, section 55, p. 44).  This was after the Catholic side had designated ten men to speak on their behalf, so that the other side could not claim that Catholic side had won through sheer numbers (Book 2, section 53, p. 43).  At the conclusion of the book, however, Victor (or perhaps the authors of the book) wrote: "This is the end of the book sent on 20 April by Januarius of Zattara (Kef Benzioune) and Villaticus of Casae Medianae, bishops of Numidia, and Boniface of Foratiana and Boniface of Gratiana, Bishops of Byzacena."  (Book 2, Section 101, p. 63)  So, based on the actual primary source, this is the work of four men as reported by a fifth, namely Victor of Vita himself.  

The confession of the Catholics was Trinitarianism.  The book amounts to arguments from Scripture in favor of that confession.  Whether anyone from the Catholic side carefully reviewed the work of the four bishops before they delivered it, who can say! Victor does not tell us.  All that Victor says is that upon the refusal of the other side to debate: "our people had foreseen this and written a short work concerning the faith, composed quite fittingly and with the necessary detail. They said: 'If you wish to know our faith, this is the truth we hold'." (Book 2, Section 55, p. 44)  Moreover, Victor reports that "our little book had been presented to them and read out" (Book 3, Section 1, p. 64), which suggests some kind of public reading of the book, though without much clarity as to how far they read, since the objections began with the title.

So, it is a stretch to ascribe this whole work to the entire multitude, even if we accept the 466 number of Ruinart or the oddly rounded-down 460 of Gibbon.  Rather, if we accept Victor's account and the present form of the work, it was the work of four men, two from the area near modern day Bouchegouf, Algeria, and the other two from the area near modern day Sousse, Tunisia, two cities that are about 500 km apart, along the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, south of Sardinia.

Mike's reason for pulling out the rhetorical stops to make it sound as though hundreds of bishops were focused on the text of 1 John 5:7-8 is known only to Mike.  Mike's rhetorical flourish is, however, a sword with two edges: the same confession he's citing for this reading presents John 8:25 as "I who speak to am the beginning" (which Mike rejects; Book II, section 77, p. 54) and cites Sirach 24:5, which should not be cited authoritatively (Book II, section 78, p. 54), as well as Daniel 13:42, which is a spurious addition to the book of Daniel (Book II, section 84, p. 57).  The confession also cites Wisdom 1:7 as though it were the work of Solomon (Book II, section 88, p. 58).  Surely Mike does not accept "Glorify God and carry him about in your body" as being the correct reading of 1 Corinthians 6:20, though this confession quotes it thus (Book II, section 89, p. 59).  Likewise, one hopes Mike rejects: "Adore his footstool" as the reading of Psalm 98:5.  In short, once Mike weights this little book with the authority to decide textual critical matters, it will immediately stab him in the foot with several obvious blunders. 

There remains a question about the date of composition of Victor's work that reports the little book.  Although "virtually all" (p. x) of Victor's book may have been written in 484, Victor's book itself seems to suggest that it was composed in the 60th year of the Vandal invasion (i.e., 489), although Moorhead questions whether anything more than light editing was done later than 484 (pp. xvi-xvii).    There were (at the time of Moorhead's writing) two critical editions of this work (MGH AA 3 and CSEL 7)(p. xix), both prepared in the late 1800s (1879 and 1881, respectively, as mentioned on p. 95).  Moorhead said he tried to follow a "sense for sense" rather than "word for word" translation methodology (p. xx).

In an interesting (for the purposes of this particular article) footnote, Moorhead observes (p. xx, fn. 28): "It must be said that some of the variants which occur in the Book of the catholic faith constitute amendments in a Trinitarian direction."  If this is the case, one wonders whether the amendments may have included amendments to the little book as well.

At Book 2, Section 55, Victor introduces the context of the Book of the Catholic Faith, namely that after Cyrila refuses to debate the catholic bishops on the grounds that he (Cyrila) does not speak Latin.  Cyrila is described by the king's notary as "the patriarch Cyrila," which the Catholics do not accept as having legitimacy (Book 2, Section 54). The Book then spans Book 2, Section 56 to Section 101 (the end of Book 2).

Section 82 of Book 2, in the form translated by Moorhead, includes the following:

And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: 'There are three who bear witness heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.'[fn47: The famous Johannine comma, occurring in the text of I Joh at 5:8, but certainly not a part of the original text. The circumstances of its addition remain obscure.] Surely he does not say 'three separated by a difference of quality' or 'divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them?' No, he says that the 'three are one.'

I've included Moorhead's footnote in the block quotation.  Apart from that comment, Moorhead offers no note about the this passage.  However, it ought to be observed that this passage presents itself as an abrupt intrusion upon the text, interrupting the flow of what comes before and after.  Without the passage, the beginning of Section 82 and the beginning of Section 83 read as follows:

And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as creator: 'It is the divine Spirit who made me, and the Spirit of the almighty who teaches me.' (cf. Job 33:4) And David says: 'Send forth your Spirit and they will be created, and you shall renew the face of the earth.' (Ps 103:30) If creation and renewal will take place through the Spirit, without doubt the beginning of creation as well was not carried out without the Spirit.

This text flows together.  However, inserting the first block quotation between two verses talking about creation makes little sense.  The selection of this insertion point is, of course, not completely arbitrary.  The text has been inserted after the word "Trinity" in a section that includes arguments for the equal divinity of the Holy Spirit.  

There are similarities and differences between the inserted material and the remainder of the book.  For example, at section 60, the book addresses John 10:30, "I and the Father are one," and there anticipates the response that this is only describing a unity of will.  Likewise, when the book addresses John 5:18, the book anticipates the objection that this is the Jews opinion.  There does not, however, seem to be any anticipated objection to the Johannine Comma.  The author does use a "he did not say" formula to argue for his preferred meaning, but here the author does not anticipate the most obvious objection that they are one in testimony.  

As with many textual critical questions, it may be difficult to prove a claim of later revision without some manuscript support.  The MGH critical edition relied on two ninth century manuscripts, two tenth century manuscripts, and one manuscript from each of the eleventh and twelfth centuries:

(p. X)

(p. V)

The MGH critical edition does retain the entire insertion in the main text, but at the Johannine Comma offers the following note (the Latin is the note, the English is a rough translation):

Haec verba, quae in nonnullis SS. Bibliorum codicibus translatorum infidelitate excidisse conqueritur S. Hieronymus, vel quivis alius auctor, qui sub huius s. doctoris nomine Prologum edidit in epistolas Canonicas, religiosius in codicibus Africanis conservata fuisse patet, ubi Patres Africani in unum congregati pro emittenda fidei professione ea adhibuerunt' 

(p. 34)

These words, which in some codices of the Holy Bibles, through the unfaithfulness of translators, Jerome complains to have fallen out, or any other author who published under the name of this holy doctor the Prologue into the Canonical epistles, it is evident to have been more religiously preserved in the African codices, where the African Fathers, gathered into one for the issuing forth of a profession of faith, employed them.

My assumption, based on the notes, is that none of the six manuscripts consulted was missing this passage.  The CSEL edition, however, seems to have consulted a greater number of manuscripts, and even to have attempted to map their relation to one another, though still, unfortunately, there is nothing earlier than the 9th century.

(p. XV)

(p. VI)

When it comes to the critical reconstruction, CSEL likewise, maintains the passage in the main text:

(p. 60)

Once again, my assumption (and I have made no attempt to check the manuscripts to verify this) is that none of the extant manuscripts of Victor's work omit the passage in question.

Ruinart's main text, followed by his endnotes:

(p. 54)

(p. 178)

(p. 179)

As the bulk of Ruinart's note is already transcribed and translated above, I won't repeat the process here.

Suffice to say that, for the moment, it does not seem that any scholar of Victor of Vita has investigated the question of whether Victor himself or a copyist prior to the 9th century has inserted the passage "three are one" into the argument, as opposed to being the original work of the four men (not four hundred) who are credited with writing the little book.

On the other hand, it is not incredible that someone may have edited Victor's work.  Moorhead places the final section of the work in brackets (Book 3, Section 71, p. 93) and says that it is "almost certainly a later addition to the text" (p. xvi.).

Is Victor's report credible?  Moorhead sometimes questions the accuracy of Victor's reports.  For example, Victor blames the Vandals for destroying the temple of Caelestis, but Moorhead cites Quodvultdeus to demonstrate that it was Catholics who destroyed that temple before the Vandals arrived (Book 1, Section 8, p. 5, fn. 8).  

Moorhead notes: "Augustine died on 28 August 430, during the Vandal siege of Hippo (Brown 1967: 432), although there is no need to connect his passing with the Vandals." (p. 7, fn. 12)  Victor describes the situation this way: "At this time the city of Hippo Regius (Annaba), which the blessed Augustine, worthy of all praise, governed as its pontiff, was besieged." (Book 1, Section 10, p. 6)  

In another case, Moorhead does not question the accuracy of Victor's report, but the report at Book 1, Section 34, involves involves a claim that: "As their flesh was torn in pieces the blood poured out and their inner parts were exposed to view, but on each occasion, as Christ healed them, they were restored unharmed on the next day" and again after a notable Christian virgin named Maxima was tortured: "as everyone looked on, the putrefaction caused by the enormous pieces of wood vanished."  Victor does not claim to have witnessed this for himself, but recorded it on the basis of someone's claim: "the man responsible for her custody testified to me on oath that this is what happened." (Book 1, Section 34, p. 16)  This account of supposed miracles is not unique: 

• 1:38 a blind woman receives sight; 
• 1:43 Armogas breaks strings used torture him like "threads of spiders' webs" and manages to sleep comfortably while being dangled by one leg; 
• 1:45-46 Armogas tells Felix to bury him under a certain carob tree rather than in a basilica, and when they dig under the tree they find a regal marble sarcophagus prepared;
• 2:11 a withered hand is "restored, in good condition;"
• 2:18 someone saw a vision that the church of Faustus would never be lose its glory, never to be restored;
• 2:19 someone saw a vision of a threshing by a whirlwind, followed by a grain inspection that reduced an "enormous" to a "tiny pile;" 
• 2:20 someone saw a vision of some kind of fiery stones falling from the sky;
• 2:21 "the venerable bishop Paul" saw a vision of a savage donkey kicking over a tree big enough to "cover almost all Africa with its shade"
• 2:22 "The honorable bishop Quintianus" saw a vast flock of sheep killed and boiled in a pair of pots
• 2.37 Christian exiles survive attacks of poison-breathing scorpions whose attacks were otherwise infallibly lethal;
• 2:47-51 A blind man receives a vision telling him to go to Eugenius and to be blessed when the baptismal pool is blessed, to receive his sight, and his sight is restored after the sign of the cross is imposed on his eyes after blessing the baptismal pool; and 
• 3:31 Multiple people have their tongues cut off but "thanks to the operation of the Holy Spirit they spoke, and continue to speak, just as they had spoken before".

While this says something about the general willingness to accept claims of the miraculous on Victor's part, and a seeming willingness to propagate such claims by recording them in writing, it's hard to see what bearing it has on his precision in reporting the contents of the little book.

Other topics of interest from the work:

Self-government of churches is an interesting detail that emerges in Book 2.  Book 2, Section 2, has Victor reporting: At the request of the emperor Zeno and Placidia, the widow of Olybrius, [Huniric] gave the church of Carthage freedom to ordain for itself whomever it wished as bishop. At that time the church had been deprived of such an ornament for 24 years." (pp. 24-5) A few sections later, Victor reports: "The catholic multitude rejoiced that they had been given the right to ordain a bishop again while the barbarians held power." (Book 2, Section 6, p. 26)

Additionally, the issue of the procession of the Spirit comes up in the very first section of the little book (Book 2, section 56, p. 45). The Spirit is said to proceed from the Father (without mentioning the idea of the Spirit proceeding from the Son).  

Likewise, at Book 3, Section 47, Victor identifies the demand for papers showing Arian baptism with the mark of the beast mentioned at Revelation 13:16. (p. 83)

There is some kind of invocation of dead faithful at book 3, section 69, (p. 92) though whether it should be understood literally or rhetorically is hard to tell from the context.

Other things are noticeable in their absence.  The little book focuses on claims from sacred writings, rather than conciliar authority (much less the authority of a Roman bishop).  Likewise, Mary does not play any prominent role in Victor's book generally, nor in the little book.  There is mention of various treasures of churches, but none of them appear to be statues or icons.

Responses to Mike Ferrando's Debate Usage of Victor's Work

During a debate with James Snapp, Mike provided a 25 minute speech on the quotation and use of 1 John 5:7-8, as reported by Victor. I would like to offer a few corrections and/or clarifications to Mike's claims:

1) Is this a 4th century witness to the Johannine Comma?

No.  This is a late 5th century (at the earliest) witness to the comma.  If we accept the present form of the work and all of the statements in the work, then this is a usage from AD 484.  If we suspect that Victor (or subsequent generations) may have enhanced the "Book of the Catholic Faith" by adding more arguments, then the usage would be by Victor potentially in AD 489, or possibly by one of the subsequent editors of Victor's work up to the 9th century.   

2) According to Victor, who used in the Johannine Comma in 484?

Victor's book, in its current critical edition, contains a little book, "The Book of the Catholic Faith," which Victor says was authored by four North African bishops: Januarius of Zattara, Villaticus of Casae Medianae, Boniface of Foratiana, and Boniface of Gratiana.  

3) Was the Synod of Carthage of 484 a Church Council?

The Arian king called the assembly, requiring all the Homousian bishops in his empire to attend.  There were also Arian bishops in attendance, but there does not seem to have been any debate or the like, that would allow this to be considered a meaningful church council.

4) Did the Homousian Bishops All Get Together to Write the "Book of the Catholic Faith"?

According to Victor, four North African bishops: Januarius of Zattara, Villaticus of Casae Medianae, Boniface of Foratiana, and Boniface of Gratiana composed the work in anticipation of the Arian side refusing to debate.

5) Was this "Book of the Catholic Faith" read out loud?

At least the title seems to have been read out loud.  It's unclear how much of the rest was read aloud.

6) Did all the Homousian Bishops agree to the "Book of the Catholic Faith"?

There is no record of this.  

7) Did miracles occur at Carthage in 484?

Victor claims that a miracle occurred with respect to people who had their tongues removed and subsequently were forced to leave Carthage, and who eventually came to Constantinople.

8) Did the Homousian bishops know Greek?

Maybe some did.  Fulgentius of Ruspe was there and he knew Greek. Knowledge of Greek, however, is essentially irrelevant to an analysis of Victor's work, which was in Latin, and to the analysis of the little book, which was also in Latin.

9) Did the "Book of the Catholic Faith" present the Johannine Comma as part of John's letter?

No.  The Book of the Catholic Faith merely ascribes this to John the Evangelist.  

10) Were "most of" the Homousian Bishops from North Africa?

All of the Homousian bishops that were at the Synod of Carthage of 484 were North African, as the Arian king did not have control of Greece etc.

11) Was there a risk of the Arians saying that the verse was added?

Considering that the objection to debate was that the Arian in charge of the debate didn't speak Latin, and considering that the book was offered in Latin, it doesn't seem like a very big risk.  The biggest risk was that if you affirmed Trinitarianism, you were likely to be persecuted.  They were affirming Trinitarianism.  So, they were likely to be persecuted.  

A Straw Man of David Allen's Position?

 At least one person reached out to me to suggest that I (in my previous post) misunderstood Dr. Allen, and that Dr. Allen does not teach that 1 John 5:1 teaches that faith precedes regeneration.  This person referenced one of Dr. Allen's papers from a few years ago ("Does Regeneration Precede Faith?" in the Journal for Baptist Theology & Ministry, Fall 2014, Vol. 11, No. 2), which more modestly argues only that regeneration preceding faith cannot be proved from the grammar of the text (e.g., "The most that can be said from the Greek present participle and perfect tense verb combination is that the actions are contemporaneous" p. 41).  Indeed, in that paper, Dr. Allen attempted to resort to an argument from the "broader context" ("The broader context of John’s writings indicate he would not teach that regeneration precedes faith and elsewhere teach that faith is a condition for life as he does in John 20:31." p. 41)

Nevertheless, as documented in my various video responses (Original Response Part 1, Original Response Part 2, Response to Flowers' Claim that Allen Addressed James White's argument, and a follow-up regarding Sherman and Tuggy), especially the Original Response (for example, Part 1, from the place where Allen says, 'Well I'm gunna go ahead and raise some eyebrows'), Allen differs from Flowers and says that there are "semantic grounds" for his view of 1 John 5:1; and Part 2, where he reads section 4 of his paper, which argues from the "semantic structure" that faith precedes regeneration). 

Interestingly, the entire challenge posed to Dr. Allen by Dr. White hangs on this point.  If Dr. Allen were to abandon his position for Flowers' position, White's challenge would no longer apply to Allen with the same strength, although Dr. White would still be right to demand a consistent exegesis of 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1.  

Does Grace Sherman rescue David Allen? Or does Allen's Appeal Backfire? What does it mean that 1 John 5:1a is "condition" and 1 John 5:1b is "consequence"

Previously (link), we considered David Allen's putative attempt to respond to James White's challenge regarding providing a consistent exegesis of 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1.  We observed that Allen provided both a written response and a video.  In this post, we consider the most central part of that response that has not been addressed to date.

The following is a transcript from Allen's video (starting around 38 minutes, 47 seconds into the video):

Number four, semantic structural analysis. As linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate with respect to 1 John 5:1, the semantic structure of the two propositions, proposition one, if anyone believes that Jesus is God's anointed, and proposition two, he is the one whom God has caused to live spiritually, i.e. be regenerated. Now notice this: semantically what is being communicated there -- the communication relationship there is one of condition consequence from a semantic standpoint. The condition is faith and precedes the consequence, which is regeneration. This is the natural way to interpret the verse. 

This closely follows p. 3 of Allen's written response, so closely that we can say he's just reading his written response:

There another place in the video where Allen makes reference to his position on this point. Starting around 21 minutes, 39 seconds into the video, Allen responds to Flowers by saying (transcription, as with the previous transcription, is Youtube's, lightly cleaned up by the present author):

Right. Well, I'm going to go ahead and raise some eyebrows by saying that I'm going to differ with you and Carson a little bit, because I actually think there are good reasons to think that 1 John 5:1 really can't be interpreted to argue for regeneration preceding faith.

But it's not on grammatical grounds. I'm going to get to all this in a minute. I'll just tease this right now. It's rather on semantic grounds. Semantic structure makes it pretty clear that what's happening there is faith preceding regeneration. So I'm a little bit stronger on that. I understand what Carson is saying. I don't disagree with what Carson is saying except to say that I think when you bring in the full orbed -- all of the exegetical material -- looking at it from a semantic perspective, contextually, you don't have a case for regeneration preceding faith, but you can have a case for faith preceding regeneration. So that would sort of be okay be how I might word that. 

I previously mentioned that I don't know what difference Allen intends between semantic and grammatical grounds, but at that time I did not have the benefit of having Sherman's work in front of me.  Incidentally, the book is published by "Summer Institute of Linguistics" in 1994 and lists as authors, "Grace E. Sherman and John C. Tuggy." The publisher has bios on a number of their authors (link to bios) but neither Sherman nor Tuggy are on the list.  I was able to locate archives of publications attributed to Tuggy (link), which shows an active interest in linguistics; the archives similarly listed a shorter two other linguistic-related publications associated with Sherman's name (link). Not that credentials are the be-all or end-all, but I was not able to locate any information regarding whether these authors have any specific training.  I only mention this because Allen calls them "linguists," in citing them. 

In order to respond to Allen, it's necessary to consider Sherman's book, of which page 91 is the single cited page.  On the other hand, in view of James White's challenge, it would be good also to consider whether Sherman anticipated the challenge (by more than two decades!) and provided the answer to the problem of applying Allen's (borrowed) analysis(?) at 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7.

Sherman has a note that is of particular interest at 1 John 2:29 and then nothing at all of interest at 1 John 4:7, except that her silence as to the parallel structure suggests she simply has not considered the issue.  From Sherman's analysis and conclusions for 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7 we can more clearly demonstrate the fundamental inconsistency at 1 John 5:1.

First, pp. 55-56 address 1 John 2:29a:

Notice that in the "Relational Structure" section, Sherman does not break down 2:29b.  However, when analyzing 2:29a, Sherman says that "The Greek grammatical structure indicates a condition-CONSEQUENCE relation. However, we know that the protasis of the condition is true, so that this functions as a reason-RESULT, here encoded as 'since'."  

When it comes to analyzing 2:29b, Sherman says that the Greek "has been begotten" is figurative, and that this signifies spiritual regeneration.  Thus, Sherman translates/interprets the text as "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."

Second, pp. 79-81 address 1 John 4:7c:

As can be seen, Sherman does not further divide 1 John 4:7c, but treats the unit as a 'HEAD".  Sherman identifies the first appeal in this section (including 1 John 4:7) as "In a sense, this is the climax of the whole Epistle."  This is reasonable observation.  Note as well that once again Sherman explains "has been born from God" figuratively, in this case translating/interpreting it as "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" and to explain it thus:

The context shows that physical birth is not in view here; what is referred to is God's causing us to live eternally, that is, to associate properly with God, as a child with a father in a family.

Within the argument John is making, Sherman properly considers that 4:7c fits logically under "Love has its source in God," (i.e., 1 John 4:7b).  This, of course, is behind a right understanding of 1 John 2:29b as well: because God is the source of righteous acts, we know that the one who continues in doing what is righteous got that from God.

The challenge, of course, is to apply this same principle consistently when it comes to 1 John 5:1a-b (according to Sherman's division).  As noted above, p. 91 is the single page of Sherman's work that addresses 1 John 5:1a-b:

Note that on the page, Sherman has divided 1 John 5:1a as "condition" and 1 John 5:1b as "CNQ" (p. vi explains that this abbreviation means "consequent").  Allen asserted that "linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate" but, as you can see, there is mere assertion, not demonstration.  Incidentally, I have referred to the author as "Sherman" instead of "Sherman and Tuggy" because of the preface of the book, which indicates that the initial work was Sherman's and that Tuggy (to paraphrase) beefed up the justifications of the positions set forth by Sherman.  In cases where there is bare assertion, it seems better to credit Sherman.

Note, however, that the "NOTES" skip right past 1 John 5:1b, and the notes on 1 John 5:1 are focused on the title "Christ."  

Nevertheless, Sherman twice provides the translation/interpretation: "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  

I should add that the discussion of 1 John 5:1 resurfaces on the next pair of pages, pp. 92-93:

Notice here that the translation/interpretation offered pushed into a chiastic structure.  Sherman argues that "there is no doubt that the whole verse is an aphorism" and again "Verse 1 is a generalized statement in which the actors are unspecified or unidentified ...." (p. 93)

Recall from James White's challenge:

The Provisionist position is that 1 John 5:1 must be understood with the substantive participle in the present, "Everyone who believes (as a result) is born from God."  I believe the natural reading is "everyone believing has been born from God," with the perfect passive action preceding and conditioning the action of the participle. 

Based on the interpretation/translations offered by Sherman, it seems that notwithstanding the "condition/consequence" labelling, Sherman supports White more than Allen.  Specifically note:

• 1 John 2:29b "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."
• 1 John 4:7c "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" 
• 1 John 5:1b "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."

This (of course) agrees with White's analysis as to the relative time issue.

What then of the condition/consequence point?  Recall that Sherman had identified something as being condition/consequence based on Greek grammar, but based on knowledge that the protasis is true, Sherman recategorized as reason-result, at 1 John 2:29a.

So, what are some other examples of condition/consequence and reason/result offered by Sherman?  At p. 24 we see multiple examples:

What we can glean from these examples is that if we assume that Sherman has common sense, we see that she is not using "condition/consequence" to mean that the condition is the cause of the consequence.  Rather, Sherman is using "condition" and "consequence" to express the fact that the truth of the condition statement guarantees the truth of the consequence statement. 

I wish there were a better explanation, but it seems that Allen may have mistakenly assumed that Sherman's "condition/consequence" meant something like "cause/effect," when it plainly does not (see multiple instances on p. 24 that cannot reasonably be thought to be cause/effect).  As a result, it seems that Allen has quoted Sherman as supportive of his position, when Sherman does not address the specific conclusion of the relative timing of initial faith and being born of God and her proposed interpretation/translation most closely aligns with James White's.

Sherman does not say that the condition is faith or that this precedes the consequence, nor that the consequence is regeneration.  Instead, Sherman says that the condition is the statement (the portion following the if, of course) "If anyone believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One" and the consequence is the statement "he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  Notice that Sherman uses the the present tense for the condition statement and the perfect tense for the consequent statement.  The meaning of condition/consequence in this analysis is that if the condition is true, then the consequence is true.  In other words, if A is 5:1a is true, then 5:1b is true.  That's all that "condition" and "consequence" means here.  Moreover, given that Sherman has maintained the present/perfect distinction, the most natural read of the text is parallel to that of 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.

Finally, for the same reason that 1 John 2:29a is grammatically a condition-consequence statement, so also is 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.  And Sherman does not offer any reason or explanation (or even assertion) to handle these three parallel texts differently from one another.