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 [TF note: literally the Latin word here is "our" in a plural form; the implication is that while the codices of the Greeks - in the Greek language - are corrupted, the codices of the Latins - in the Latin language - are not; see, for confirmation, Sir Isaac Newton's translation, above] 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 Call of All Nations, chapter 6 [TF note: although often associated with Ambrose, Prosper of Aquitaine is the correct author, not Ambrose.  The citation in the ACW series would be St. Prosper of Aquitaine, The Call of All Nations, Book I, Chapter 20, p. 67].

*** 

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.

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.