The Grammatical Argument for the Johannine Comma

This is a response to, "Johannine Comma and Georgios Babiniotis," by Nick Sayers (as retrieved on April 27, 2025).  The article starts with the suggestion: "Voulgaris Vindicated by Leading Greek Expert." That refers to an argument made by Eugenios Voulgaris (aka Eugenius Bulgaris) that argues that the text of 1 John 5 contains a grammatical solecism that is avoided only if the Johannine Comma is included. (text of Voulgaris available here, as retrieved on July 12, 2024)

Sayers begins:

Most critical text proponents don't even engage in the grammatical issues surrounding the Johannine Comma, and those who do, such as Barry Hofstetter, or James White, only reveal that they are not adequately informed about this issue.

This blog does address all sorts of arguments that others do not.

Sayers continues:

In an email discussion with Professor Georgios Babiniotis a few months ago, I asked him about the validity of the claims of legendary Greek professor Eugenius Voulgaris concerning the Johannine Comma. Those familiar with the grammatical arguments made by Voulgaris will be pleased to know that Babiniotis, who is probably one of the most important Greek linguists alive today, said that not only was Voulgaris correct to say we need to keep the Comma for grammatical reasons, and he also took it a step further by pointing out that verse 7 justifies verse 8 because of the “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses.

One of the challenges with interacting with this argument is that we are not given the correspondence that Sayers provided to Babiniotis, in order to understand what question was asked, and how it was asked. We have to make certain assumptions, and that can lead to mistaken conclusions about what is meant by the answers that Sayers reports.  

Let me be clear: I am not impugning Sayers' integrity in the least.  I take for granted that Sayers is honestly and accurately reporting what Babiniotis said and that if there is any error in such reporting, it is unintentional.  It's just that, as it stands, the context we have is incomplete.

Sayers continued:

Babiniotis is a Greek linguist and philologist who has written several books about Greek grammar, etymology, and other Greek language-related topics. He is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece and previously served as rector of Athens University.

As David Crystal is to English-speaking people, so Georgios Babiniotis is to the Greek speaker. Here are some of the books he has written here: https://babiniotis.gr/ergografia/vivlia.

You may know of Babiniotis from his Greek dictionary which is often simply called the "Babiniotis" dictionary.

Prof. Babiniotis is now 87 years old.  His academic credentials seem to be that he has a bachelors in Philology from the University of Athens, and subsequently served as a professor at the University of Athens.  His political appointments are impressive: he clearly is very connected.  I'm not sure in what year Sayers contacted him, but my impression is that it was in 2021.

I don't bring these things up to disparage Prof. Babiniotis.  In 2021, La Linguistique published an article by Babiniotis: "Modern Greek Interpretive Lexicography: from the 18th century to the present day."  The article focuses on Greek dictionaries and suggests the possibility of a new and significant Greek dictionary in the near future.  He certainly is a recognized scholar in the field of dictionaries, as Sayers has highlighted.

Sayers continued:

In May he wrote the following and attached a word doc:

“...Dear Mr Sayers,

I apologize that only now I can answer your kind letter about the N.T. passage discussed by Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης.

Here is my opinion as a linguist, not as an expert in theology.

Γ. Μπαμπινιώτης...”

I don't know why Sayers includes ellipses.  I assume that the meaning is that perhaps Sayers has omitted some other material from the email (for legitimate reasons of privacy, or the like).  There is, of course, nothing much to address in the email itself.  

I appreciate that Babiniotis is focused on his own linguistic skills as distinct from any theological skills.  This may, however, pose a small problem for his analysis, as we shall see.

Sayers then offers "(Word Doc):" followed by the following text, which I understand to be the entirety of Babiniotis' comments.  If there is anything missing, of course, that could alter the analysis of what is provided.

Babiniotis begins:

I will not discuss the opinion of the really great theologist and scholar (yet not a linguist) bishop Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης as I do not know on what conditions it was formulated. However, linguistically —though with another explanation— Ευγένιος Βούλγαρης is right to consider verse 5.7 obligatory for the existence of verse 5.8.

As I understand it, Babiniotis is saying that Voulgaris has reached the right conclusion, but not for the right linguistic reasons.

Babiniotis continues:

What you are asking has two aspects: a theological and a linguistic one. I can only say my own opinion on the linguistic aspect of the specific text within the frame of what is quite often used in regard to the Greek language and passages of New Testament Greek.

As I understand it, Babiniotis is being careful in view of various changes to the Greek language over time to couch his answer in terms of his understanding of New Testament Greek.  His interpretation might be different if he were dealing with Attic Greek or Modern Greek.  Keep in mind that, of course, New Testament Greek is not Babiniotis' central area of study.

 Babiniotis opines:

The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.

«καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»

is linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”, i.e. on the ground that it makes a pattern completely the same (“parallel”) in structure with that of 5.7.

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,

ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα

καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι

Presumably, Babiniotis means that each word of the three words, "τρεῖς ... οἱ μαρτυροῦντες," in verse 8, is masculine because of the parallel to "τρεῖς ... οἱ μαρτυροῦντες" in verse 7, where each of those is masculine.  To be more specific, though, the issue is really about the word μαρτυροῦντες - if that were something other than masculine, both the number and article would surely follow.

It is easy to see the parallelism, but how does Prof. Babiniotis explain the justification?

So for Modern Linguistic analysis what is important is not the mere grammatical “gender agreement rule” (which would lead to the usage of neuter gender : «καὶ τρία εἰσὶ τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ…»), but the overruling schema of “syntactic parallelism” which is much more stronger than a simple gender agreement rule.

Conclusion. The issue we refer to has more to do with the linguistic style of the passage; it is the result of a stylistic selection which is far beyond the usage of a grammatical/syntactic rule that would lead to neuter gender and which furthermore would eliminate verse 5.7.

(End of word doc)

Style over syntax seems to be Babiniotis' point.  Following the gender agreement rule (in which case "witness" would be neuter instead of masculine) would damage the style of providing a syntactic parallel between the three heavenly witnesses and three earthly witnesses.

I must admit that even after puzzling over it for a while, it is unclear what Babiniotis means by saying "eliminate verse 5.7." 

We don't know, because Sayers hasn't told us, but presumably Sayers had some unanswered questions as well.  He adds:

George later said in an email:

“...I have given you my own linguistic explanation which is to keep verse 5.7. which justifies verse 5.8. It is grammatical and mainly “syntactic parallelism” of these two verses...”

Unfortunately, we do not even get two full sentences of the explanation offered by Prof. Babiniotis (I'm not even sure that the first part of the quotation is a full sentence).  Moreover, at least as to what he means by "eliminate verse 5.7," the meaning is not at all clear.

All that said, there is no need to agree or disagree with Babiniotis as to things he has not said clearly.  As to what he said clearly, it seems:

1. Babiniotis does not agree with or accept Voulgaris' linguistic argument, only the conclusion;
2. Babiniotis thinks that the syntactic parallelism with 5.7 is an adequate explanation for 5.8 having the masculine gender (notwithstanding that it violates the gender agreement rule); and
3. Babiniotis thinks that if 5.7 needs to be present in order to justify 5.8 on the grounds of syntactic parallelism.

I do not think that my analysis of Babiniotis is unfair or in the least controversial.  I don't think it requires taking a low view of Babiniotis' linguistic abilities, credentials, acumen, or intelligence to conclude that his analysis can be boiled down to those three salient aspects.  Before providing my response, let's see what else Sayers offers:

So I hereby challenge those of the Anglo Sanhedrin who desire to delete the Comma, such as James White, Dan Wallace, Barry Hofstetter, James Snapp Jr, Stephen Boyce, Bill Brown, Bart Ehrman, Elijah Hixson, etc, to refute the claims of this top Greek linguist, who has basically just confirmed that the Greek grammatical argumentation that myself (Nick Sayers), Steven Avery, Will Kinney, Edward Hill, Jack Moorman, and many other TR/KJV people hold to, is not only correct but that the Comma is also linguistically justified on the pattern of “syntactic parallelism”.

I don't think that Sayers has correctly understood Babiniotis, if he thinks that Babiniotis is endorsing anyone else's "Greek grammatical argumentation."  Then again, I don't have access to the additional documentation that presumably Sayers himself has.  Suffice that in the released material, that is not what Babiniotis said in the published correspondence.

The bigger issue, however, is what was not considered by Babiniotis, but what was not considered by Babiniotis: is there another justification for the use of the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8, even without the justification of syntactic parallelism?

In other words, the big question is why John would refer to the three witnesses using the masculine gender and not using the neuter, even in the absence of 1 John 5:7.  There is a better explanation for why John referred to the three witnesses using the masculine gender: although the nouns themselves are not masculine, they are being anthropomorphized as witnesses.  An alternative explanation is that although the nouns themselves are not masculine, they are to be understood analogically as referring to the three persons of the Trinity.  

Unfortunately, there is no evidence of Babiniotis considering these alternative explanations for the violation of the gender agreement rule. Had Babiniotis done so, perhaps he would simply agree that these considerations may likewise trump the gender agreement rule. 

The most likely explanation is that John means to evoke the "three witnesses" rule in the Mosaic law, which both Jesus and Paul reference:

• Deuteronomy 17:6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.
• Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.
• Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.
• 2 Corinthians 13:1 This [is] the third [time] I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.
• 1 Timothy 5:19 Against an elder receive not an accusation, but before two or three witnesses.
• Hebrews 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

Assuming that this is indeed John's intent, then the use of the masculine as consistent with treating these witnesses as people.

There is also possible precedent for doing something similar in Psalm 89:37 (Septuagint numbering 88:38): καὶ ὡς ἡ σελήνη κατηρτισμένη εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ὁ μάρτυς ἐν οὐρανῷ πιστός διάψαλμα

In this place, witness (μάρτυς) is masculine, whereas moon (σελήνη) is feminine. One might argue, however, that the antecedent reference witness is making here should be taken as throne (θρόνος), which is masculine.

There are at least two other cases of impersonal witnesses being referenced in the Septuagint, where there is a gender agreement mismatch between the witness and the word that the witness describes. 

Septuagint Joshua 22:34 provides a first example of a non-personal witness:

καὶ ἐπωνόμασεν Ἰησοῦς τὸν βωμὸν τῶν Ρουβην καὶ τῶν Γαδ καὶ τοῦ ἡμίσους φυλῆς Μανασση καὶ εἶπεν ὅτι μαρτύριόν ἐστιν ἀνὰ μέσον αὐτῶν ὅτι κύριος ὁ θεὸς αὐτῶν ἐστιν

Note that altar (βωμὸν) is masculine, but witness (μαρτύριόν) is neuter.

Septuagint Joshua 24:27 provides a second example of a non-personal witness:

καὶ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς πρὸς τὸν λαόν ἰδοὺ ὁ λίθος οὗτος ἔσται ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς μαρτύριον ὅτι αὐτὸς ἀκήκοεν πάντα τὰ λεχθέντα αὐτῷ ὑπὸ κυρίου ὅ τι ἐλάλησεν πρὸς ἡμᾶς σήμερον καὶ ἔσται οὗτος ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς μαρτύριον ἐπ᾽ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν ἡνίκα ἐὰν ψεύσησθε κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ μου

Note that stone (λίθος) is masculine but witness (μαρτύριον) is neuter.

Note about content:

The content of this article (at least in part), appeared previously on my youtube channel (here).  The video may contain some additional content not captured in this post, and - of course - vice versa.

Timothy Decker has posted a very interesting item on the same subject, which can be found here: (link to post).

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.

2 John 1 and the Textus Receptus - Room to Improve the King James Version

Nick Sayers (in his 2 John Bible Study video) has identified an interesting difference between Beza's 1598 Greek New Testament, the primary basis of the New Testament of the King James Version, and Scrivener's Textus Receptus, the usual TR edition that TR advocates reference.  This difference highlights an opportunity to improve the King James Version.

Here is the KJV:

2 John 1 (KJV) The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

The phrase "in the truth" should be rendered "truly" or "in truth" (for a more word-for-word translation) rather than "in the truth."  Beza identified this issue as early as 1556, and suggested changing the Vulgate translation of "in veritate" ("in truth" or "in the truth" - Latin lacks articles) to "verè" ("truly") to better convey the sense of the Greek.  Beza, in his annotations (discussed in more detail below), recognized the connection between John's Greek phrase ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (en aletheia - in truth) and a corresponding Hebrew word b'emet, which has the sense of "in truth" or really/seriously.  Thus, Beza argued that the text ought to be translated with "verè" to convey the sense rather than "in veritate," though the latter is a word-for-word formal equivalent translation.

An odd thing happened, though, and Beza's main text in 1598 did not align with his Latin text nor with the (much, much later) text of Scrivener.

Beza's 1598 edition has the text of 2 John 1 as follows: 

(source)

The relevant difference is the presence (in Beza) of an article before the word aletheia (truth) the first time it appears in the verse:

2 John 1 (Scrivener) ὁ πρεσβύτεροσ ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν

2 John 1 (Beza) ὁ πρεσβύτεροσ ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν

One might wonder whether Beza's annotations shed any light.  Beza's Annotation is as follows:

(source)

In the following transcription, I've added modern vowel points to the Hebrew b'emet, meaning "in truth" or "really/seriously" although for reasons unknown to me, Beza used unpointed letters (perhaps it was all his printer had available?).

¶ Verè, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, Heb. בֶּאֱמֶת [beemeth.] Vulg. & Erasm. ad verbum, In veritate. ¶ Veritatem, τὴν ἀλήθειαν. i. Christum, vel Evangelium. quae phrasis saepe, apud Ioannem praefertim, occurrit. Idem itiam eiusmodi unius verbi geminatione gaudet: sicut singulis penè paginis licet observare, tum in Evangelio, tum in epistola superiore.

My own amateurish translation:

¶ Truly, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, Heb. בֶּאֱמֶת [beemeth.] Vulg. & Erasm. word for word, In veritate (“In truth”). ¶ “The truth,” τὴν ἀληθείᾳ. that is, Christ, or the Gospel; which manner of speaking occurs often, especially with John. He also indeed delights in such a doubling of one word: just as in almost every single page it can be observed, both in the Gospel and in the former epistle.

Note, however, that Beza's own Latin follows "truly" (verè) not "in the truth" in all his editions, including the 1598.  Moreover, while we may question the Greek and/or Hebrew skills of some of the King James translators, we certainly must believe that they knew how to read Latin, and could tell the difference between the Latin for "Truly" and the Latin for "In [the] truth".  

Moreover, note that while Beza's annotation may be a little confusing in view of the text as printed, Beza's annotation is best understood not as proposing the alternative reading "love in the truth" for "truly love" but rather as referring to the portion of the text about "knowing the truth".  In other words, Beza is saying that John is making a play on words, referring to his sincere love and also knowing about Christ and/or the Gospel.

It does not seem that there is any textual critical basis for adding the article into the text.  For example, 

Stephanus' 1550 (Beza's primary source for textual critical material) does not offer any textual variant information regarding 2 John 1 and does not include the article in the main text:

(source)

Furthermore, Beza's own editions, before and after the 1598 edition, are inconsistent.  

1604. The 1604 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations) omits the article in the text:

(source, vol. 2)

1594. The 1594 Annotations-only printing contains the same annotation:

(source at [1237])

1590. The 1590 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations) omits the article in the text:

(source, at [899])

1589. The same text (with the article) and annotation as in the 1598 are present in Beza's 1588/89:

(source)

1582. Likewise in Beza's 1582, the article and the annotations are present:

(source, at [990])

1580. The 1580 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations) omits the article in the text:

(source)

1575. The Latin-only 1575 edition has the same Latin text as Beza offers consistently throughout:

(source)

1567. In the 1567 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations), the text omits the article:

(source, at [775])

1565. Likewise, in his 1565 edition, his text omits the article, despite his annotations:

(source, at [1073])

(source, at [1074])

1557. Beza's Latin edition of 1556/57 includes the same annotation:

(source, at vol. 2, [1178])

In summary, all his editions have the Latin for "truly" and all his editions with annotations seem to have essentially the same annotations.  On the other hand, Beza's three final major editions of 1582, 1589, and 1598 all have the article, but the first major Greek edition (1565) and all the other minor editions lack the article.  

The article issue is not listed among the NT Conjectures. Likewise, I could not find any mention of this change in "Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament," by Jan Krans.  Based on the collation provided via INTF, I was not able to locate any transcribed manuscript with an article in the position that Beza places it here.  So, if a deliberate insertion, it would seem to be a conjectural emendation of the text.

Given the presence of the "truly" reading in Beza's Latin and the presence of the seemingly conflicting annotation in all of the editions that have article present in the text, I think it's most reasonable to assume that the presence of the article in the text in the major editions of 1582, 1588/89, and 1598 was a typographic error in the 1582 that was subsequently copied in the following major editions without being noticed by Beza.

The King James translators, who we believe relied upon Beza's 1598 as their primary text, seem to have followed Beza's main text over his annotation.  They did not translate as "in truth," "truly," "indeed," or the like.  Instead, they translated as "in the truth" without any indication that "the" was being supplied:

(source)

Blaney's 1769 KJV similarly does not italicize the "the" in the verse:

(source)

Matthew Verschuur's "Pure Cambridge Edition" (published in 2006) claims to be scrupulous about italics and likewise does not italicize:

(source)

On the other hand, although Wycliffe's 1398 had "in treuthe" (source), English translations starting with Tyndale had included the English article (I have not extensively researched whether there were any better English translations available at the time).

1568 Bishops' Bible (per BibleHub)

2 John 1: The elder to the elect Lady & her chyldren, whom I loue in the trueth: and not I only, but also all that haue knowen ye trueth:

1560 Geneva Bible (scanned)

2 John 1: The Elder to the elect Ladie, and her children, whome I loue in [a] the trueth: and not I onely, but also all that have knowen ye trueth, [a: According to godliness & not with anie wordlie affection.]

Tyndale New Testament (per WikiSource) 

2 John 1: The elder to the electe lady and her chyldren which I love in the trueth: and not I only but also all that have knowe the trueth

Given that the King James translators were aiming to edit the Bishops' Bible only where the originals demanded it, and given that Beza's 1598 seemed to support for the article present in the Bishops' Bible, it seems that King James translators followed Beza's main text over his Latin translation and his annotations, thereby maintaining Tyndale's improvable translation.

As can be seen from Beza's notes, Tyndale did not have a Greek text with the article in front of him.  He had Erasmus' 1516 text and annotations.  The annotations on 2 John (reproduced below in their entirety) did not mention this issue, and the main text lacked the article:

(source)

(source) 

An interesting collision of a weak (but by 1611 already traditional) translation by Tyndale coupled with either a typographic error or conjectural emendation in Beza's 1598 resulted in the King James Version at 2 John 1 having some room for minor improvement by omitting the definite article.

Nick's Errors: The Marginal Annotation Argument

Nick Sayers, an outspoken and influential advocate for the perfection of the King James Version, has offered a flawed argument regarding the marginal notations present in the 1611 printings of the KJV.  In a nutshell, Sayers' argument is that the alternative readings in the 1611 margins, those places where the text says, "Or, ..." are not alternative translations/readings (which Sayers thinks would be doubt-producing) but rather they are simply a way of the KJV translators acknowledging that others have erroneously provided a different reading (an approach that Sayers believes is faith-producing).

On the other hand, the KJV translators themselves in "The Translators to the Reader," explain (source):

Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgmet not to be so be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostome saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainely set downe in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concerne Faith, hope, and Charitie. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their every-where-plainenesse, partly also to stirre up our devotion to crave the assistance of Gods spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and never scorne those that be not in all respects so complete as they should bee, being to seeke in many things our selves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, heere and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne salvation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment, that fearefulnesse would better beseeme us then confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modestie with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, then to strive about those things that are uncertaine. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seeme to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can beno lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expresly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he hath not all of his owne side his favourers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their hie Priest had all lawes shut up in his brest, as Paul the second bragged, and that he were as free from errour by speciall priviledge, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were an other matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have bene a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he prooveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace. 

In other words, the KJV translators were using the margins to express uncertainty where they thought uncertainty was warranted.

You can find an allegedly exhaustive list of the marginal notes at the linked website (link), although the page's author (Calvin George?) acknowledges that the marginal notes in the Apocrypha were not included.  Also, given that there are over 7,300 marginal notes, there may be some errors on the page.  

While I have a lot of respect for Sayers' integrity, and I am confident that he remains convinced that his speculation regarding the marginal annotations is correct, I am unable to locate any sound basis for accepting his claim.  The main evidence to which I've heard him appeal is that in many cases the alternative translation or reading is one that was used by one of the then-contemporary English Bibles, such as the Bishops' Bible or the Geneva Bible.  This is unpersuasive as evidence against the thesis that the KJV translators were themselves (as a collective) uncertain.  Indeed, it is more reasonable to suppose that they were indeed aware of the alternative translation and while they favored the translation they selected, they were not so sure of themselves as to entirely write off the alternative translation.  

Timothy Berg has provided an interesting article, The Five Types of Marginal Notes in the King James Bible, providing a taxonomy of the various kinds of marginal notes in the 1611 KJV.

Responding to Nick Sayers' Interview with AVBibleThumperMinistries on the alleged significance of the three "I AM" statements in Exodus 3:14

 Approximately from 1:54:31 to 1:56:50 in "Interviewing Nick Sayers @RevolutionDebates on The Perfection of The KJV!!!" Nick Sayers states:

They claim to us, “oh you're you're following no manuscripts in this place.”  Like, say, one example: Revelation 16:5. They always bring this up.  Oh, Revelation 16:5 - when it has “shall be – “Oh, that's a conjectural emendation. That was just made up out of thin air.” Sort of thing.  What they don't tell you is when it says “the one who is, and was, and shall be,” that's actually the etymology of the name of Jehovah: the past, the present, and the future. When you read in Exodus 3, verses 14 to 15, it has three I AMs there. One's the past, One's the present, One's the future. And then the next verse says, “My name is Jehovah.”  So, the building blocks for the name of Jehovah is: the past, the present, and the future – the one who is, and was, and shall be. So, when it says that -- some scribe wrote “holy” on it because it's the holiest name of God according to the Jews. Many times they don't even pronounce this name and so they've written “holy” on a lot of these manuscripts, which is a type of – it's a name and so they put a “Sacra” on it which means “holy.” So, it’s a nomin sacra.  So, understanding that, we do have some very good internal evidence for some of these things that — people have been saying for years that, “oh this is a conjectural emendation.” James White will make a big fuss about this, but they don't tell you it's the name of Jehovah there in the Book of Revelation, in Revelation 16:5, and that changes everything. Why would they have “holy” written there? Well, it's a holy name.  Jews didn't want anyone to say this. I mean they even say God with a g dash d.  You know what I mean. If they’re seeing the etymology of Jehovah with the three I AMs there, that's like – that's radioactive to them. And so they're going to write “holy” there. And, so that's why you see these type of things. It’s a name. It’s a full name of the name of Jehovah. So, of course it's going to have the three elements: the past, the present, and the future. It appears four other times in the Book of Revelation as the one who was, and is, and is to come; but the purest form is the one who was, and is, and shall be. And they wrote holy over it. 

First, let's look at Scripture.

Exodus 3:13-16 

13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them? 14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this [is] my name for ever, and this [is] my memorial unto all generations. 16 Go, and gather the elders of Israel together, and say unto them, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and [seen] that which is done to you in Egypt:

This argument from the "three I AMs" may not be original to Nick (I don't recall whether he cites anyone for this idea), but it does not seem to be either translationally or exegetically sound.

It is true that the phrase "I AM" appears three times in the English of Exodus 3:14 in the KJV.  The Hebrew of the verse says:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה וַיֹּאמֶר כֹּה תֹאמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶהְיֶה שְׁלָחַנִי אֲלֵיכֶם׃

Most English translations render this Hebrew word (in all three places) as "I AM." Certainly, Nick's preferred English translation, which he normally argues was perfectly translated, likewise uses "I AM" in all three places.  Some render this word as "shall be."  Some commentators (such as Victor P. Hamilton, Exodus: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), p. 64 or Robert A. Snyder), argue that the Hebrew word אֶהְיֶה could be variously understood as past, present, or future.  Snyder writes:

With regard to translation, “I AM WHO I AM” (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה) has nine possibilities, due to three translations for the verb (“I was” or “I am” or “I will be”) and three translations for the relative pronoun (“who” or “what” or “that”).

Similarly, Hamilton writes:

Nevertheless, at the next page, Hamilton concludes:

Likewise, Snyder connects Exodus 3:14 with the Gospel "I am" statements:

The Gospel of John proclaims Jesus as the fulfillment of the divine name of Exodus. As in Exodus, where “He will always be whatever his people need him to be in any given moment, in any given place,” because truly God is both “I-will-be-what-I-will-be” and “I-will-be-what-I-need-to-be-for-you,”[62] so also in John, Jesus is both the absolute “I am” and the predicate “I am your every need.” Jesus is God’s memorial-name forever and our very strong tower. Hallelujah!

Neither of these gentlemen, however, suggest that somehow the three instances of אֶהְיֶה in Exodus 3:14 should be understood respectively as past, present, and future.

Additionally, while versification does lasso in a third instance of "I AM," in God's own explanation of His name, He only uses אֶהְיֶה twice, namely: "אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה" - "Ehyeh asher ehyeh" - "I AM THAT I AM," in the KJV.  Moreover, when God tells Moses what Moses should tell the people, God simply states: "אֶהְיֶה" (ehyeh), a single time.

• When God expands that in the next verse, He says: 
• "LORD (i.e. YHWH) God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," 
• "יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיכֶם אֱלֹהֵי אַבְרָהָם אֱלֹהֵי יִצְחָק וֵאלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב"
• "YHWH elohei avoteichem elohei avraham elohei yitzchak velohei ya'akov"

Thus, God explains says Moses should refer to Him as YHWH, and describe him as the "elohei avoteichem" (God of your fathers), namely the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.  Elohim is used four times and the Tetragrammaton is used once, but even the triple use of Elohim is not about past, present, and future, but about identifying the three principle patriarchs of the people of Israel.

As for the assertion that "some scribe wrote 'holy' on it," this assertion lacks merit.  There is precedence for substitutions of Adonai for YHWH in Hebrew or κύριος (kurios - Lord).  The KJV itself follows this practice in most places in the Old Testament, including in Exodus 3:15.  There is also precedent for abbreviating words like κύριος as ΚΣ (kappa sigma, with a line over them).  This latter practice is also known as nomina sacra abbreviation.  However, characteristic of nomina sacra abbreviations is the omission of letters and the use of the overline.  What Sayers has proposed is a substitution without any precedent.

The reference to the similar expressions in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, 4:8, and 11:17 is a sword with two edges for Sayers.  In none of these places do we find manuscripts reflecting a similar scribal practice as Sayers has proposed occurred here.  Sayers' assertion that this is the "purest form" is - again - a claim without precedent.  It's not a "form" used anywhere in Scripture, nor is it a form used in the Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, nor in the other Jewish writings before the New Testament.  

Additionally, Revelation 11:17 does not help Sayers, as it does not even include the "coming one" found in Revelation 1:4, 1:8, and 4:8, and necessary for Sayers to view this as some kind of "triadic declaration." 

Codex Vaticanus Says What?!

Matt 27:49b contains an unusual textual variant that is found in manuscripts 01, 03, 04, 019, 67, 1780, 2586, 2680, 2766.  In at least two of these (1780 and 2766) a later corrector tried to remove the variant reading.  The variant reading is the addition of the following: "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα"  (67, 1780, 2586, and 2680 have αιμα και υδωρ rather than the reverse). The literal meaning of the Greek is "another took a spear and pierced his side, and out came water and blood" (or blood and water, if you change the order of the words).

We know that Jesus' side was pierced with spear from John 19:34, which states:

ἀλλ᾽ εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν λόγχῃ αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευρὰν ἔνυξεν καὶ εὐθὺς ἐξῆλθεν αἷμα καὶ ὕδωρ

But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.

The issue that arises is that in John's account, this takes place after Jesus was already dead, whereas at Matthew 27:49b, the event appears to come right before Jesus dies.  This would create a synoptic problem.

Unfortunately, some King James Version advocates have started to make claims like this (link to start of quotation): "There are really hard readings in Vaticanus, where Jesus didn't die on the cross. He died from a spear in Vaticanus."

It's hard to take this kind of claim seriously.  Even assuming that the variant reading of Matthew 27:49b were original, the text would only seem to imply that Jesus was killed by the spear thrust while on the cross.  Moreover, the blood and water (or water and blood) was an indication that Jesus was already dead when he speared.

Moreover, each of 01, 03, 019, 2680, and 2766 (namely all of the manuscripts that have the variant at Matthew 27:49b and have John 19:34 transcribed in INTF in any form) have "αλλ εις των στρατιωτων λογχη αυτου την πλευραν ενυξεν και εξηλθεν ευθυς αιμα και υδωρ" (or something very similar) at John 19:34.

So, while Vaticanus (aka 01) has an unusual variant at Matthew 27:49b, Vaticanus in John 19:34 affirms that the spear thrust was after Jesus' death.  Indeed, none of the witnesses to this unusual variant alter John 19:34.  Manuscript 04 (Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus) lacks John 18:36–20:25.  Manuscript 67 lacks John 6:65 to 21:25).  I have not determined why 1780 and 2586 are not transcribed at John 19:34.  Both manuscripts are available online. 

Other KJV advocates have made similar claims.  Peter S. Ruckman, "The Scholarship Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Professional Liars?" p. 275 (endnote at p. 438 - caps and italics are Ruckman's): 

Who really "slew" Christ? Com'on? Never mind what some deceived dunce thinks is a "problem" in the AV  text. Who killed Jesus Christ? His death is attributed (by Stephen) to the Jews (Acts 7:52). Simon Peter blames it on the Jews (Acts 3:15). On some level they must have slain him, for Paul says the same thing in 1 Thessalonians 2:15; but fact it, I mean like a full-grown, adult male, the Romans tried Him, the Romans whipped Him, the Romans nailed him, and the Romans stuck the spear in his side after he was dead--INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT SINAITICUS (א) AND VATICANUS (B) have the Roman soldier piercing Christ's side WHILE HE IS STILL ALIVE?[EN12]

(There are those two "great" uncials that White says are "vilified." Go sit on a tack, kid).

[12. Burgon, The Revision Revised, pp. 33-34 and The Last Twelve Verses of Mark, p. 80.]

Rather than address Ruckman's assertions, better to go to his source for this particular matter, Burgon.

Burgon writes (The Revision Revised ..., pp. 33-34):

We shall perhaps be told that, scandalously corrupt as the text of א B C D hereabouts may be, no reason has been shown as yet for suspecting that heretical depravation ever had anything to do with such phenomena. That (we answer) is only because the writings of the early depravers and fabricators of Gospels have universally perished. From the slender relics of their iniquitous performances which have survived to our time, we are sometimes able to lay our finger on a foul blot and to say, 'This came from Tatian's Diatessaron ; and that from Marcion's mutilated recension of the Gospel according to S. Luke.' The piercing of our Saviour's side, transplanted by codices א B C from S. John xix. 34 into S. Matt, xxvii. 49, is an instance of the former, — which it may reasonably create astonishment to find that Drs. Westcott and Hort (alone among Editors) have nevertheless admitted into their text, as equally trustworthy with the last 12 verses of S. Mark's Gospel. But it occasions a stronger sentiment than surprise to discover that this, ' the gravest interpolation yet laid to the charge of B,' — this 'sentence which neither they nor any other competent scholar can possibly believe that the Evangelist ever wrote,' [fn1] — has been actually foisted into the margin of the Revised Version of S. Matthew xxvii. 49. Were not the Revisionists aware that such a disfigurement must prove fatal to their work ? For whose benefit is the information volunteered that ' many ancient authorities ' are thus grossly interpolated ?

[FN1 Scrivener, Plain Introd. p. 472.]

Burgon further writes (The Last Twelve Verses ..., p. 80:

2. To the foregoing must be added the many places where the text of B or of א, or of both, has clearly been interpolated. There does not exist in the whole compass of the New Testament a more monstrous instance of this than is furnished by the transfer of the incident of the piercing of our Redeemer’s side from S. John xix. 24 to S. Matth. xxvii., in Cod. B and Cod. א, where it is introduced at the end of  ver. 49,— in defiance of reason as well as of authority [fn t] “This interpolation” (remarks Mr. Scrivener) “which would represent the Saviour as pierced while yet living, is a good example of the fact that some of our highest authorities may combine in attesting a reading unquestionably false [fn u].”

[FN t "αλλος δε λαβων λογχην ενυξεν αυτου την πλευραν, και εξηλθεν υδωρ και αιμα. Yet B, C, L and א contain this!]

[FN u Coll. of the Cod. Sin., p. xlvii.]

The characterization of the text appearing in Matthew being "transfer" or being "transplanted" is an erroneous characterization, when the same manuscripts maintain John's reading in John.  On the other hand, one can understand why Burgon, agreeing with Scrivener that the reading is "unquestionably false," would be upset that it would be listed in the margin.

Likewise, James Snapp, Jr. wrote:

When Snapp says, "In real life, if the Alexandrian variant in Matthew 27:49 were adopted, you can kiss the doctrine of inerrancy good-bye," one wonders what Snapp is thinking.  Even if it were original, one could easily resolve the apparent conflict without discarding the doctrine of inerrancy.  There are more challenging synoptic problems than this.  

Burgon goes on to write at length on the variant in The Last Twelve Verses... at Appendix (H)(p. 313-18).  I won't reproduce the entirety of the Appendix, but suffice to say that Burgon goes on to mention that Matthaei explains this as possibly an interpolation based on Lectionary practice (TLTV, p. 313). However, Burgon goes on to explain that based on finding a manuscript that has the variant reading in a marginal reading and ascribes it to Tatian, Burgon is convinced and suggests that Tatian's Diatessaron is the source of this parallel corruption.

If Burgon were correct in assigning this corruption to Tatian's harmony of the gospels, known as the Diatessaron, then this is a Syrian reading.  I'm not convinced it was Tatian's harmony that is the source of this issue, but it does seem to be a kind of parallel corruption caused by a lectionary, harmony, or similar source that combined Matthew and John's material and led an early scribe to insert the material, presumably from memory. Metzger's Textual Commentary, p. 59, concurs that it is likely an insertion from memory. On the other hand, Philip W. Comfort's NT Text and Translation Commentary p. 87 thinks the omission in later manuscripts is the result of tampering with the text and suggests that the text should be included, at most with single brackets rather than the double brackets proposed by WH.

It is certainly difficult to explain the reading as being a memory of John 19:34 for reasons that Comfort identifies.  However, that does not rule out the reading as a memory of a gospel harmony or summary for catechetical or liturgical purposes.

*** 

Updated January 19, 2025:

Nick Sayers was kind of enough to send comments regarding this blog post:

Nick wrote: 

I was mentioning that he did die on the cross but not from the effects of the cross but from a stab wound, but I didn't mention that in every place. 

Nick then provided a link to his recent video: (Final) Examining: Cultish - Part 2: Answering KJVO With Wes Huff‬ by Nick Sayers Are We Cultists? 

I offer the following cleaned-up transcription:

1:52:05-43

sometimes it's just these scribes were just bad: having Jesus die from being stabbed in Codex Vaticanus and not dying on the cross -- not dying from you know the crucifixion but dying from being stabbed -- is -- it's bizarre -- it's strange but I don't actually think that the devil was there behind the Scribe. I think the Scribe just made an error, inserted something in there that made that so, and then you're just left with this dumb manuscript that has this dumb reading in it. That's all.

While I appreciate the nuance that Nick is offering here, he's still wrong because Codex Vaticanus does not say that the spear thrust was the cause of death, nor that it was the cause of death to the exclusion of being crucified.  Moreover, even if something accelerated death on the cross, the person was still considered to have been crucified (recall that the thieves' legs were broken to hasten their death).  And we know that Jesus died unusually quickly for a crucified person, even if the variant reading is not original. 

Even if the variant were original, and even assuming that the variant were to be understood as recording an event chronologically in order, Jesus still cries and gives up the ghost in verse 50, thereby surviving for at least a short while.

Recall:

Matthew 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

Mark 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

Luke 23:46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

John 19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.

Notice that there are some differences amongst these accounts, but they are not contradictions.

More specifically:

Matthew

• Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 44)
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 45)
• Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness (vss. 46-47)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 48)
• Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 50)
• Centurion sees Jesus die and the earthquake (vs. 54)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate commands it (vs. 58)
• (No test of death or request for confirmation of death)

Mark

• Co-crucified Thieves mock (vs. 32) 
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 33)
• Jesus quotes Psalm 22 after the darkness ( vs. 34)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
• Jesus cries and gives up the ghost (vs. 37)
• Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 39)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 43)
• Pilate questions whether Jesus is dead so soon (vs. 44)
• Centurion confirms (vs. 45)

Luke

• Co-crucified malefactors mentioned (vs. 33)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 36)
• One malefactor mocks, the other believes (vss. 39-43)
• Three hours of darkness (vs. 44)
• Jesus cries "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit" and gives up the ghost (vs. 46)
• Centurion sees Jesus die, no mention of earthquake (vs. 46)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate (vs. 52) (Pilate's response is not provided, but impliedly request is granted)

John

• Malefactors mentioned (vs. 18)
• Vinegar given to Jesus (vs. 28-30)
• Jesus says "It is finished" and gives up the ghost (vs. 30)
• Pilate orders legs to be broken to make the crucifixion faster (vs. 31)
• Soldier sees Jesus is already dead (vs. 33)
• Soldier pierces Jesus' side (vs. 34)
• Joseph requests Jesus' body from Pilate and Pilate grants (vs. 38)

As you can see, these are not four photocopies of one another.  Was Jesus given/offered vinegar before the darkness or after the darkness?  Pilate's involvement is also differently described in each.  What was the last sound from Jesus' lips? 

I certainly concur with those who say that including the variant at Matthew 27:49b creates a synoptic challenge, but it is no greater than the challenge of the vinegar or of Pilate's involvement.  There are two resolutions:

• Matthew was not recording the spear thrust in chronological order of the overall narrative, but rather as a section on the soldiers' actions (i.e. one soldier offered Jesus vinegar, another speared him).
• John is not implying that spearing took place when the soldiers came to Jesus to break His legs, but instead that the effects of the previous spearing were visible, both water and blood having exuded from the wound.

Likewise, Matthew's account does not mention any posthumous test of death, just that the centurion saw it (link).  Mark mentions that Pilate asked the centurion whether Jesus was already dead and that the centurion confirmed it, but does not describe any further test (link). 

Nick also linked to a second point in the same video.  My cleaned-up transcript of that section reads:

3:06:06-22

If you've got a reading like in Vaticanus that says Jesus died from being stabbed, not that he died from the effects of being on the cross like all the other Bibles say, then that's just wrong.

I reiterate my points above.  Additionally, Vaticanus is not all alone in this reading, as also set forth above.

Nick also pointed to his first video in the response to Cultish:

16:20-43

Now for me, I see Sinaiticus and Vaticanus as just as bad as this. They're old documents but they're very corrupted. Say with Vaticanus, Jesus doesn't die on the cross. He dies by getting a spear in his side: that's how he dies. So - but they don't put that in the modern Bibles do they!

And a second place in the same video:

3:47:32-49

When Vaticanus says that Jesus didn't die on the cross, he died from a spear wound, or he didn't die from the cross, he died from a spear wound, couldn't that be someone putting some sort of bizarre weird thing into the text 

A couple of thoughts:

First, I think Nick is right that no major English translations have adopted the reading in this variant as the main text.  On the other hand, I believe the quotations above demonstrate that the RV mentioned the variant in the margin.  It was something that definitely angered Burgon.

Second, Vaticanus does not say that Jesus didn't die from the cross.

Third, the text itself of the variant is not some "bizarre weird thing" - it is quite similar to what is found in John's gospel.

Nick added: "Burgon would have been annoyed at the footnote because he was saying unnecessary marginal notes in the RV like 616 were causing doubt and not faith."  I think I've addressed this above. 

Nick also raised the good point that Codex Alexandrinus is Byzantine in the gospels, which has led me to remove a sentence from the post above. 

Thanks to Nick for his interaction with the post.