Responding to Jonathan Sheffield's Comments on the Johannine Comma (on C Jay Cox's show)

C Jay Cox (CJC) in Un-Apologetics Ep.#67: Talking Textual Criticism with Jonathan Sheffield came to the topic of 1 John 5:7 around 1 hour and 13 minutes into the presentation (link to start of discussion).  The following is lightly cleaned-up transcript of the question and answer, interspersed with my comments.

Question from CJC:

I’ll hold off on the wrap-up really quick just to ask very briefly about 1 John 5:7. I’m just going to read it really quickly here for the people:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

The common objection is that this first appears in the works of Erasmus around the early 1300s. Is that a fair assessment as far as what we have in the historical record? Obviously, if you believe that it goes before then, then you wouldn’t think it’s a fair assessment in its totality. But as far as the historical record, does anybody reference it before then? Is there any manuscript evidence before then?

Erasmus was not around in the 1300s.  Erasmus famously introduced a form of the Comma into his third edition in AD 1522 (he had not included it in his first two editions).  Possibly there was some kind of conflation on CJC's part, because the oldest known manuscript with an insertion into the Greek from the Latin is GA 629, which is dated to AD 1362–1363.  GA629 is a Greek-Latin diglot, and there are multiple differences between the reading found in GA629 and the reading now viewed as the "TR" reading, most notably the absence of Greek articles, which is evidence of back translation from the Latin.  

Erasmus's Third Edition, showing the absence of Greek articles:

(Novum Testamentum omne (C.2.9), 596/643)

The TR reading first appears in Erasmus' fourth edition (1527), based -- as far as anyone can tell -- on Erasmus' conjecture of how to improve the reading he first published in his third edition (1522).

On the other hand, no one who is familiar with the evidence would say that this Latin variant first appears either in the works of Erasmus or GA629.  Instead, of course, this Latin variant shows up first in Latin.  There are examples of Latin manuscripts with such a reading that significantly predate the 1300s.  The earliest identifiable evidence of some related variant being possibly as early as the 300s.  Some have argued that it may have appeared in Latin as early as the late 100s, though the evidence for that idea falls short of compelling.

Jonathan Sheffield:

Yes, there is. That is the way they kind of detract and try to say, you know, the King James Bible editors added it in, or that it was Erasmus where it first showed up.

In the case with Erasmus, it wasn’t in his first edition, which prompted a response from the team of Cardinal Jiménez, who reached out to him and said, “Hey,” because in the [Complutensian] Polyglot it was included. And they actually provided citations for why they included it in their documents. So that is not the first case.

Jacobus Stunica (aka Zuniga) was part of the Complutensian team, and did publish a response to Erasmus' New Testament. Sheffield is a bit vague in his explanation here, but as we have discussed in a previous post (link to post), Stunica acknowledged that the Greek manuscripts do not have this reading but insisted that the Latin manuscripts maintain the correct reading, citing Jerome in support of his position. It turns out that Stunica was citing Ps-Jerome and a significantly corrupted version of Ps-Jerome at that (as explained here).  

Jonathan Sheffield:

Actually, we have two allusions very early on from the North African church, both with Tertullian and with Cyprian, that appear to hold the passage. But definitive quotes we have not only in Spain in the fourth century, but we actually have it used at an official council in the West, responding to the Goths, who were Arians.

The council was called by Huneric, the Vandal king, who was in support of the Goths, or the Arians in the West. He called the council and wrote a letter to all the Trinitarian bishops of the North African province, and we’re talking about Spain and all those little areas and islands around North Africa, to convene a council in 484 and to go to Scripture to defend their homoousian faith.

Let's break this down into four: Tertullian, Cyprian, Spain in the 4th Century, and Victor of Vita (author of the book against the Vandals, which Sheffield is indirectly citing).

As to Tertullian, there are at least three different works that are sometimes cited as allegedly showing reliance on the Johannine Comma.  The first is De Baptismo (On Baptism), in which Tertullian refers to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as "three witnesses" that are united in the Church: "Moreover, after the pledging both of the attestation of faith and the promise of salvation under three witnesses, there is added, of necessity, mention of the Church; inasmuch as, wherever there are three, (that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,) there is the Church, which is a body of three."  (On Baptism, Chapter 6)  The second is De Pudicitia (On Modesty), in which the Church is similarly said to unity the three: "For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity of the One Divinity — Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (The Spirit) combines that Church which the Lord has made to consist in three." (On Modesty, Chapter 21)

One challenge to viewing these as an allusion to the Johannine Comma is that the church as the unity of the Father, Son, and Spirit is not really a suitable match to the usual readings of the Johannine Comma.  Moreover, in the case of On Baptism, the "three witnesses" is taken either from Paul (2 Corinthians 13:1; Cf. 1 Timothy 5:19 and Hebrews 10:28) or Christ (Matthew 18:16) or possibly, though less likely, from Moses (Deuteronomy 17:6 & 19:15). 

A third passage that is sometimes cited is Tertullian's, Against Praxeas, in which Tertullian states (Against Praxeas, Chapter 25): "These Three are one [essence], not one [Person], as it is said, I and my Father are One, (John 10:30) in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."  While this translation may obscure the point, Tertullian's Latin is: "qui tres unum sunt, non unus".  Tertullian is relying on the difference between the neuter and masculine, a difference that also exists in his Latin of John 10:30.  

The major problem for the theory that this is an allusion to the Johannine Comma is as follows: why not quote the entirety of the text if Tertullian is referring to something from 1 John?  The chapter in question contains numerous quotations from John's gospel: why then wouldn't the epistle be quoted if a helpful statement were found there?  So, it seems that instead Tertullian is explaining the unity of the Trinity, not quoting a verse that allegedly supports his conclusion.  

Turning to Cyprian of Carthage, James Snapp (source) provides this succinct explanation: 

In his Treatise on the Unity of the Universal Church (1:6), Cyprian says: “Dicit Dominus, ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus,’ et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est:  ‘Et tres unum sunt.’”  In English:  “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one,” and again, it is written of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”

This is a quotation, not an allusion.  The use of the formula, "it is written," suggests that Cyprian is referencing Scripture, not Tertullian (or another merely human author).  The question remains, however, whether Cyprian is referencing the shorter original reading or the interpolated Latin reading.  The former is possible, if Cyprian believes that the spirit, blood, and water are references to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Cyprian does not explain, so it is difficult to be sure.  On the other hand, again, if the interpolation were present in Cyprian's text, why does he not quote it more fully?  Why say that it is about the Father, Son, and Spirit instead of quoting "Father, Word, and Spirit"?  It's hard to find a good answer to that question, and in this very brief discussion, Sheffield does not offer one.

Turning to Spain in the fourth century, we have what is generally viewed as the earliest clear reference to some form of the Comma.  As discussed in a previous post (link), this form of the comma has a few notable differences, especially that it says that the Father, Word, and Spirit are one in Christ Jesus.  Also, the author who provides this quotation is someone who did not hold to proper Trinitarian doctrines.

Finally, we turn to the first evidence of a shorter form of the comma that became more widespread in medieval Europe.  This is evidence is from a work by Victor of Vita, who records persecution by Huneric, including a time when Huneric is said to have summoned 466 (or so) bishops to Carthage, in an effort to make them conform to the Arian religion of the Vandals.

Huneric did not call them to "convene a council" as that expression is usually used.  The homousian bishops were, instead, essentially being put on trial.  The synod was run by the Vandal king's bishop of choice, a man named Cyrila.  There was an offer to hold a debate between the Vandal bishops and the homousian bishops.  The homousian bishops of North Africa selected ten representatives to attend the debate.  However, this offer of debate was declined.  Nevertheless, Victor says that four bishops had prepared a written treatise on the beliefs of the homousians.  Victor includes a version of this document in his account, and his version of that document (as best as it has been critically reconstructed) includes a reference to a form of the Comma.  

The Vandals invaded North Africa via Spain at the start of the 5th century, but I'm not sure whether any of the bishops summoned to Carthage were from Spain.  Huneric's territory did not, as far as I can tell, include Spain in 484, and he only summoned bishops from his territory.

While Vandals and Goths are related, they were different Germanic tribes.

Jonathan Sheffield:

So the Trinitarian North African bishops came to that council with a written confession, not only in their own language but in the language of the Goths and other dialects, and presented a specific quote from John, referencing the Epistle of John, where he quotes 1 John 5:7.

So the bishops of North Africa crafted this statement in response to the Arians of the West, the Gothic Arians, and used this specific passage to defend the Trinitarian position. And this is a council of over 400 bishops in attendance.

So the question is: we have a major council that is quoting this passage against the Arians. We know the type of text that the Arians used, so why would the North African bishops use something that was questionable, which would have meant their death over there in North Africa, if the passage was disputed?

The treatise cites John the Evangelist, without specifying whether it was in John's first epistle or somewhere else.  However, it seems reasonable to think that the author meant to refer to John's first epistle.

The treatise was not written in multiple languages: it was written in Latin.  Latin, however, was not the language of the Vandals.  In fact, the reason Cyrila gave (according to Victor) for declining to hold a debate was that he didn't know Latin.

Victor does not say that the treatise was crafted by all the bishops, but attributes the treatise to four bishops.  As the treatise does not seem to have circulated apart from Victor's work, we have no way to tell how much Victor himself contributed to the work. Indeed (as discussed in this previous post), the discussion of the Comma breaks the flow of the work, suggesting that it may have been a revision (Victor would be the most obvious source of this revision).  

There is no evidence that using something questionable or disputed would have "meant their deaths".  We also do not know what type of text the Vandals used.  Very little of Vandalic has survived to the present time, the longest sentence being  "eils ... scapia matzia ia drincan!" (source) Even if we were to assume that the Vandals read the Gothic Bible, John's epistles (if they were ever translated into Gothic) have not survived.  

On the other hand, we do know that Augustine who died during the Vandal siege of Hippo in 430, had a text of 1 John without the Latin interpolation (link to example of Augustine's discussion of 1 John 5).  So, it is reasonable to suppose that if the Vandals had taken up Latin texts from the places they conquered, they would have found at least some without the interpolation.

Likewise, it is unreasonable to call this a "major council."  There was no meaningful participation in person by any of the homousian bishops.

Jonathan Sheffield:

And if we look back to the allusions of Cyprian and Tertullian, that follows that same textual line of the North African bishops. They had no doubt that this passage was Scripture at all.

The common retort against the North African council is, “Well, this passage was sort of made up because they looked at verse 8 and John, and it became sort of a version of verse 8 and became verse 7.” So they have to make up these wild conspiracies to generate verse 7.

Sheffield seems to be conflating a few things.  The question is less about the council or even just Victor specifically, and more about how such an interpolation could come to be.  The answer to that question is that it can come to be by an unreliable (or at least, not strictly literal) translator providing an interpretive gloss on the three witnesses that are actually mentioned in the text: the spirit, the blood, and the water.  This fault seems to have been identified at least as early as the 6th century (see the original reading of the Ps-Jerome prologue).  

Jonathan Sheffield:

The passage is a majority reading in the West. So while the Greek evidence is very—it has very little testimony to it in the Greek—when the official Greek Orthodox churches, I’m talking about the official churches of Alexandria, North Africa, and Constantinople, all met in 1904 to create their standardized Greek text for use throughout the Greek Orthodox Church, they discussed the issue of 1 John 5:7.

That is not in their textual tradition. That is not basically witnessed by the Byzantine text form. The holy bishops of the Greek Orthodox Church voted this passage to be included in the 1904 [text].

So when all the magisterial Reformers, basically all the magisterial Reformers except for Luther, all basically came to the same conclusion that this passage was witnessed by the ancient church and included in their editions of the TR. It’s a majority reading in the West, and when the Greek Orthodox Church met and discussed this issue, they included this passage.

The only people who seem to reject this passage are the textual critics based in the German rationalism of the late eighteenth and seventeenth century. So it’s not the official churches rejecting this passage. It’s basically the critical-text proponents of German rationalism.

This comment about "the only people who seem to reject this passage" is unsupportable.  It's also misleading to say that it is "a majority reading in the West."  It may well be a majority in the later Vulgate manuscripts.  It is not a majority reading in the oldest Vulgate manuscripts.  If you survey the Latin manuscripts from the 6th to the 10th centuries (as I did in this post), none of them have the Comma as it was ultimately imposed on the Greek text:

• 22 manuscripts originally lacked the Comma (many of these were later deliberately altered to include it)
• 1 manuscript had the "son" variant (i.e., not "Word" but "Son")
• 1 manuscript without "in earth" and with the comparative variant
• 1 manuscript with the "in Christ Jesus" variant

So, it's misleading at best to make comments about the "majority reading" in the West.  The earliest Latin exegesis of 1 John 5 (from an anonymous Irish author around AD 680) does not have the interpolated reading. Neither did the Venerable Bede in the 8th century.  

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 sent 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 "delivery 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.  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.