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

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

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

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

(p. 347)

(p. 348)

Here's my transcription of the Latin text:

EXPOSITIO FIDEI CATHOLICAE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exposition of the Catholic Faith

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Among scholarly references to the work, we have:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The almighty father takes the earth to wife;

Pouring upon her fertilizing rain,

That from her womb new harvest he may reap.

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

Similarly, in section 4: 

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

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

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

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

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

English:

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

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

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

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

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

Beza's Latin based on Beza's Greek:

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

Latin Vulgate as reported by Beza:

Quoniam tres 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ruinart, p. 140)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(p. X)

(p. V)

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

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

(p. 34)

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

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

(p. XV)

(p. VI)

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

(p. 60)

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

Ruinart's main text, followed by his endnotes:

(p. 54)

(p. 178)

(p. 179)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other topics of interest from the work:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no record of this.  

7) Did miracles occur at Carthage in 484?

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

8) Did the Homousian bishops know Greek?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N.T. Wright and the Potter Analogy

 A dear reader offered the following screenshots (assembled as an image, and attributed to N.T. Wright, "Paul for Everyone," pp. 12-13).  All my characterizations in the following discussion are based on assuming that attribution is correct, and also are limited to interacting with the quoted material.  So, for example, I say that the author does not address X, Y, and Z, but perhaps the author (presumably NT Wright) does address those things somewhere else.

The argument from the screenshots can be summarized this way:

1) Paul's potter/clay illustration is taken from Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9 (with "echoes" of Isaiah 64:8 and Jeremiah 18:1-6).

2) In Isaiah and Jeremiah, God is dealing with already-rebellious Israel.  The author seems to suggest that the clay is somehow unresponsive to the potter's molding.

3) The author then suggests that it's not valid to treat Paul's comments as relevant to human beings generally, but that they must be understood of the nation of Israel specifically.

4) However, the author fails to consider other clay motifs from canonical and extracanonical literature.  For example, the author fails to consider the canonical use in Job 10:9, 13:12, & 33:6 but also the extracanonical use in Sirach 33:13 ("As the clay is in the potter's hand, to fashion it at his pleasure: so man is in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best.") and Wisdom of Solomon 15:7 ("For the potter, tempering soft earth, fashioneth every vessel with much labour for our service: yea, of the same clay he maketh both the vessels that serve for clean uses, and likewise also all such as serve to the contrary: but what is the use of either sort, the potter himself is the judge.") both of which are themselves dependent on the canonical use, especially Isaiah 29:16 and 45:9.  Moreover, the canonical use (and the extracanonical use that depends from it) has literary connection to the story of the special creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7 "the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground" and maintained in other canonical writings (e.g., Psalm 103:14 & Ecclesiastes 3:20 & 12:7)

5) Of course, the use in the extracanonical wisdom literature is not binding on Paul (nor on the author to whom we are responding), but it shows the conventional understanding of the Isaiah metaphor as having a more gnomic or general application: not an application limited to a particular nation or circumstance.

6) While Job is authoritative, Paul does not necessarily have Job's use in mind as he does Isaiah's.  On the other hand, if one is to make reference to "echoes" of Jeremiah, one should certainly also see the "echoes" in Job.  Job uses a similar potter/clay metaphor without the context of any reference to national Israel's rebellion.

7) Next, the idea that God is having some kind of difficulty molding Israel as God would like to do is irreconcilable with Paul's usage and the flow of Paul's argument.  The "one lump" language, in particular, suggests that God is perfectly capable of molding the same lump in different ways, not that the lump somehow constrains the potter.

8) The author's contextualization, even limited to the verses he identifies, is still suspect.  Isaiah 64:8 is in the context of repentant Israel.  Isaiah 29:16 is prospective, pointing forward to a day that includes things like people coming to understanding and learning doctrine (Isaiah 29:24).

9) Even where woe is pronounced (in Isaiah 45) it is not accompanied by God expressing inability but the opposite: "all their host have I commanded" (vs. 13) and "I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things" (vs. 7).

10) So, the author's conclusion seems to be premised on trying to read the specific context of Jeremiah 18 into Paul's use of the potter/clay metaphor.  Even in that context, however, God's word to Jeremiah is not saying that the potter has any lack of ability brought about by the clay, but rather that God has absolute freedom to do what God likes, including to rework something He has previously worked.  The human potter that Jeremiah saw produced a marred vessel first and then refashioned it into what he wanted.  God doesn't err like a human potter: that's not the point of the metaphor.  God has the freedom to do what he wants with mankind.  That's the point.

A Straw Man of David Allen's Position?

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

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

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

An Improvement to the so-called "Pure Cambridge Edition" (2006) of Matthew Verschuur

Matthew Verschuur published his own minor edition of the King James Version, which he refers to as "the Pure Cambridge Edition."  This edition was first published in 2006, although it is sometimes promoted as "circa 1900."  Verschuur has managed to attract some measure of following to his position that the PCE is absolutely perfect, although Verschuur's position has been criticized by King James advocates, such as the Trinitarian Bible Society, and many others.  Quite recently, Bryan Ross has offered a devastating critique of the PCE position in a series of lectures accompanied by a book-length (200+ pp.) set of notes (link to "Assessing the Pure Cambridge Edition Position"). MV has offered a few responses to Bryan Ross (most recently on March 24).  If you want to see the hubris of MV, you may consider this table his most recent response offers (March 10 post):

The Scripture is more pure than other writings.

The KJB’s version is more pure than any TR or version.

The KJB’s translation is more pure than any other English Bible.

The PCE is a more pure Edition than any other Edition/edition.

Bible Protector’s text file and collation of the PCE is more pure than any other text file or representation.

MV claims that that this edition is correct even as to such things as the capitalization of words.  In fact, he provides capitalization as being an important reason for his edition.  For example, he states (Guide to PCE):

I thought my Cambridge Edition was correct, but when I examined the case of the letter “s” on the word “spirit” at various places, I discovered that in 1 John 5:8 my Cambridge book differed from Pastor Savige’s Collins Bible. I then inquired concerning this area, and wrote to various King James Bible experts about it. One said, “follow Scrivener” (see below), another said, “it is up to the interpreter”, another said, “probably capital”, another said to effect, “both are correct concurrently”, and yet another, a textual critic and Cambridge King James Bible editor, plainly said, “there is no ‘correct’ edition”. I was unsettled on the matter for a while. 

In another place, he states (Guide to PCE):

In November 2005, it became apparent that there must be a settling of a difference found in Collins editions as opposed to Cambridge printed Bibles of the Pure Cambridge Edition, that is, at 1 Chronicles 14:10 where Collins capitalised the “A” of “and wilt thou”. In addressing this particular issue, I understood that while there were differences between all representations of the Pure Cambridge Edition, none was necessarily definitive, neither was there one that I could be sure was free from typographical errors. I saw that the Scripture indicated, and that it was in line with God’s nature, that there should be a definitive and scrupulously correct representation. Therefore, I reasoned that such a text would have to be resolved, and that it would be commendable to create it in an electronic text which would be able to be disseminated abroad and become a universal standard. 

Moreover, when it comes to the marks of a PCE, MV points to 12 readings, six of which have to do with the capitalization of the English word "spirit" (source) -- this is beyond the capitalization of "and" in "and wilt thou" in 1 Chronicles 14:10, mentioned by MV above  (Guide to PCE):

1. “or Sheba” not “and Sheba” in Joshua 19:2
2. “sin” not “sins” in 2 Chronicles 33:19
3. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Job 33:4
4. “whom ye” not “whom he” in Jeremiah 34:16
5. “Spirit of God” not “spirit of God” in Ezekiel 11:24
6. “flieth” not “fleeth” in Nahum 3:16
7. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Matthew 4:1
8. “further” not “farther” in Matthew 26:39
9. “bewrayeth” not “betrayeth” in Matthew 26:73
10. “Spirit” not “spirit” in Mark 1:12
11. “spirit” not “Spirit” in Acts 11:28
12. “spirit” not “Spirit” in 1 John 5:8

MV distinguishes between something being "actually an 'error' in the Bible" and something being a "presentation error." He states (source): "A typographical error is not actually an "error" in the Bible, because it is only a presentation error." 

I have a few problems with this kind of distinction, which I have seen in various King James advocacy circles.  They seem to be aiming to distinguish between the source of the errors (namely the translators/editors vs. the printers; in his March 24 post, MV seeks to divide amongst "Scripture," "Version," "Translation," "Edition," and "Setting Forth."), but they are arguing it as though it were a difference in the kind of error.  However, these (alleged) errors are the following kinds:

• word (1, 2, 4);
• spelling? (6, 8, 9); and
• capitalization (3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12)

In theory, these could be attributable to the translators (either in terms of their translation text or their translation choices/methodologies) or to the printers (either in terms of failing to read the translators' notes correctly or failing to print what the translators requested).  There may be good reasons to argue for a particular source of a particular error.

However, I must point that when it comes to capitalization, MV sometimes goes so far as to say (Guide to PCE):

The Pure Cambridge Edition is consistent in its usage of “Son of David”, as the Oxford is consistent in its blasphemous “son of David”. The Oxford is obviously wrong. 

Notice that even if MV is willing to say that matters of capitalization are not "actually an error" but "only a presentation error," he's also willing to call the Oxford editions reading "blasphemous".  He does this also with the Oxford capitalization at Matthew 4:1.  MV writes (Guide to PCE):

Matthew 4:1

If Jesus was led of the “spirit” lowercase, then He was relying on something out of the realm of the normal believer, being His own spirit. Yet, the Scripture teaches that Christ is our example, and that we ought “to walk, even as he walked.” (1 John 2:6a). The Scripture even shows that Christ promised, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.” (John 14:12). If Christ was led merely by his own spirit, then this would disallow believers to be able to walk or do exactly as Christ had done. Such a thing could not be walked in by anyone without the Holy Ghost — no one in their own merits could even get close to the standard of Christ. However, if Jesus was relying on the “Spirit” as the Cambridge reading shows, then He was relying on something that became available to all believers, namely, the Holy Ghost. Thus, the Oxford reading makes a blasphemy and a mockery of Christianity. Whereas the Cambridge shows that man needs the Spirit of God to lead him to Christ, and this would eventually lead to the Pentecostal manifestation, which is available for all. There are many indications that the Spirit would come upon or fill certain people in the Old Testament or before the day of Pentecost, but Christians who follow Christ as an example are able to do so after Pentecost because the Spirit has been made available to all since that time, if people will believe and receive that baptism. 

Notice that by something as seemingly trivial as a capital letter, MV claims: "the Oxford reading makes a blasphemy and a mockery of Christianity."

Knowing that capitalization issues are half of the marks that MV offers and that capitalization is especially important to MV when it comes to God, I happened to read Philippians 3.  There I found this reading in MV's text:

Philippians 3:19 (source) 

Whose end [is] destruction, whose God [is their] belly, and [whose] glory [is] in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

(screenshot from p. 1071 of MV's pdf)

Notice that "God" is capitalized in Philippians 3:19.  However, notice that in places where something other than the true God is referred to as "god," the convention is to use lowercase:

(Exodus 7:1, p. 59)

(Judges 6:31, p. 252)

(1 Kings 18:27, p. 363)

(2 Kings 1:6, p. 371)

Notice especially the last example, where "a God" (true God) is contrasted with "the god" (not the true God). 

This English convention is one that is done out of reverence and respect for God.  It is also the underlying premise behind MV's rather provocative claim that "son of David" is "blasphemous" or that Jesus being led of the "spirit" "makes a blasphemy and a mockery of Christianity."

If one were to apply the same standard to MV's reading at Philippians 3:19, one could just as easily argue that MV's reading blasphemously portrays God as someone's belly, making a sort of Buddhist mockery of Christianity.

Naturally, I don't agree with MV's standard, though I do like the capitalization convention that we use in the 21st century to distinguish between a "god" and the "God".  Following that convention, MV's reading is "obviously wrong" - much more so than the Oxford's, "son of David," where - in fact - the Oxford's capitalization is better, because Jesus is the Son of God according to his divinity and the son of David according to his humanity, being both God and man in two distinct natures and one person.

These are not faults of the 1611 KJV, because at that time English capitalization conventions were not the same as today, and it would be anachronistic to judge the 1611 by modern capitalization conventions.

Additionally, neither the Hebrew nor the Greek contains capital letters.  Thus, using a capital/lowercase distinction in the KJV to argue for some doctrinal conclusion is to rest upon the wisdom of the translators, as distinct from relying on the underlying text of the Holy Scriptures, as inspired by God.  

"From ... Youth" - an important Hebrew Idiom

The expression "from ... youth" is a Hebraism - a Hebrew expression we find in lots of places in the Old and New Testaments.  It generally carries the sense of something always having been a certain way.  Although the underlying Hebrew word can be used in other contexts, in this context, the point of the expression is an emphasis on the absence of a time when the opposite was the case.  This same idea is strengthened further by "until today" or "unto this day" or similar statements.

I've provided a list of examples of this usage.  I break them down into categories of moral/vocational/personal history.  Some of these classes blur into each other, so I offer them just by way of broad categorization.

There is also a second version of the same idiom using a slightly different Hebrew word, but meaning approximately the same thing.  There are just two examples of this usage.  I've grouped all the New Testament Greek uses under the first version.  

There is also another Hebrew expression, which is an even stronger version of the same idea: "from ... womb."  Job 31:18 uses the two expressions in parallel, suggesting that they have (or at least can have) approximately the same sense as one another.

These idioms become important when it comes to the topic of original sin and total depravity.  Sometimes opponents of total depravity will complain that the word "youth," in "the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth," can refer to an age as late as adolescence, or even young adulthood.  The problem with that analysis is failing to treat the word as part of the idiom that it is: an idiom that is similar to "from the get-go" or the like.  

Interestingly, the same folks will typically take an exactly opposite approach when we point to the verses that use "from the womb," claiming that it is some kind of hyperbole and should not be taken literally, even though - of course - "womb" does not have a similarly wide range of semantic meaning. 

First Version - "From ... Youth"

Moral Character

Genesis 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

1 Kings 18:12 And it shall come to pass, [as soon as] I am gone from thee, that the Spirit of the LORD shall carry thee whither I know not; and [so] when I come and tell Ahab, and he cannot find thee, he shall slay me: but I thy servant fear the LORD from my youth.

Psalm 71:5, 17 For thou [art] my hope, O Lord GOD: [thou art] my trust from my youth. ... O God, thou hast taught me from my youth: and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works.

Jeremiah 3:24-25 For shame hath devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth; their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters. We lie down in our shame, and our confusion covereth us: for we have sinned against the LORD our God, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and have not obeyed the voice of the LORD our God.

Jeremiah 22:21 I spake unto thee in thy prosperity; [but] thou saidst, I will not hear. This [hath been] thy manner from thy youth, that thou obeyedst not my voice.

Jeremiah 32:30 For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have only done evil before me from their youth: for the children of Israel have only provoked me to anger with the work of their hands, saith the LORD.

Ezekiel 4:14 Then said I, Ah Lord GOD! behold, my soul hath not been polluted: for from my youth up even till now have I not eaten of that which dieth of itself, or is torn in pieces; neither came there abominable flesh into my mouth.

Matthew 19:20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?

Mark 10:20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

Luke 18:21 And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up.

Acts 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;

Vocation

Genesis 46:34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, [and] also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd [is] an abomination unto the Egyptians.

1 Samuel 12:2 And now, behold, the king walketh before you: and I am old and grayheaded; and, behold, my sons [are] with you: and I have walked before you from my childhood unto this day.  ("childhood" here translates the same Hebrew word translated "youth" in other places)

1 Samuel 17:33 And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him: for thou [art but] a youth, and he a man of war from his youth.

Isaiah 47:12, 15 Stand now with thine enchantments, and with the multitude of thy sorceries, wherein thou hast laboured from thy youth; if so be thou shalt be able to profit, if so be thou mayest prevail. ... Thus shall they be unto thee with whom thou hast laboured, [even] thy merchants, from thy youth: they shall wander every one to his quarter; none shall save thee.

Zechariah 13:5 But he shall say, I [am] no prophet, I [am] an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.

Personal History

2 Samuel 19:7 Now therefore arise, go forth, and speak comfortably unto thy servants: for I swear by the LORD, if thou go not forth, there will not tarry one with thee this night: and that will be worse unto thee than all the evil that befell thee from thy youth until now.

Job 31:18 (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as [with] a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb;)

Psalm 129:1-2 [[A Song of degrees.]] Many a time have they afflicted me from my youth, may Israel now say: Many a time have they afflicted me from my youth: yet they have not prevailed against me.

Jeremiah 48:11 Moab hath been at ease from his youth, and he hath settled on his lees, and hath not been emptied from vessel to vessel, neither hath he gone into captivity: therefore his taste remained in him, and his scent is not changed.

Second Version of "From ... Youth" with Close Synonym

Psalm 88:15 I [am] afflicted and ready to die from [my] youth up: [while] I suffer thy terrors I am distracted.  [The word translated "youth" here is essentially a synonym of the more common word for "youth".]

Proverbs 29:21 He that delicately bringeth up his servant from a child shall have him become [his] son at the length. [The word translated "children" here is essentially a synonym of the more common word for "youth".]

"From ... Womb" Version

Judges 13:5, 7 For, lo, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and no razor shall come on his head: for the child shall be a Nazarite unto God from the womb: and he shall begin to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines. ... But he said unto me, Behold, thou shalt conceive, and bear a son; and now drink no wine nor strong drink, neither eat any unclean [thing]: for the child shall be a Nazarite to God from the womb to the day of his death.

Judges 16:17 That he told her all his heart, and said unto her, There hath not come a razor upon mine head; for I [have been] a Nazarite unto God from my mother's womb: if I be shaven, then my strength will go from me, and I shall become weak, and be like any [other] man.

Job 31:18 (For from my youth he was brought up with me, as [with] a father, and I have guided her from my mother's womb;)

Psalm 22:10 I was cast upon thee from the womb: thou [art] my God from my mother's belly.

Psalm 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Psalm 71:6 By thee have I been holden up from the womb: thou art he that took me out of my mother's bowels: my praise [shall be] continually of thee.

Psalm 110:3 Thy people [shall be] willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

Isaiah 44:2, 24 Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, [which] will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. ... Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I [am] the LORD that maketh all [things]; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 46:3 Hearken unto me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of the house of Israel, which are borne [by me] from the belly, which are carried from the womb:

Isaiah 48:8 Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time [that] thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb.

Isaiah 49:1, 5 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name. ... And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb [to be] his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

Hosea 9:11 [As for] Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird, from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception.

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from [their] mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive [it], let him receive [it].

Luke 1:15 For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Acts 3:2 And a certain man lame from his mother's womb was carried, whom they laid daily at the gate of the temple which is called Beautiful, to ask alms of them that entered into the temple;

Acts 14:8 And there sat a certain man at Lystra, impotent in his feet, being a cripple from his mother's womb, who never had walked:

Galatians 1:15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace,