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