The Greek Manuscripts of the Johannine Comma

The present post is largely drawn from Elijah Hixon's helpful post (link to post) over at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.  

Hixon writes:

There are 10 Greek manuscripts that have the CJ, but only three of them have it in the same form as in Stephanus’ 1550 edition and Scrivener’s edition reprinted by the TBS—these three are 221marg, 2318 and 2473. All ten of these manuscripts are indexed for 1 John 5:7–8 at the INTF’s VMR, so you are free to verify them yourself. 

Hixon goes on to note: "Before I get there, I want to mention that sometimes an eleventh Greek manuscript is cited. GA 635 is sometimes cited as having the CJ in the margin, but it does not."

In addition to what Hixon has mentioned, I've added a line for the Complutensian Polyglot, since some folks like to suggest that the Complutensian editors transcribed their text from a manuscript, rather than emending based on the Latin (despite Stunica himself acknowledging the opposite, as explained here).

In a nutshell, before Erasmus' fourth edition, what is today the "TR" Johannine Comma did not exist. Of the four manuscripts with something Comma-like in the main text, the only one that is before the time of Erasmus is transparently a back-translation from the Latin, in the context of a Greek-Latin diglot text.  The only one from the time of Erasmus likewise appears to be a back-translation from the Latin, because it lacks the articles.  The remaining two match the TR text, but both are from long after the age of printing (i.e., 16th or 17th century), and are thought to be based on a printed Greek text.

Even if we were to consider the marginal readings in manuscripts that contain them, only one of the marginal notes is a viable candidate to be before the time of Erasmus, and this one is likewise a transparent back-translation from Latin.

In short, the Greek evidence confirms that the Comma Johanneum (CJ) is a Latin interpolation.   

Manuscript	Evidence of Latin influence	Has the TR reading?	Margin/Main Text
GA 635 (11th Century)	Hixon notes that GA 635 is sometimes cited as containing the Comma, but does not. Others have suggested that this has been cited in error for 636 (see below)	Does not actually contain the Comma.	N/A
GA 629 (14th century)	Latin-Greek diglot; the Greek lacks articles before the heavenly witnesses, suggesting translation from Latin.	No; has ἀπὸ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ / ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς, lacks articles, reads Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον, and has εἰς τὸ ἕν.	Main text
GA 61 (15th-16th)	Franciscan provenance; copied from GA 326 while adding Vulgate-derived readings, and the Comma lacks Greek articles.	No; lacks the articles and reads Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον.	Main text
GA 429marg (margin after 1522)	Marginal addition copied from Erasmus’s third edition, the article-less form of the Comma.	No; lacks the articles and follows Erasmus’s third-edition form.	Margin
GA 918 (late 16th century)	Spanish Catholic provenance; the Comma appears to have been added from Erasmus’s third edition.	No; lacks the articles and follows Erasmus’s third-edition form.	Main text
GA 2473 (17th century)	Apparently copied from a later printed Textus Receptus edition rather than from an independent Greek manuscript tradition.	✓	Main text
GA 2318 (18th century)	Late commentary manuscript; Wachtel considered its biblical text copied from a later Textus Receptus edition.	✓	Main text
GA 177marg (margin 18th century)	Marginal addition by the Catholic priest Ignatius Hardt in 1785; the verse numbering points to a printed source.	No; lacks articles and οὗτοι, reads εἰς τὸ ἕν, and omits the continuation into v. 8.	Margin
GA 221marg (margin 19th century)	Marginal addition made after a 1854 catalogue stated that the manuscript lacked 1 John 5:7, suggesting dependence on a printed source.	✓	Margin
GA 88marg (16th or later century)	Later marginal hand; Latin note, Counter-Reformation provenance, Latin-looking alpha, and no nomina sacra suggest printed or Latin influence.	No; apparently lacks the articles before the heavenly witnesses.	Margin
GA 636marg (15th or later)	Later marginal hand; lacks definite articles and appears amid Greek and Latin notes, suggesting possible translation from Latin.	No; lacks the articles and omits οὗτοι.	Margin
Complutensian Polyglot (16th)	Printed Greek-Latin New Testament; the Comma is printed in the Greek column alongside the Latin tradition.	No; includes καί before ὁ λόγος, omits οὗτοι, and reads εἰς τὸ ἕν.	Main text

The Grammatical Argument for the Johannine Comma

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

Sayers begins:

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

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

Sayers continues:

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

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

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

Sayers continued:

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

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

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

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

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

Sayers continued:

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

“...Dear Mr Sayers,

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

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

Γ. Μπαμπινιώτης...”

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

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

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

Babiniotis begins:

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

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

Babiniotis continues:

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

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

 Babiniotis opines:

The use of masculine gender and not neuter on 5.8.

«καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν»

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

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,

ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα

καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν είσι

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

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

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

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

(End of word doc)

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

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

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

George later said in an email:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note about content:

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

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

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

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

Question from CJC:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonathan Sheffield:

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

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

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

Jonathan Sheffield:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonathan Sheffield:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonathan Sheffield:

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

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

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

Jonathan Sheffield:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erasmus' Annotations on Revelation 22

The final two pages of Erasmus' annotations on Revelation from his 1516 printing of the New Testament contain the following comments about the text:

(1114/1126)

(1115/1126)

The following is a transcription and my amateur translation thereof, together with some notes.

EX CAPITE XIII

From Chapter 13 

Et admirata est universa terra post bestiam.) καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γῇ ὀπίσω τῷ θηρίου, id est admiratio fuit in tota terra post bestiam.

“And all the earth wondered after the beast.” καὶ ἐθαυμάσθη ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ γῇ ὀπίσω τῷ θηρίου That is, “there was wonder in the whole earth after the beast.”

Qui in captivitatem duxerit.) εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει. i. qui captivitatem contrahit, in captivitatem abit. Laurentius secus legit.

“He who will have led into captivity.” εἴ τις αἰχμαλωσίαν συνάγει, εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ὑπάγει. That is, “he who gathers captivity goes away into captivity.” That is, “he who draws together captivity goes into captivity.” Laurentius reads otherwise. 

TF note: Laurentius here refers to Lorenzo Valla.  Valla's annotation on this point reads:

(source)

Thus, Valla's Greek text (as reported) had an ἔχει before αἰχμαλωσίαν, which is certainly different.

Continuing with Erasmus:

Characterem in dextra.) χάραγμα, id est notam impressam, sive insculptam.

“The mark in the right hand.” χάραγμα, that is, an impressed mark, or an engraved one.

EX CAPITE XIIII

From Chapter 14 

Quod mixtum est mero.) τοῦ κεκερασμένου ἀκράτου; ut mero sit ablativi casus, et referatur ad vino. Nam Graecis κεράννυσθαι dicitur, quod infunditur in calicem bibituro, etiam si non diluatur aqua, aut alio potus genere.

 “That which is mixed with pure wine.” τοῦ κεκερασμένου ἀκράτου; Thus, “with pure” [TF note: lit. in Latin the word "mero" sometimes means "unmixed" (pure from admixture with water or other dilutants) with reference to wine, leading to an odd paradox that the mixed wine is unmixed.] is an ablative case and refers to “wine.” For among the Greeks to mix is said of what is poured into the cup for the one about to drink, even if it is not diluted with water or with another kind of drink.

Amodo iam dicit spiritus.) Graeci sic distinguunt, ut amodo sit finis sententiae, ut sit sensus post hac fore beatos qui in domino fuerint mortui. Deinde sequitur ναὶ λέγει τὸ πνεῦμα. Etiam dicit spiritus. Et hic etiam confirmantis est.

 “From now on, now says the Spirit.” The Greeks punctuate thus: that “from now on” is the end of the sentence, so that the sense is that thereafter those who have died in the Lord will be blessed. Then follows, “Yes, says the Spirit.” And here “yes” is also a word of one confirming. [TF note: In Latin, etiam can have the sense of "yes/actually" (as it does here] as well as "and also".  This explains Erasmus' felt need to explain what sense of etiam he means.  I can't think of a good English word that has a similar ambiguity to better translate Erasmus here.]

In lacum irae dei.) ληνόν, qui est lacus, in quem exprimitur uvarum liquor.

“Into the lake of the wrath of God.” The Greek is ληνόν, which is a vat into which the liquid of grapes is pressed out.

EX CAPITE XV

From Chapter 15 

Quia solus pius es.) ὅσιος. Laurentius legit ἅγιος, id est sanctus.

“Because you alone are pious.” ὅσιος Laurentius reads ἅγιος, that is, “holy.”

TF note: Lauentius here again refers to Valla. Valla's annotation on this point reads:

(source)

In other words, Valla claims that the Greek is ἅγιος, which contradicts what Erasmus found in his Greek manuscript.

Continuing with Erasmus:

Vestiri lapide mundo et candido.) Graece est λίνον, id est lino mundo. Interpres legisse videtur λίθον, quae dictio una duntaxat literula differt a lino. Et splendidum magis est quam candidum, λαμπρόν.

“To be clothed with a clean and white stone.” In Greek it is λίνον, that is, “with clean linen.” The translator seems to have read λίθον [TF: lit. “stone”], a word which differs by only one little letter from “linen.” And it  [TF: lit. “bright"] is more splendid than gleaming white [TF: translating "candidum" as "gleaming white" which seems to be an approximate synonym for the Greek word, so I don't know if Erasmus means to use the Greek word as appositive for candidum or if Erasmus is saying that the Latin word doesn't capture the true splendor, though I suspect the latter.], λαμπρόν.

EX CAPITE XVI

From Chapter 16 

Vulnus saevum ac pessimum.) κακὸν καὶ πονηρόν. i. malum ac malum; Graece enim bis idem dicitur. Nisi mavis miserum ac malum.

“A savage and very bad wound.” κακὸν καὶ πονηρόν. That is, “bad and bad,” for in Greek the same thing is said twice—unless you prefer “wretched and bad.”

Qui es, et qui eras.) Quamquam interpres mutavit personam, tamen totidem syllabis dictum est, quibus superius: qui est, qui erat, qui venturus est, ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν, ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

“You who are, and who were.” Although the translator changed the person [TF: that is, from third person "he is" to second person "you are".], nevertheless it is said with just as many syllables as above: “who is, who was, who is to come,” ὁ ὢν, ὁ ἦν, ὁ ἐρχόμενος.

Etiam domine.) ναὶ κύριε. Etiam confirmantis est.

“Even so, Lord.” ναὶ κύριε. “Yes” is again a word of one confirming. [TF: see note above regarding etiam.]

Grando magna sicut talentum.) ὡς ταλαντιαία. i. talentaris et magnitudine talenti. Talentum magnum antiquis dicebatur, unde quicquid ingens esset, id ταλαντιαῖον vocabant.

“Great hail as a talent.” ὡς ταλαντιαία. That is, of a talent, and of the size of a talent. A great weight was called by the ancients a talent; hence whatever was huge, they called talent-like. [TF: Without commenting Erasmus' more general usage point, from Josephus and other ancient sources (source) we find a meaning of talent as a unit of weight of approximately 120 lbs. The main point that this hail is being described as huge, is surely correct, whether John means a literal unit of measurement or not.] 

EX CAPITE XVII

From Chapter 17 

Supra bestiam coccineam.) κόκκινον, id est coccinam, purpuram regiam indicans.

 “Upon the scarlet beast.” κόκκινον, that is, scarlet-colored, indicating royal purple.

Et hic est sensus.) ὧδε ὁ νοῦς. i. haec est mens, sive intellectus.

“And here is the sense.” ὧδε ὁ νοῦς.  That is, “this is the meaning,” or “understanding.”

EX CAPITE XVIII

From Chapter 18 

Et in delitiis fuit.) καὶ ἐστρηνίασε, idem verbum, quo composito usus est Paulus in epistola ad Corinthios. Cum autem luxuriatae fuerint in Christo, volunt nubere; de quo pluribus suo dictum est loco. Item paulo post, οἱ στρηνιάσαντες, i. et lascivierunt.

“And she was in delights.” καὶ ἐστρηνίασε, this is the same word of which Paul used a compound in the epistle to the Corinthians: “When they have become wanton in Christ, they wish to marry” [TF note: I assume that Erasmus is referring to 1 Timothy 5:11, which in the TR has καταστρηνιάσωσιν "they have begun to wax wanton against" - presumably Erasmus is simply making an error of memory, thinking of the passage on marriage in 1 Corinthians 7, and conflating the admonition from 1 Timothy 5:11 with the "better to marry than to burn" in 1 Corinthians 7:9] ; concerning which more was said in its own place. Likewise a little later, οἱ στρηνιάσαντες that is, “and they acted wantonly.”

Lignum tinium.) θύϊνον.

 Wood of the Laurustinus. θύϊνον.

Et similae.) καὶ σεμίδαλιν.

 “And fine flour.” καὶ σεμίδαλιν.

Lapidem molarem magnum.) λίθον ὡς μύλον, id est lapide tanquam molam.

 “A great millstone.” λίθον ὡς μύλον that is, “a stone as though a millstone.” [TF note: I'm not sure if Erasmus here means molam to mean mill or millstone, but I've assumed the latter.]

Hoc impetu mittetur.) οὕτως ὁρμήματι βληθήσεται, id est impetu mittetur.

“With this impulse it will be thrown.” οὕτως ὁρμήματι βληθήσεται, that is, “it will be thrown with force.”

EX CAPITE XIX

From Chapter 19 

Quasi vocem magnam tubarum multarum.) ἤκουσα φωνὴν ὄχλου πολλοῦ. i. audivi vocem turbae multae. Proinde consentaneum est interpretem scripsisse turbarum, non tubarum.

“As a great voice of many trumpets.” ἤκουσα φωνὴν ὄχλου πολλοῦ, that is, “I heard the voice of a great multitude.” Therefore it is consistent that the translator wrote “of crowds,” not “of trumpets.” [TF note: I think Erasmus' point is that the original translator to Latin probably wrote "turbarum" (crowds/multitudes) not "tubarum" (trumpets), a difference of one letter in Latin.] 

Alleluia.) Quod Hebraeis sonat, laudate dominum. Siquidem הללו laudate, et יה dominus. Ea vox crebra est in psalmis: laudate dominum.

“Alleluia.” In Hebrew this sounds: “Praise the Lord.” For hallelu (הללו) means “praise,” and Jah (יה) means “Lord.” This expression is frequent in the Psalms: “Praise the Lord.”

Vide ne feceris.) ὅρα μή. i. vide ne. Feceris addidit interpres, quo magis explanaret sententiam.

 “See that you do not do it.” ὅρα μή that is, “see that not.” The translator added “do it” in order to explain the sentence more fully.

Et calcat torcular vini.) ληνόν, quod ante vertit lacum.

 “And he treads the winepress of wine.” The Greek is ληνόν, which earlier he translated “lake.”

[TF: From Chapter 20 - For no obvious reason, Erasmus didn't bother to provide chapter section headings beyond Chapter 19, but I have added them for the reader's convenience.]

Gog et Magog.) Accusativus casus est utriusque et generis masculini, quod articulus Graecus declarat: τὸν Γὼγ καὶ τὸν Μαγώγ, sive pro hominibus accipienda sunt sive pro gente. Nec est congregabit, sed συναγαγεῖν, i. ad congregandum, aut ut congreget eos. Porro eos non refert ad angulos, aut gentes, sed ad Gog et Magog.

“Gog and Magog.” The case is accusative for both, and masculine in gender, which the Greek article shows: τὸν Γὼγ καὶ τὸν Μαγώγ, whether they are to be taken for men or for a people. Nor is it “he will gather,” but συναγαγεῖν that is, “for gathering,” or “so that he may gather them.” [TF note: literally συναγαγεῖν is an aorist active infinitive and the KJV renders with an infinitive, more similar to Erasmus' second option],  Furthermore, “them” does not refer to the corners or to the nations, but to Gog and Magog. [TF: of course, if you agree with Erasmus about this, you will have to go with his view that Gog and Magog refer to nations, given what follows: "the number of whom is as the sand of the sea".]

[TF: From Chapter 21]

Ego sum alpha et ω.) γέγονα τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ. Noster codex consentiebat cum vulgata horum temporum additione.

“I am Alpha and Omega.” γέγονα τὸ ἄλφα καὶ τὸ ὦ. Our manuscript agreed with the addition common in the edition of these times. [TF note: I am not sure what addition Erasmus has in mind here.  My guess is that he means "the beginning and end," which is present here but not Revelation 1:8, where it was added.]

Iaspidi sicut crystallum.) κρυσταλλίζοντι, id est crystallizanti, ut referat ad lapidem.

“Jasper, like crystal.” κρυσταλλίζοντι that is, “shining like crystal,” so that it refers to the stone. 

[TF: From Chapter 22]

Qui nocet noceat.) ὁ ἀδικῶν, id est qui male agit, sive qui iniustus. Et adhuc positum est pro amplius.

“He who harms, let him harm.” ὁ ἀδικῶν, that is, “he who acts badly,” or “he who is unjust.” And “still” is put for “further.”

Beati qui lavant stolas suas.) Longe aliud Graeci. μακάριοι οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, (Revelation 22:14) id est, beati qui faciunt mandata eius. Interpres legisse videtur, οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς. Sed unde quod sequitur in sanguine agni? Nam id quidem apud Graecos prorsus non legitur.

“Blessed are those who wash their robes.” The Greek has something very different. μακάριοι οἱ ποιοῦντες τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ, (Revelation 22:14) that is, "blessed are those who do his commandments." The translator seems to have read, οἱ πλύνοντες τὰς στολὰς. [TF note: lit. those washing the robes; the difference is of one Greek letter.] But whence is that which follows, ‘in the blood of the Lamb’? For that indeed is altogether not read among the Greeks. [TF: I have not studied this textual variant, but if there is no textual variant in the Greek, then the most likely source would be from Revelation 7:14]

Etiam venio cito. ναὶ ἔρχομαι ταχύ. (Revelation 22:20) Ναί est confirmantis. At idem adverbium mox repetitur Graecis, ναὶ ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ, id est, etiam veni domine Iesu.

"Indeed, I come quickly." ναὶ ἔρχομαι ταχύ. (Revelation 22:20) Ναί (TF: lit. yes/truly) is the word of one confirming. But the same adverb is soon repeated in the Greek: ναὶ ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ, that is, "indeed, come, Lord Jesus." 

TF: This verse is not found in the only Greek manuscript that Erasmus had, a fact that he alludes to in the very next portion of the annotations.  For this observation about verse 20, Erasmus seems to be dependent on Lorenzo Valla, although Erasmus does not expressly mention his name here. Specifically, Valla's Annotation says:

Transcription of Valla: Etiam venio cito amen veni domine Iesu. Graece non solum ante verbum venio est etiam; sed et ante verbum veni ναὶ ἔρχομαι ταχύ· ἀμήν, ναὶ ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ. 

Translation of Valla: "Yes, I come quickly; amen, come, Lord Jesus." In Greek, not only before the word “I come” is there “yes,” but also before the word “come”: ναὶ ἔρχομαι ταχύ· ἀμήν, ναὶ ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.

Continuing with Erasmus:

Quamquam in calce huius libri, nonnulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex Latinis adiecimus. Testatur divus Hieronymus Apocalypsim, ne sua quidem aetate fuisse receptam a Graecis. Ad haec quosdam eruditissimos viros, totum hoc argumentum, ceu fictum, multis conviciis insectatos fuisse, quasi nihil haberet apostolicae gravitatis, sed vulgatam tantum rerum historiam figurarum involucris adumbratam.

Although at the end of this book I found among our people some words which were absent in the Greek copies, nevertheless we added them from the Latin copies. Saint Jerome testifies that the Apocalypse, not even in his own age, had been received by the Greeks. Besides these things, some very learned men attacked this whole subject, as though fictitious, with many reproaches, as if it had nothing of apostolic gravity, but only a common history of events sketched under the coverings of figures. 

Ut de his interim nihil dicam, me nonnihil moverunt tum aliae coniecturae, tum illa, quod revelationes scribens tam sollicite suum inculcat nomen: Ego Ioannes, ego Ioannes; perinde quasi syngrapham scriberet, non librum; idque non solum praeter morem aliorum apostolorum, verum multo magis praeter suum morem, qui in evangelio modestiora narrans, non exprimit tamen usquam suum vocabulum, sed notulis indicat. Et Paulus coactus referre de visionibus suis, rem sub alterius exponit persona. At hic tam arcana cum angelis colloquia describens, quot locis inculcat, Ego Ioannes.

That I may say nothing for the moment about these things, some other conjectures moved me somewhat, and also this one: that, while writing the revelations, he so carefully presses his own name: ‘I John, I John,’ just as though he were writing a contract, not a book; and this not only contrary to the custom of the other apostles, but much more contrary to his own custom, who, while narrating more modest things in the Gospel, nevertheless nowhere expresses his own name, but indicates it by little signs. And Paul, when compelled to report concerning his own visions, sets forth the matter under the person of another. But this man, while describing such secret conversations with angels, in how many places does he press the words, ‘I John.’ 

Ad haec in Graecis quos ego viderim codicibus, non erat titulus Ioannis evangelistae, sed Ioannis theologi, ut ne commemorem stilum non parum dissonantem ab eo qui est in evangelio et epistola. Nam de locis, quos quidam calumniati sunt, velut haereticorum quorundam dogmata redolentes, non magni negotii sit diluere; haec, inquam, me nonnihil moverunt, quo minus crederem esse Ioannis evangelistae, nisi me consensus orbis alio vocaret, praecipue vero autoritas ecclesiae, si tamen hoc opus hoc animo comprobat ecclesia, ut Ioannis evangelistae velit haberi, et pari esse pondere cum caeteris canonicis libris.

Besides these things, in the Greek manuscripts which I have seen, the title was not ‘of John the Evangelist,’ but ‘of John the Theologian’; not to mention the style, which is not a little discordant from that which is in the Gospel and the Epistle. For concerning the passages which some have accused, as though smelling of the doctrines of certain heretics, it would not be a matter of great business to refute them. These things, I say, moved me somewhat, so that I was less inclined to believe it to be of John the Evangelist, unless the consensus of the world were calling me elsewhere, and especially the authority of the Church—if, however, the Church approves this work with this intention, that it wishes it to be held as belonging to John the Evangelist, and to be of equal weight with the other canonical books. 

Iam Dorotheus Tyri episcopus ac martyr in compendio vitarum prodidit Ioannem evangelium suum scripsisse in insula Patmo. Caeterum de Apocalypsi nullam omnino facit mentionem. Nec Anastasius quidem in suo Catalogo audet affirmare opus hoc illius esse; tantum ait receptum a quibusdam tanquam illius opus. Equidem video veteres theologos magis ornandae rei gratia hinc adducere testimonia, quam ut rem seriam evincant. Quandoquidem inter gemmas etiam nonnihil est discriminis, et aurum est auro purius ac probatius. In sacris quoque rebus, aliud est alio sacratius. Qui spiritualis est, ut inquit Paulus, omnia diiudicat et a nemine diiudicatur.

Now Dorotheus, bishop of Tyre and martyr, has handed down in his compendium of lives that John wrote his Gospel on the island Patmos. But concerning the Apocalypse he makes absolutely no mention. Nor indeed does Anastasius, in his Catalogue, dare to affirm that this work is his; he says only that it was received by some as though it were his work. Indeed, I see that the ancient theologians bring testimonies from here more for the sake of adorning a matter than so that they may prove a serious matter. Since even among gems there is some distinction, and gold is purer and more approved than gold. Also in sacred things, one thing is more sacred than another. He who is spiritual, as Paul says, judges all things and is judged by no one.” 

TF note: I obviously don't agree with or endorse Erasmus' skepticism regarding the authority of Revelation.  I am simply reporting what he wrote.  

Peter of Laodicea on the Lord's Prayer

Peter of Laodicea (7th or 8th century?) created a commentary on Matthew that, as far as I have been able to determine, has been published only in Greek (link to 1905 publication, or at least, not in English).  As I'm compiling patristic commentaries on the Lord's Prayer, I was pointed to this work. I now offer my amateur attempt at a transcription and translation of his commentary on Matthew 6:9-13. 

Τότε πατὴρ ἡμῶν ὁ θεὸς χρηματίζει, ὅτε διὰ τῆς τοῦ πνεύματος ἐπιφοιτήσεως τῆς υἱοθεσίας Χριστοῦ ἀξιωθῶμεν. ὁ γὰρ πατέρα καλῶν τὸν θεὸν ὀφείλει καθαρὸς εἶναι ἀπὸ ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ κληρονόμος τῆς βασιλείας τῶν οὐρανῶν· θρασὺς δὲ ὁ μορφωθεὶς πρὸς τὸν διάβολον, λέγων πατέρα τὸν θεὸν, ὃν οὐ δοξάζει. εἰπὼν δὲ τὸ ἡμῶν ἕνα τοὺς πολλοὺς δείκνυσιν ὡς ἑνὸς σώματος, μιᾶς ἁπάντων οὔσης κεφαλῆς τοῦ θεοῦ· ὑπεμφαίνει δὲ καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀλλήλων εὔχεσθαι ὡς ὅτι πάντες ἀδελφοί ἐσμεν. 

Then God is called our Father, when through the visitation of the Spirit we have been deemed worthy of the adoption of Christ. For the one calling God Father ought to be clean from sins and an heir of the kingdom of the heavens; but bold is the one who has been formed toward the devil, saying that God is Father, whom he does not glorify. And by saying the “our,” he shows the many to be one, as of one body, God being the one head of all; and he also intimates the praying for one another, since we are all brothers.

τὸ δὲ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς ὅταν εἴπῃ, οὐκ ἐκεῖ τὸν θεὸν συγκλείων τοῦτό φησιν, ἀλλὰ τῆς γῆς ἀπάγων τὸν εὐχόμενον καὶ τοῖς ὑψηλοῖς προσηλῶν. τὸ δὲ ἁγιασθήτω οὐ προστακτικῶς, εὐκτικῶς δέ, οἷον ἁγιασθείη, οὐχ ἵνα ἐκ βεβήλου ἁγιασθῇ, ἀλλ’ ἵνα ἡμῖν ἀποκαλυφθείσης τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ ἀξίως αὐτοῦ διδῶμεν ἁγιότητα ὀνομάζοντες θεόν. βασιλείαν δὲ θεοῦ ἢ τὴν μέλλουσαν τῶν ἀγαθῶν ἀπόλαυσιν φησὶν ἢ τὴν διὰ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος δωρεὰν ἢ τὴν δευτέραν αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ φύσει θεὸς ὢν ὁ Χριστὸς οἰκονομικῶς καλεῖται βασιλεὺς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἐπεύχονται οἱ πιστοὶ τοῦτο καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀπίστους ἐλθεῖν, ἵνα εἰς Χριστὸν πιστεύσαντες βασιλέα ἴδιον ἐπιγράφωνται αὐτόν. 

And whenever he says the “in the heavens,” he says this not as shutting God up there, but as leading away the one praying from the earth and nailing him to the things on high.

And the “let it be hallowed” is not imperatively, but optatively, as, “may it be hallowed”; not so that it may be hallowed from being profane, but so that, his goodness having been revealed to us, we may fittingly give holiness to him, naming him God.

And by “kingdom of God” he means either the future enjoyment of good things, or the gift through the Holy Spirit, or his second coming. And since Christ, being God by nature, is called King economically as man, the faithful pray also that this may come upon the unbelievers, so that, having believed in Christ, they may inscribe him as their own King.

τὸ δὲ γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου τοῦτο δηλοῖ· ὥσπερ ἐν οὐρανῷ καθαρῶς καὶ ἀμέμπτως πάντες οἱ ἄγγελοι πολιτεύονται, οὕτω καὶ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐν τῇ γῇ ποίησον. ἢ οὕτως· ὥσπερ οἱ ἄγγελοι ἐν οὐρανοῖς εἰσιν, οὕτω καὶ ἡμᾶς ἀξίωσον ἐν τῇ ἀναστάσει τοῦ πνευματικοῦ καὶ καθαροῦ σώματος. Ἐπιούσιον δὲ ἄρτον ἢ τὸν συνιστῶντα τὸ σῶμα ἡμῶν φησι, τουτέστι τὸν ἐφήμερον, ἤτοι τὸν ἐπιόντα καὶ προσδοκώμενον τοῦ πνεύματος ζωοποιὸν ἄρτον, τουτέστι τὸν μέλλοντα. ὠνοματοπεποίηται τοίνυν τὸ ἐπιούσιον ἢ παρὰ τὸ ἐπιέναι καὶ ἐπέρχεσθαι, ἢ τὸν μὴ τοῦ ἐνεστῶτος αἰῶνος οἰκεῖον, ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀποδοθησόμενον ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι τοῖς ἁγίοις δὸς ἡμῖν ἤδη· ἢ ἐπείπερ οὐσία κυρίως ἐστὶν ἡ ἑστῶσα καὶ βέβαιος, οἷα ἡ τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν φύσις φοροῦσα τὸ κατ’ εἰκόνα τοῦ ἀοράτου θεοῦ, κατὰ τοῦτο λέγοιτ’ ἂν ὁ τῇ κυρίως οὐσίᾳ ὁμιλῶν ἄρτος, ἐπιούσιος θεὸς ὢν, λόγος, ζῶν ἄρτος. 

And the “Let your will be done” makes this clear: just as in heaven all the angels conduct themselves purely and blamelessly, so also make human beings on the earth [to do so].

Or thus: just as the angels are in the heavens, so also count us worthy, in the resurrection, of the spiritual and pure body.

And by “supersubstantial bread” he means either the bread that sustains our body, that is, the bread for the day; or else the coming and expected life-giving bread of the Spirit, that is, the future bread. Therefore the word “supersubstantial” has been named either from “to come on” and “to approach,” or [it means]: “Give us already the bread that is not proper to the present age, but that which is going to be given in the future to the saints.”

Or, since “substance” in the proper sense is that which stands firm and is sure, such as the nature of our soul, bearing that which is according to the image of the invisible God, according to this the bread that has dealings with the substance in the proper sense might be called “supersubstantial,” being God, Word, living bread.

εἶτα δυσωπῶν ὁ λόγος ἀμνησικακεῖν, συνειδότας ἑαυτοῖς ἁμαρτίας μετριάζειν διδάσκει τὸ τῶν ἴσων θέλειν τυχεῖν. φησὶ γάρ· καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν. πᾶν δὲ ἁμάρτημα ὀφείλημά ἐστιν· εἰ γὰρ μὴ ἐνδύσηταί τις τὴν τῆς ἀμνησικακίας ἀρετήν, οὐ δύναται τυχεῖν ἀφέσεως. εἶτα διδάσκει μὴ παραιτεῖσθαι τοὺς ἀγῶνας, πλὴν μὴ ἐπιρρίπτειν ἑαυτούς· εἰ δὲ ἀνάγκη καλέσοι, δεῖ εὔχεσθαι τοῦ ῥυσθῆναι· ὁ γὰρ ἐν τῇ πάλη νικῶν καὶ μὴ ἐγκαταλειπόμενος οὐκ εἰσέρχεται εἰς πειρασμόν. πειρασμὸς γάρ ἐστιν ἡ ἧττα καὶ ἡ ἀπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου πλάνη· ὁ δὲ μὴ εἰσελθὼν εἰς δίκτυα πειρασμοῦ ἐρρύσθη ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ. πονηρὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ διάβολος οὐ φύσει, ἀλλὰ προαιρέσει·οὐ γὰρ τῶν ἐκ φύσεως ἐστὶν ἡ πονηρία, ἀλλ’ ἐξ αὐτεξουσίου κακίας καὶ πονηρίας γίνεται· κατ’ ἐξοχὴν δὲ οὗτος καλεῖται διὰ τὴν ὑπερβολὴν τῆς κακίας. τὸ δὲ ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις ἐν τισιν οὐ κεῖται μέχρι τοῦ ἀμήν.

Then, the Word, importuning [us] to be without remembrance of wrongs, teaches those conscious to themselves of sins to be moderate, by wishing to obtain equal things. For he says: “And forgive us our debts.”

And every sin is a debt; for unless someone puts on the virtue of not remembering wrongs, he is not able to obtain forgiveness.

Then he teaches not to decline the contests, yet not to throw ourselves upon them; but if necessity should call, it is necessary to pray to be delivered. For the one conquering in the wrestling and not being abandoned does not enter into temptation. For temptation is defeat and the deception from the devil; but the one who has not entered into the nets of temptation has been delivered from the evil one.

And the devil is evil, not by nature, but by choice; for wickedness is not among the things from nature, but comes to be from self-chosen evil and wickedness. And he is called this preeminently because of the excess of his wickedness.

And the “For yours is the kingdom and the power” is not found in some [copies] as far as the “Amen.”

What is particularly interesting here is that Peter recognizes the division among the Greek copies, with some including a doxology and others not including it.  Peter opts not to comment on this portion, possibly suggesting that he does not think it is original.  However, since he does not say that it is not original, we can only be confident that he was aware that there was, at his time, a textual variant in the Greek copies on this particular point.

Cyril of Jerusalem, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Jacob of Serugh on the Lord's Prayer

Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386), Catechetical Lecture XXIII, On the Mysteries V, Section 11-18 (as provided here, with at least some corrections and notes by the present author):

11. Then, after these things, we say that Prayer which the Saviour delivered to His own disciples, with a pure conscience entitling God our Father, and saying, Our Father, which art in heaven. O most surpassing loving-kindness of God! On them who revolted from Him and were in the very extreme of misery has He bestowed such a complete forgiveness of evil deeds, and so great participation of grace, as that they should even call Him Father. Our Father, which art in heaven; and they also are a heaven who bear the image of the heavenly (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:49), in whom is God, dwelling and walking in them.

12. Hallowed be Thy Name. The Name of God is in its nature holy, whether we say so or not; but since it is sometimes profaned among sinners, according to the words, Through you My Name is continually blasphemed among the Gentiles (Ezekiel 36:22 as quoted in Romans 2:24; Cf. Isaiah 52:5), we pray that in us God's Name may be hallowed; not that it comes to be holy from not being holy, but because it becomes holy in us, when we are made holy, and do things worthy of holiness.

13. Thy kingdom come. A pure soul can say with boldness, Thy kingdom come; for he who has heard Paul saying, Let not therefore sin reign in your mortal body (Romans 6:12), and has cleansed himself in deed, and thought, and word, will say to God, Thy kingdom come.

14. Thy will be done as in heaven so on earth. God's divine and blessed Angels do the will of God, as David said in the Psalm, Bless the Lord, all ye Angels of His, mighty in strength, that do His pleasure. (Psalm 103:21; cf. Psalm 148:2) So then in effect thou meanest this by thy prayer, "as in the Angels Thy will is done, so likewise be it done on earth in me, O Lord."

15. Give us this day our substantial bread. This common bread is not substantial bread, but this Holy Bread is substantial, that is, appointed for the substance of the soul. For this Bread goeth not into the belly and is cast out into the draught (cf. Mark 7:19 or Matthew 15:17), but is distributed into thy whole system for the benefit of body and soul. But by this day, he means, "each day," as also Paul said, While it is called to-day. (Heb. 3:15)

16. And forgive us our debts as we also forgive our debtors. For we have many sins. For we offend both in word and in thought (cf. James 3:2), and very many things we do worthy of condemnation; and if we say that we have no sin, we lie (1 John 1:8), as John says.  And we make a covenant with God, entreating Him to forgive us our sins, as we also forgive our neighbours their debts. Considering then what we receive and in return for what, let us not put off nor delay to forgive one another. The offences committed against us are slight and trivial, and easily settled; but those which we have committed against God are great, and need such mercy as His only is. Take heed therefore, lest for the slight and trivial sins against thee thou shut out for thyself forgiveness from God for thy very grievous sins.

17. And lead us not into temptation, O Lord [TF note: I haven't italicized "O Lord," though perhaps he includes such in his quotation.]. Is this then what the Lord teaches us to pray, that we may not be tempted at all? How then is it said elsewhere, "a man untempted, is a man unproved;" [TF note: From Schaff's printing, we find the following footnote: "Tertull. De Bapt. c. 20: “For the word had gone before ‘that no one untempted should attain to the celestial kingdoms.’” Apost. Const. II. viii.: “The Scripture says, ‘A man that is a reprobate (ἀδόκιμος) is not tried (ἀπείραστος) by God.’” Resch, Agrapha, Logion 26, p. 188, quotes allusions to the saying in Jas. i. 12, 13; 2 Cor. xiii. 5, 6, 7, and concludes that it was recorded as a saying of our Lord in one of the un-canonical gospels (Luke i. 1), where it occurred in the context of the incident narrated in Matt. xxvi. 41, Mark xiv. 38.") and again, My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations? (James 1:2) But does perchance the entering into temptation mean the being overwhelmed by the temptation? For temptation is, as it were, like a winter torrent difficult to cross. Those therefore who are not overwhelmed in temptations, pass through, shewing themselves excellent swimmers, and not being swept away by them at all; while those who are not such, enter into them and are overwhelmed. As for example, Judas having entered into the temptation of the love of money, swam not through it, but was overwhelmed and was strangled both in body and spirit (Cf. Matthew 27:5). Peter entered into the temptation of the denial; but having entered, he was not overwhelmed by it, but manfully swam through it, and was delivered from the temptation (Cf. Luke 22:31-34). Listen again, in another place, to a company of unscathed saints, giving thanks for deliverance from temptation, Thou, O God hast proved us; Thou hast tried us by fire like as silver is tried. Thou broughtest us into the net; Thou layedst afflictions upon our loins. Thou hast caused men to ride over our heads; we went through fire and water; and thou broughtest us out into a place of rest. Thou seest them speaking boldly in regard to their having passed through and not been pierced. But Thou broughtest us out into a place of rest (Psalm 66:10-12); now their coming into a place of rest is their being delivered from temptation.

18. But deliver us from the evil. If Lead us not into temptation implied the not being tempted at all, He would not have said, But deliver us from the evil. Now evil is our adversary the devil, from whom we pray to be delivered. Then after completing the prayer thou sayest, Amen; by this Amen, which means "So be it," setting thy seal to the petitions of the divinely-taught prayer.

Notice that the "Amen" is not properly part of the prayer itself for Cyril, for he says, "after completing the prayer," and that there is no doxology present in the prayer.  Moreover, there is no other good explanation that can be offered for why Cyril would not comment on the doxology, if it were even liturgically present (as the "amen" was in Cyril's liturgy).  

Theodore of Mopsuestia (AD 350 – 428) wrote a commentary on the Lord's Prayer and on the two sacraments.  I reproduce, below, the end of Chapter I (Chapter II begins the subject of Baptism) in the form of a series of homilies (full text available in translation here):

He calls "to offend" the act of injuring by wickedness and obstinacy those who for the sake of perfection strive to lead a humble and pure life. Because of all this, after He had said, "And lead us not into temptation," He added: But deliver us from evil, because the wicked Satan injures us much in all the above things, as he endeavours in different ways to do things through which he thinks that he is able to divert us from our love and choice of duty.

Our Lord embodied perfection of works in the above words of prayer and taught us clearly how we are to be, in what we are to be diligent, from what we have to flee, and what to ask of God. And our blessed Fathers who thought that, together with the right teaching and the true faith, we ought also to strive after a good life and good works, ordered this prayer for those who draw near to the gift of baptism so that side by side with an accurate doctrine concerning the creed of the faith they might through prayer so order our life as to possess that perfection which is required of those who receive the gift of baptism, and through which they are counted in the number of the citizens of the heavenly life, while still on this earth.

Endeavour now to keep clearly in your mind the things which you have learnt in short words from the Lord's prayer, and meditate upon them with diligence in order that, while still in this world and far from the next, you may imitate and follow the teaching of our Lord, and thus be worthy of the heavenly benefits in which we are all enabled to participate by the grace of the Only Begotten Son of God, to whom, in conjunction with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be glory, now, always, and for ever and ever. Amen.

Notice that Theodore provides a sort of doxological conclusion to his chapter/homily, which has already begun the transition to the next topic of discussion.  There is, however, no mention of the Lord's Prayer containing any doxology, such as is found in the King James Version.

Jacob of Serugh (AD 452-521) also known as Jacob of Sarug or Mar Jacob has a homily on the Lord's Prayer.  In section XIII, he writes:

Deliver me from the enemy who fights with me, for I cannot conquer him without Your aid. Do not look to me to conquer in that great occasion of bloodshed. Take for Yourself the battle and the victory befitting You. Deliver me from it and let the crown and fame be Yours, and neither attribute to me triumph, nor victory. Deliver me from it and let the entire glory of the athlete be reserved for You, for You have conquered the enemy. Deliver me from it and let defeat pursue me, for I confess, I have already been defeated – You conquered me. Without You I cannot conquer in battle. Let me not be tested, deliver me from it without trial. In mercy, deliver me from Satan who fights with me, for all the victories You shall take befit You. Deliver me from him (i.e. Satan), for Yours is the power and the kingdom and the authority – and also the glory. And also when one conquers – whatever he conquers – he does so by You, for all strength and power belong to You.

This is then followed by section XIV, in which a summary of the Lord's Prayer homily is provided.  You will notice that there is some kind of doxological content at the end of the discussion of "deliver us from the Evil One."  It is not, however, discussed in the same way as the the petition is discussed, so it is not clear whether Jacob sees this as a kind of liturgical flourish on top of the prayer, or whether it is properly part of the prayer.  If the latter, it should be noted that it is similar to, but not the same as the KJV's doxology, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen."  The main differences are the inclusion of "authority" as well as "strength" (But compare Daniel 2:37) and the exclusion of the durative "for ever" and the affirmative "amen".   

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.