The Johannine Comma in the Complutensian Polyglot

There are extremely few marginal notes regarding the reading of the text in the Complutensian Polyglot.  One of those very few notes is found at 1 John 5:7, as shown in the following screenshot:

(source)

The note reads:

Sanctus thomas in expositione secunde decretalis de suma trinitate et fide catholica tractans istum passum contra Abbatem Joachim ut tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo. pater: verbum: et spiritus sanctus: dicit ad litteram verba sequentia. Et ad insinuandam unitatem trium personarum subditur et hii tres unum sunt. Quodquidem dicitur propter essentie unitatem. Sed hoc Joachim perverse trahere volens ad unitatem charitatis et consensus inducebat consequeintem auctoritatem. Nam subditur ibidem: et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra. s. spiritus: aqua: et sanguis. Et in quibusdam libris additur: et hii tres unum sunt. Sed hoc in veris exemplaribus non habetur: sed dicitur esse appositum ab hereticis arrianis ad pervertendum intellectum sanum auctoritatis premisse de unitate essentie trium personaruim. Hec beatus Thomas ubi supra.

My translation:

Saint Thomas, in the exposition of the second decretal On the Most High Trinity and the Catholic Faith, treating that passage against Abbot Joachim, “For there are three who give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”, says the following words literally:

“And to indicate the unity of the three persons it is added: ‘And these three are one.’ This indeed is said because of the unity of essence.”

But Joachim, wishing perversely to twist this to the unity of charity and agreement, brought in the following authority:

“For it is added in the same place: ‘And there are three who give testimony on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ And in certain books it is added: ‘And these three are one.’”

But this is not found in the true copies, but is said to have been inserted by Arian heretics to corrupt the sound understanding of the preceding authority concerning the unity of essence of the three persons.

These things are from blessed Thomas, as cited above.

Please note that the text of 1 John 5:7-8 in "the TR" is this:

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν

By contrast, the text of 1 John 5:7-8 in the Complutensian Polyglot is this:

ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γης τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα 

Notice the differences:

1. The "TR" inserts οὗτοι (these)  
2. The "TR" adds a movable nu to the end of εἰσι ("there are"); no apparent difference in meaning.
3. The "TR" omits the καὶ (and) between Father and Word.
4. The "TR" omits the εἰς τὸ ("to the") in the first statement of unity. 
5. The "TR" includes the phrase "καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν" after the three earthly witnesses, whereas the CP marginal note refers to this phrase as an Arian insertion, citing Thomas Aquinas.
6. The "TR" substitutes "ἐν τῇ γῇ" (in the earth) in place of "ἐπὶ τῆς γης" (on the earth).

The reason for treating the CP as the primary text, and the "TR" as a departure from it, is that the reading in the CP was printed first. 

Appendix:

Here's a translation apparently by Ezra Abbot (in 1872) in a memoir by by Rev. William Orme (1787-1830)(pp. 80-81):

"Saint Thomas, in his exposition of the second Decretal concerning the Most High Trinity and the Catholic faith, treating of this passage, 'There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit,' in opposition to the Abbot Joachim, uses precisely the following language: —' And to teach the unity of the three persons it is subjoined, And these three are one; which is said on account of their unity of essence. But Joachim, wishing perversely to refer this to a unity of affection and agreement, alleged the text that follows it. For it is immediately subjoined, And there are three that bear witness on earth, namely, the Spirit, the water, and the blood. And in some books it is added, And these three are one. But this is not contained in the true copies, but is said to have been added by the Arian heretics to prevent the text that precedes from being correctly understood as relating to the unity of essence of the three persons.'- Thus the blessed Thomas, as above referred to."

Postscript:

For the record, I am not posting the Complutensian's note because of any agreement with it, but instead because (1) sometimes it is claimed that although Erasmus did not have a manuscript with Johannine Comma, the Complutensian editors must have had one, and (2) it seems impossible (or at least highly unlikely) that the Complutensian editors had a Greek text that includes the Johannine Comma.  They seem to have created it to match the Latin and in the process moved the genuine phrase "καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν" from its proper place after the Spirit, Water, and Blood to before those three witnesses are mentioned.  In short, like the other Greek testimonies to the Comma, the Complutensian is a testimony to reverse engineering from the Latin.

The 19th Century Shift in Views Regarding the Johannine Comma

The following endorsement of John Candlish (1806-1873) is attributed to Charles Spurgeon: "A man hardly needs anything beyond Candlish. He is devout, candid, prudent and forcible."  Candlish's massive two-volume commentary on 1 John is one of the go-to commentaries on the book.  In lecture XXXVIII, "The Three Witnesses and their Agreement," Candlish quotes 1 John v. 6 and 8 with the following footnote:

I acquiesce of course in the rejection of the 7th verse, and of the words "in earth" in the 8th verse, as not in the original. I need not argue the point, for it is now all but universally admitted by intelligent critics.

The text of his commentary (including this footnote) can be found online (link to vol. 2, p. 200)

Meanwhile, his contemporary, James Morgan (1799-1873), has the following comment in his own lectures (which came after Candlish's):

Doubts have long been entertained respecting the authenticity of this verse. It is wanting in many of the early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. And we must wait for farther light, before we rest in its inspiration.

(link to Lecture XLIII, p. 426)

Writing shortly after Morgan and Candlish, J.J. Lias, The First Epistle of St. John with Exposition and Homiletical Treatment (1887):

The spuriousness of ver. 7 is a fact which, in the present stage of textual criticism, can hardly be said to admit of dispute. A brief summary of the evidence is all that need be offered here. For a fuller statement the reader is referred to those works on New Testament criticism designed for the use of scholars. Especially will the latest view of the critical evidence be found in Professor Westcott's Commentary. 

(p. 379, with extended arguments for and against following)

W. Graham, The Spirit of Love, or a Practical & Exegetical Commentary on 1 John  (1857) argues as follows:

4thly. The three Witnesses are mentioned, in the seventh and eighth verses, thus, " For there are three that bear record (in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one ; and there are three that bear witness in earth, εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἕν τῇ γῇ) "the Spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these three agree in one." The words included in the parenthesis form the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses which has been the subject of such fierce and bitter discussion. 1 do not intend to give a statement of the argument on either side, but having read all I could get at on the subject, both in English and German, I may be permitted to state simply my convictions. (1) Nothing can be proved out of the internal evidence either for or against its genuineness. The passage seems to be full and perfect without these words, and yet, when inserted, the meaning is scriptural and apostolical. The apostle might have written them, for they contain nothing which cannot be proved from other passages of sacred Scripture, and therefore I altogether disagree with the dogmatism and presumption of Lücke, who says, " Either these words are spurious, and the rest of the epistle a genuine production of John, or they are genuine, and the epistle belongs to a much later period." (2) There is not sufficient ground for retaining these words in the sacred text. The evidence, so far as it is known or examined, is entirely against their genuineness, and therefore our jealous veneration for the word of God should make us reject them, at least until new confirmatory evidence be produced.

(pp. 323-4)

John Stock (apparently died prior to 1865) wrote an exposition on 1 John (apparently from 1861-64).  When he came to 1 John 7-8, he states: "It is admitted, as to a portion of the verses before us, that many manuscripts have it not; yet others have; and most learned divines have affirmed that the argument was in favour of the version we have in our testaments." (link to p. 421)  He builds up to this admission with two paragraphs about how confident he is (and his readers should be) in the quality of the English text.  And after his admission, he says that whether the verse is "rejected, or retained" it "does not in the least degree affect the blessed doctrine of the Trinity in Unity...."

Samuel Pierce (1746-1829) provided a two volume commentary set of sermons on 1 John.  His Sermon LXXIX and LXXX discuss the text of 1 John 5:7, while his Sermon LXXX discusses the text of 1 John 5:8 including the "in earth" phrase.  Unlike Morgan and Candlish in the next generation, Pierce seems convinced of the authenticity of the verse, despite his awareness of challenges to it.  His arguments, however, do not reflect much understanding of the issues.  For example, he argues:

And the series of the context and scope of the place do necessarily require this verse. For the words of the following verse, And there are three in earth, cannot have a right construction, but upon supposition that there are Three also that bear record in heaven, with which these three in earth are connected by the conjunctive particle and. 

However, of course, the words "and there are three in earth" are also part of the interpolation.

My overall point is this.  At the start of the 19th century, there was a sincere belief that textual criticism vindicated the Johannine Comma.  However, by the end of the 19th century, it was clear that textual criticism had conclusively demonstrated that the Johannine Comma is an interpolation.

Pope Leo X's Approval of the Complutensian Polyglot

Pope Leo X, writing on March 22, 1520, approved of the publication of the Complutensian Polyglot. One of the issues faced by the Complutensian project was that Cardinal Francisco Ximénez de Cisneros (1436 to 1517) died in 1517, after 15 years of work and an enormous outlay of money.  Although the project was essentially completed four months before his death, the actual publication of the work was not made during his life, and the result was that there had not been any papal approval of the work prior to his demise.  Pope Leo X, soon to become famous to history for his condemnation of Martin Luther in Exsurge Domine (June 15, 1520), officially approved the Complutensian Polyglot in the letter that was included as front matter to volume 1 of the CP.  

One point to highlight from this document is that it approves the Complutensian Polyglot, which includes prefaces that adopt Jerome's view of the lack of full canonicity of the Deuterocanonical books.  

Finally, it's worth noting (as Dr. Ed Gallagher does here) that this is not an issue that is limited to the prologues reproduced from Jerome and others (I think that some are Isidore's, or at least influenced by Isidore, but I have not checked to be sure).  The bigger issue is the portion of the book that, above all other portions, Leo X is most likely to have read.  That portion has two parts, (1) the dedicatory prologue written in 1517 (a full translation can be found here); and (2) . 

The dedicatory prologue includes this:

There are many reasons, Holy Father, that impel us to print the languages of the original text of Holy Scripture ... Since, however, the most learned translator can present only a part of this, the full Scripture in translation inevitably remains up to the present time laden with a variety of sublime truths which cannot be understood from any source other than the original language.  Moreover, wherever a diversity in the Latin manuscripts or the suspicion of a corrupted reading (we know how frequently this occurs because of the ignorance and negligence of copyists), it is necessary to go back to the original source of Scripture, as St. Jerome and St. Augustine and other ecclesiastical writers advise us to do, to examine the authenticity of the books of the Old Testament in light of the correctness of the Hebrew text and of the New Testament in the light of the Greek copies. And so that every student of Holy Scripture might have at hand the original texts themselves and be able to quench his thirst at the very fountainhead of the water that flows unto life everlasting and not have to content himself with rivulets alone, we ordered the original languages of Holy Scripture with their translations adjoined to be printed and dedicated to your Holiness.

Translation is from Catholic Reform: From Cardinal Ximenes to the Council of Trent, 1495-1563 : an Essay with Illustrative Documents and a Brief Study of St. Ignatius Loyola, by John C. Olin (Fordham University Press, 1990).

The next is the Prologue to the Reader (begins on the back side of the dedicatory prologue).

I have provided an image of the first page of the prologue with a relevant portion highlighted, below.  However, the relevant Latin text is this (as helpfully and correctly transcribed by Dr. Gallagher): 

At vero libri extra canonem: quos Ecclesia potius ad aedificationem populi quam ad autoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam recipit. Graecam tamen habent scripturam: sed cum duplici latina interpretatione: altera beati Hieronymi: altera interlineari de verbo ad verbum: eo modo quo in caeteris. 

My translation:

But truly [there are] books outside the canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishing of ecclesiastical doctrines: they have Greek writing, but with a double Latin translation; one by the blessed Jerome, the other interlinear: word for word, in the same manner as the others.  

Gallagher's translation:

But there are books outside the canon which the Church has received more for the edification of the people than for the authoritative confirmation of ecclesiastical dogmas. But they have Greek writing, but with a double Latin translation, one of blessed Jerome, the other a word-for-word interlinear, just as in the others. 

Gallagher notes that the first sentence, "But ... dogmas," is "a quotation from Jerome's Preface to the Books of Solomon, discussed here, p. 102."  There are plenty of additional jewels to be found in Gallagher's post.

I should add here that we have additional evidence of Leo X's tacit approval of the distinction between "Sacred Scripture" (generally) and "Sacred Scripture that is in the canon."  The evidence comes from his condemnation of Martin Luther in Exsurge Domine, in which he condemns as number thirty-seven of the errors of Martin Luther: "37. Purgatory cannot be proved from Sacred Scripture which is in the canon."  

The following is an (unprofessional) English translation of his letter, followed by an image of the letter and an approximate transcription of the same.  I've also included an image of (perhaps) the most significant of the prologues included.  Note well, however, that there are other prologues that (taken alone) might seem to reflect a more favorable attitude toward the deuterocanonical books. Below that are images of additional material referenced above.

*** 

TO THE VENERABLE BROTHER FRANCISCO, BISHOP OF ÁVILA, AND TO THE BELOVED SON FRANCISCO DE MENDOZA, ARCHDEACON OF PEDROCHE IN THE CHURCH OF CÓRDOBA, OR TO EITHER OF THEM.

POPE LEO X

To the venerable brother and beloved son, greetings and apostolic blessing.

Some time ago, through the report of our venerable brother Bernardino, Bishop of Sabina, and our beloved son Giles, priest and Cardinal (titular of St. Matthew), we understood that among other things which the late Francis, priest and Cardinal (titular of St. Balbina), completed with the highest praise before he departed from human affairs, there exists a work of the New and Old Testaments—namely, the New [Testament] in Greek and Latin, and the Old [Testament] in Greek and Latin as well as in Hebrew and Chaldean languages—compiled by the same Cardinal Francis with much diligence and the agreement of learned men, and printed at the expense of the same Cardinal Francis in up to six hundred volumes or more.

But since, after such printing, the said Cardinal Francis was suddenly taken by death, and our approval for the publication of the said work had not been requested, the work itself has not until now been able to reach the hands of scholars and the public good, for whom it will be fruitful. Moreover, the will of the said Cardinal Francis, recorded in his testament, remains partly unexecuted. And this is to be fulfilled from the price for which the said volumes will be sold.

Wherefore, we deem it unworthy that a work of such usefulness for the public should be hidden any longer, and that the pious will of so worthy a man should be frustrated by a delayed execution. And desiring to support both with the help of our provision:

Of our own accord, and with certain knowledge, approving the aforesaid work, and granting that it may henceforth freely come to light through the hands of scholars and others, we command your discretion—who, as we have heard, are among the executors of the said testament—by these letters, that you should diligently see to it that the aforesaid volumes be sold for the best price that can be obtained, even without the other executors of the said testament, if any there be, and that from this price you should cause the said will to be fulfilled according to the means of the said price.

And lest any of the said volumes remain unsold, we forbid all and each person, both ecclesiastical and secular, of whatever dignity, state, rank, order, and condition they may be, under penalty of latae sententiae excommunication (from which no one may be absolved except by us or by our special mandate, except when in the moment of death), and also under the penalty of one thousand gold ducats to be paid by each transgressor to the court—and which are to be assigned, in equal parts, to the building of the basilica of Saint Peter in the city and to our treasury for the time being, for up to seven years from the day the sale begins—that they presume to print the same [work] in any way.

But if, rashly (which may it not be), they do not fear to violate this prohibition, we grant to you, or to either of you, the power and faculty by the tenor of these presents to denounce such transgressors as excommunicated and to command that they be avoided as such, as well as to fine each individually with the penalty of five hundred ducats, and to do whatever else may be necessary or appropriate in this matter.

Notwithstanding apostolic constitutions and ordinances and all other things whatsoever to the contrary.

Given at Rome, at Saint Peter’s, under the Fisherman’s Ring, on the 22nd day of March, 1520, in the eighth year of our pontificate.

VENERABILI FRATRI FRANCISCO EPISCOPO ABULEN. ET DILECTO FILIO FRANCISCO DE MENDOZA, ARCHIDIACONO DE PEDROCHE IN ECCLESIA CORDUBENSI VEL EORUM ALTERI.

LEO PAPA X.

Venerabilis frater et dilecte fili salutem et apostolicam benedictionem.

Dudum relatione venerabilis fratris Bernardini, Episcopi Sabinensis, et dilecti filii nostrorum Egidii.tt.sancti Mathei, presbyteri Cardinalis, nobis facta intelleximus, quod inter alia quae bonae memoriae Franciscus.tt.sanctae Balbinae presbyter Cardinalis, ante que ab humanis excederet summa cum laude absolvit: extat opus novi et veteris testamenti, novi videlicet in greco et latino, et veteris in greco et latino predictis, necnon hebraeo et caldeo sermonibus ab eodem Francisco Cardinale multa cum vigilia et doctorum consensu compositum, et usque ad sexcenta volumina vel amplius impensa eiusdem Francisci Cardinalis impressa. 

Sed cum post impressionem huiusmodi subito dictus Franciscus Cardinalis morte esset ablatus et noster ad publicationem dicti operis consensus petitius non esset; nequevit hactenus opus ipsum ad doctorum manus et publicam utilitatem cui erit fructuosum advenire. Manet insuper voluntas dicti Francisci Cardinalis in illius testamento notata pro parte inexequuta. Et est ex precio pro quo dicta volumina vendentur explenda. Unde nos indignum existimantes, quod huiusmodi diopus amplius cum publicae utilitatis factura lateat, et pia tam imitabilis viri voluntas diutius debita exequutione frustretur. Et utriquae damno nostrae provisionis opesubvenire volentes. 

Motu proprio et ex certa scientia nostra opus praefatum comprobantes. Et ut tale in lucem per doctorum et aliorum manus libere de caetero venire possit concedentes, discretioni vestrae, qui sicut accepimus ex exequutoribus dicti testamenti estis, per haec scripta mandamus, quatenus volumina praedicta pro precio de quo melius agi poterit etiam sine aliis dicti testamenti exequutoribus, si qui sint, diligenter vendi procuretis, et faciatis ex ipso precio dictam voluntatem iuxta vires eiusdem precii adimpleri.

Et ne aliquod dictorum voluminum non venditum maneat, inhibemus universis et singulis tam ecclesiasticis quam secularibus personis cuiuscumque dignitatis, status, gradus, ordinis et conditionis sint, sub excommunicationis latae sententiae a qua nisi a nobis impis vel de nostro speciali mandato, praeterquam in mortis articulo constituti, absolvi possint, necnon mille ducatorum auri de camera per quemlibet transgressorum solvendorum, et quos fabricae basilicae sancti Petri de urbe et nostrae camerae paribus portionibus ad id deputatis pro tempore usquae ad septennium a die inchoatae venditionis himmoi imprimere quoquomodo presmant.

Si vero temerarie inhibitionem huiusmodi quod absit praeterire non expaverint. Vobis et vestrum cui quae transgressores praedictros excommunicatos denunciandi et eos ut tales evitari mandandi necnon poena quingentorum ducatorum hmmoi singulariter mulctari et quaevis alia desuper necessaria seu oportuna faciendi licentiam et facultatem tenore praesentium elargimur.

Non obstan. constitutionibus et ordinationibus apostolicis caeterisqae quibuscunque.

Datum Romae apud sanctum Petrum sub annulo Piscatoris. die xxii Martii, MDXX. Pontificatus nostri anno octavo.                         Evangelista.

*** 

Finally, here is the famous prologue that was included, which identifies the deuterocanonical books as apocrypha.  It's not the only prologue material provided, and there is some tension between the various prologues provided, but it is indeed here (at p. 358/1042 of this scan):

In view of my recent debate with Nick Sayers, I found interesting the quotation: "Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Omnipotens qui erat et qui est et qui venturus est." (Rev. 4.8)