Codex Gigas at 1 John 5:7-8 (And Codex Sangermanensis primus and Codex Colbertinus and Codex Perpinianensis and Book of Armagh

I thought I would check the Vetus Latina manuscripts (a helpful list can be found here) to see what they actually say it when it comes to the Johannine Comma.  I should point out that while these manuscripts have been characterized by someone as Old Latin manuscripts and given a "VL" designation, all of these manuscripts are later than Jerome's translation.  I am not sure whether anyone has checked/verified whether the text is in fact Vetus Latina, either in general or specifically for the text of 1 John.  It is always possible that these manuscripts have been characterized based on having at least one section that is VL, or that they have been mischaracterized.  As this is a research-intensive post, it is quite possible that it will be updated from time to time, possibly without formally identifying each update.  The initial version of the article covered: VL 6, 7, 51, 54, and 61, of which VL 7, 51, and 61 are witnesses against the JC.

One of the largest and most expensive Bibles ever produced is Codex Gigans, a 13th century manuscript produced in area that is now part of the Czech Republic. It is part of the "Vetus Latina" family and is referred to by the manuscript designation, "VL 51 (gig)."  It does not only include Biblical texts but also Isidore of Seville's Etymologies, among other things.

At 1 John 5:7-8, the manuscript has this:

(548 of 629)

The text reads:

qui tres sunt qui testumonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt.

Codex Sangermanensis primus is dated to around 810.  It is referrred to as "VL 7 (g1)."  It is available from the Paris library (link).

 

(source)

The Latin text is: 

qui tres sunt qui testumonium dant spiritus, aqua, et sanguis et tres unum sunt.

Codex Colbertinus is dated to the 12th century and referred to as "VL 6 (c)."  It is available from the Paris library (link).

(source)

The Latin text is: 

qui tres sunt qui testumonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in celo pater, verbum, et spiritus sanctus. Et hi tres unum sunt.

Codex Perpinianensis is dated to the second half of the 12th century and referred to as "VL 54 (p)."  It is available from the French library (link).

(folio 216v)

The Latin text is:

qui tres sunt qui testumonium dant in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt. Et [some damage/erasure change here] tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in celo pater, verbum, spiritus sanctus. Et hii tres unum sunt.

The Liber Ardmachanus or Book of Armagh is dated to 807/08 and is referred to as "VL 61 (ar, D)." 

Book of Armaugh is available in a full scan from the Trinity College, Dublin.

(source)

A sort of facsimile via Archive.org provides the following "transcription":

quia -iii- sunt qu'i' testimonium dant spiritus eiaqua c/sanguis et •iii' unum Sunt

(Liber Ardmachanus: the book of Armagh, folio 157v)

I would suggest instead:

quia III sunt qui testimonium dant spiritus et aqua et sanguis et III unum sunt

I may expand this post in the future, as noted at the beginning of the post.

Frisingensia Fragmenta (aka Freising Fragments) include a few folios dated to first half of the 7th century and containing (in fragmentary form) 1 John 5:7-8.  The designation for this is "VL 64":

(scan 53)

The text of 1 John 5:7-8 is mostly lost, but one can see the "in terra" and "in caelo," which suggests that *some form* of the JC was present.

For future study:

VL 62

VL 65 (Z)

...

Psalm 1 - NVBSE Collated

In this post, the Nova Vulgata, Bibliorum Sacrorum Editio (available without visible copyright here (link) ) is compared with the Old Latin Version (adopted by Trent and based on the Septuagint) and Jerome's translation (based on the Hebrew). My primary source for the text of the Old Latin (OL) and Jerome's translation (H), as well as for Latin textual variants (except as noted otherwise) is Gryson's Biblia Sacra Vulgata, fifth edition. Additionally, the Clementine Vulgate (C) is referenced, as is the Complutensian Polyglot (P for the main Latin column of the Polyglot or both [where both columns are the same] readings, and P* for the reading provided inter-linear in the Greek column). It should be noted that all punctuation is modern, neither the OL nor H having punctuation in the ancient copies. Although P has punctuation, I have not collated it. I have not collated the line divisions, per se, and P is not arranged with the line divisions in mind.

PSALMUS 1
1 Beatus vir, qui non abiit in consilio impiorum
et in via peccatorum non stetit
et[a] in conventu[b] derisorum[c] non sedit,
2 sed in lege Domini voluntas eius,
et in lege eius meditatur[d] die ac nocte.
3 Et erit tamquam lignum [e] plantatum[f] secus decursus[g] aquarum,
quod fructum suum dabit in tempore suo;
et folium eius non defluet,
et omnia, quaecumque[h] faciet,[i] prosperabuntur.[j]
4 Non sic impii, non sic,[k]
sed tamquam pulvis, quem proicit ventus. [l]
5 Ideo[m] non consurgent[n] impii in iudicio,
neque peccatores in concilio[o] iustorum.
6 Quoniam novit Dominus viam iustorum,
et iter impiorum peribit.

[a] w/ OL, C, & P; H omit (some textual evidence for "et" in H)
[b] for conventu OL, H, C, & P cathedra
[c] w/ H & P, for derisorum OL, C, & P* pestilentiae
[d] for meditatur OL, H, C, & P meditabitur
[e] OL, C, & P* insert quod after lignum
[f] w/ OL, C, & P*, for plantatum H & P transplantatum
[g] w/ OL, for secus decursus H iuxta rivulos P iuta riuos, add C & P* est before secus decursus
[h] w/ OL, C, & P*, for quaecumque H & P quod
[i] w/ OL, C, & P*, for faciet H & P fecerit
[j] w/ OL, C, & P*, for prosperabuntur H & P prosperabitur
[k] w/ OL, C, & P*, H & P omit non sic
[l] w/ H, add OL, C, & P* a facie terrae
[m] w/ OL, C, & P*, for ideo H propterae P propterea
[n] for consurgent OL, H, C, & P resurgent
[o] w/ OL, C, & P*, for concilio H & P congregatione

As you can imagine, this sort of process is time consuming. I hope to have more posts in a similar vein, but I cannot promise them any time soon. One interesting fact emerges that in this psalm, already three variants exist [b], [d], and [n] that seem to contradict the general testimony of the ancient and renaissance Latin versions. Additionally, it should be noted that the NV seems generally to prefer the translations of the LXX to the translations of the Hebrew, where the two differ.

-TurretinFan