Comma Johanneum and the Vulgate

[Huiou_Theou]

I’ve been reading this article, studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/1john5n7.html Though, I find it with some of holes and blind assertions at other parts, the study of St. Tertullian and St. Cyprian is interesting though not convincing.

What St. Tertullian said in his apologetic work Against Praxeas:

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are One,’ in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number.”

I see, so he spoke of the doctrine of the trinity before others did so; identifying the distinction between essence (latin substance) and person (Greek hypo-stasis) which would ignite between the east and west a conflict by sheer happenstance – for the literal word for essence in Latin happens to have the exact same roots as the word for person in Greek; so that literal translations inevitably seemed heretical between Greek and Latin; although both held the same teaching as it has been shown in retrospect.

What people pickup on this is that St. Tertullian uses the same language as 1 John 5:7 “these three are one”. I find it interesting, but just because he says “these three are one” is not an automatic connection to 1 john 5:7, any Catholic would say the same of the Holy Trinity regardless of Sacred Scripture.

I think you are correct; though the “any Catholic” might not be scripturally inclined

But the biggest connection supporters make of the Commas is what St. Cyprian wrote around 250 AD in On the Unity of the Catholic Church, Ch. 6:

“He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”

Hmm. Cyprian, I think, would have been a Latin writer from the same place as Tertulian?; And his quote still ends in just the word “one” in English, rather than substance/essence translated into English. So Cyprian’s remark doesn’t even appear to show familiarity with the distinction proposed by Tertulian.

Though the biggest problem is that the reference to Christ in this is as the Son, and the Commas in 1 john 5:7 refer Christ as the Word. And again, just because he says “these three are one” is not an automatic connection to 1 john 5:7.

Most of the article is grasping for straws and maybe looking to hard into the words when it discusses grammar and such. The only true defense is the existence of these late codex’s and St. Jerome’s “Prologue To The Canonical Epistles”, and it seems these things are debatable and not entirely provable, but not completely refuted. Think the status is, indifference.

Yes, I think you are right – for even Jerome does not claim that they are “removing” anything, but rather that they are not translating un-ambiuguously according to the faith. By the time of Jerome, the doctrine of the trinity is held unquestionably by the church; and as the Catholic church is the one who is the pillar and foundation of the truth; Jerome’s idea of faithfulness may not be “literalness” of copy in every sentence – but that which is in harmony with Church’s teaching and Tradition on a particular passage. He had to sort variant copies of the OT Hebrew scriptures as well; so he had the task of discerning which ones were tampered with to de-emphasize Christ by later rabbi’s, and which were more “original” in meaning of the text; In places where scripture would neither approve nor disprove church teaching – he was free to use other standards to try and detect the most “original” and “correct” translation of the texts available.

 

[patrick457]

But the biggest connection supporters make of the Commas is what St. Cyprian wrote around 250 AD in On the Unity of the Catholic Church, Ch. 6:

“He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”

Though the biggest problem is that the reference to Christ in this is as the Son, and the Commas in 1 john 5:7 refer Christ as the Word. And again, just because he says “these three are one” is not an automatic connection to 1 john 5:7.

Just to add:

1.) There is actually some variance between versions that do contain the Comma. For one, a single manuscript actually has ‘Holy’ before ‘Spirit’. Not to mention a Latin variant which goes like “there are three giving witness on earth: the spirit, [and] the water, and the blood, and these three are one in Christ Jesus. And the three giving witness in heaven are the Father, the Word and the Spirit.”

2.) Cyprian is actually considered by some as a witness AGAINST the Comma’s authenticity; for one, he is clearly making an allusion via the three witnesses, not quoting the passage as proof-text: “written of” rather than “written that.”

3.) Tertullian ain’t a saint; he became a Montanist near the end of his life, which explains why.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

3.) Tertullian ain’t a saint; he became a Montanist near the end of his life, which explains why.

Ah, big oops on my part. I partially blame sites like this, but should’ve read his New Advent article. That’s saddening to learn though

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What is the oldest Latin manuscript that includes the Comma?

 

[patrick457]

What is the oldest Latin manuscript that includes the Comma?

The two oldest mss which have it are the 7th century palimpsest Codex Legionensis, another Vulgate-Vetus Latina hybrid (especially in the text of 1 John), and the Vetus Latina Codex Frisingensis (5th-7th century). Both are of Spanish origin, or so I’ve read.

 

[maureenan]

Can someone tell me if 1John 5:7 is entirely refuted by the Catholic church. I thought I read that although it has been taken out it is because there has been so much controversy over it.

Reading 1 John 5 the words to me are in perfect harmony with the rest of the chapter.

Thank you.

 

[itguy247]

Even if St. Jerome had a copy which included the Comma, how do you reconcile the fact that only 8 of the approximately 500 extant manuscripts include it? With all of the heresies going on at the time, it is much more likely that the Comma was a footnote or a quotation which somehow found its way into a copy of the manuscript and continued unchecked from there on for some time.

The fact remains that the Bible was not a perfectly delivered/shared document that was perfectly compiled by perfect people (not all of the manuscripts have all of the exact same content). This is why the Church must be the pillar and bulwark of truth. However you can’t help but ask yourself how could this have happened? The overwhelming majority of manuscripts which don’t include it, the writings of the Church fathers seemingly referencing it, the prologue from St. Jerome and all of the clout surrounding it, the confusion within the Church itself (shows up in some Bibles but not others, show up in some translations of the Vulgate but not others, etc) ultimately provide contradicting evidence on both sides. Could it be that no answer will ever be truly satisfactory for inquisitive minds?

Let us pray that God will grant us peace to accept His will on the matter. Lord hear our prayer.