Johannine Comma and Complutensian Polyglot

From Textus Receptus

Jump to: navigation, search

1 John 5:7 in Greek in the 1514 Complutensian Polyglot Bible

1 John 5:7 in Latin in the 1514 Complutensian Polyglot Bible

1514 ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν/οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν/τῷ οὐρανῷ,/ὁ πατήρ, καὶ/ὁ λόγος, καὶ/τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ/οἱ τρεῖς εῖς/τὸ ἕν εἰσι· (Complutensian Polyglot)

Greek:

7 ότι τρεις εισίν οι μαρτυρούντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατὴρ καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οι μαρτυρούντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς το πνεύμα και το ύδωρ και το αίμα ('omits' καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι)

Latin:

7 Quonium tres sunt oooo ooo qui testimonium dant in celo: pater: verbum: et spiritus sanctus: & hi ooo oo tres unum sunt. 8 Et tres sunt qui oooo testimoniuʒ dant in terra: Spiritus agua & sanguis.

English:

6-9 This is he that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit which testifieth that Christ is the truth. And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. If we receive the testimony of men, (1 John 5:6-9)

The Use of the Comma

The Complutensian Polyglot contains the Johannine Comma along with a lengthy footnote. Travis says that the Complutensian Polyglot was the product of 42 Spanish scholars working with Greek manuscripts which they had from the Vatican library. Many of the Greek manuscripts cited by editors in the 16th and 17th centuries are no longer extant. The Complutensian Polyglot which was produced by several Catholic scholars in Complutum, Spain, was based on Greek manuscripts obtained from the Vatican library and elsewhere. They included 1 John 5:7 on the authority of “ancient codices” that were in their possession.

“Erasmus, in his Notes on the place, owns that the Spanish Edition took it from a Vatican MS, and Father Amelote, in his Notes on his own Version of the Greek Testament, affirms, that he had seen this verse in the most ancient copy of the Vatican Library. The learned Author of the Enquiry into the Authority of the Complutensian Edition of the New Testament [Richard Smalbroke], in a letter to Dr. Bentley, from these and many other arguments, proves it to be little less than certain, that the controverted passage 1 Joh. v.7 was found in the ancient Vatican MS, so particularly recommended by Pope Leo to the Editors at Complutum.” (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 128)

Some scholars say that the manuscripts which were used by the Complutensian Editors, under the direction of Cardinal Ximenes, it is said, were never returned to the library of the Vatican, but are either lost, or lie concealed in some of the libraries in Spain. The Complutensian had used Greek manuscripts from the Vatican and they included the Comma. Travis writes concerning the Complutensian:

“It was the result of the joint labours of many learned men, who were selected, by the Cardinal, for that purpose, and furnished with all the Greek MSS, and other aids, which his great political, as well as personal, influence could procure. In this work the 'Complutensian editors' have inserted the text of 1 John 5:7:...”^[1]

Daryl R. Coates calso said in 1994:

“Cardinal Ximenes said this about the manuscripts he used for the Complutensian Polyglot New Testament (which also contained 1 John 5:7):

'For Greek copies indeed we are indebted to [Pope Leo X], who sent us most kindly from the Apostolic Library very ancient codices, both of the Old and New Testament, which have aided us in this undertaking.'” (cited by Metzger, Text of the New Testament, p. 97; emphasis added.)^[2]

Footnote on the heavenly witnesses

A footnote in the Complutensian Polyglot concerning the Johannine Comma.

Stunica, one of the Complutensian editors, published in 1520 Annotationes Iacobi Lopidis Stunicae contra Erasmum Roterodamum in defensionem tralationis Noui Testamenti, which included half of a page on the heavenly witnesses.

“ ‘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^[3] perverse trahere volens ad unitatem charitatis et consensus inducebat consequentem 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 personarum. Hec beatus Thomas ubi supra.’*

Translation:

“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 Jochim, 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.”^[4]

Sir Isaac Newton seems to understand that the famous Note was inserted in the margin of the Complutensian Polyglott by the editors, as some sort of explanation of the irregularity which they were conscious of introducing into the Greek text, when they introduced the disputed verse.* It may, however, be questioned whether the Note was intended to have anything to do either with this Greek text or with the claims of the disputed verse. It seems rather intended as a justification of their version of the Latin text. The ordinary Latin text had not only a clause—“ These Three are One” (hi tres unum sunt)—with the heavenly witnesses, but also a second clause—“ These Three agree in One” (hi tres unum sunt)—with the earthly witnesses. This second clause the Complutensian editors thought not genuine, and accordingly omitted it. The Note is their defence of this step and is not, as Sir Isaac Newton, and Dr. Davidson after him, seem to have thought, any indication that they felt their Greek text in this part of the Epistle to need apology. The Three Witnesses. The Disputed Text in St. John: Considerations New and Old (1883) by Henry Thomas Armfield

The Newton error should be corrected in Grantley's text, Raising the Ghost of Arius.

The new marginal note consists of a condensed extract from Thomas Aquinas’ commentary on the decision taken at the Fourth Lateran Council to condemn Joachim of Fiore’s position on the Trinity.35 This new note has two functions: firstly, it gives an authoritative theological justification for the omission of the phrase καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν at the end of verse 8 in the Complutensian edition; more importantly, it was supposed to show on the authority of Aquinas that Erasmus’ omission of the comma from his edition and his inclusion of the last phrase of verse 8 betrayed a hint of Arianism. Yet the insertion of this new note required the typesetter to put some of the Greek text on fol. KK2r into line 54, the lowest line available in the forme, usually only used for the signature; this typographical aberration is unique in the entire edition. (Grantley McDonald - Raising the Ghost of Arius)

Joachim and the Fourth Council of the Lateran

In the Middle Ages a Trinitarian doctrinal debate arose around the position of Joachim of Florence (1135–1202) which was different from the more traditional view of Peter Lombard (c. 1100–1160). When the Fourth Council of the Lateran was held in 1215 at Rome, with hundreds of Bishops attending, the understanding of the heavenly witnesses was a primary point in siding with Lombard, against the writing of Joachim.

For, he says, Christ's faithful are not one in the sense of a single reality which is common to all. They are one only in this sense, that they form one church through the unity of the catholic faith, and finally one kingdom through a union of indissoluble charity. Thus we read in the canonical letter of John: For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father and the Word and the holy Spirit, and these three are one; and he immediately adds, And the three that bear witness on earth are the spirit, water and blood, and the three are one, according to some manuscripts.^[5]

The Council thus printed the verse in both Latin and Greek, and this may have contributed to later scholarship references in Greek to the verse. The reference to "some manuscripts" showed an acknowledgment of textual issues. Most scholars who reject the Comma will say that this is related to "and the three are one" in verse eight, not the heavenly witnesses in verse seven.^[3] The manuscript issue for the final phrase in verse eight and the commentary by Thomas Aquinas were an influence upon the text and note of the Complutensian Polyglot.

The Second Decretal of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

On the error of abbot Joachim

We therefore condemn and reprove that small book or treatise which abbot Joachim published against master Peter Lombard concerning the unity or essence of the Trinity, in which he calls Peter Lombard a heretic and a madman because he said in his Sentences, “For there is a certain supreme reality which is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, and it neither begets nor is begotten nor does it proceed”. He asserts from this that Peter Lombard ascribes to God not so much a Trinity as a quaternity, that is to say three persons and a common essence as if this were a fourth person. Abbot Joachim clearly protests that there does not exist any reality which is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit-neither an essence nor a substance nor a nature — although he concedes that the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit are one essence, one substance and one nature. He professes, however, that such a unity is not true and proper but rather collective and analogous, in the way that many persons are said to be one people and many faithful one church, according to that saying : Of the multitude of believers there was one heart and one mind, and Whoever adheres to God is one spirit with him; again He who plants and he who waters are one, and all of us are one body in Christ; and again in the book of Kings, My people and your people are one. In support of this opinion he especially uses the saying which Christ uttered in the gospel concerning the faithful : I wish, Father, that they may be one in us, just as we are one, so that they may be made perfect in one. For, he says, Christ’s faithful are not one in the sense of a single reality which is common to all. They are one only in this sense, that they form one church through the unity of the catholic faith, and finally one kingdom through a union of indissoluble charity. Thus we read in the canonical letter of John : For there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father and the Word and the holy Spirit, and these three are one; and he immediately adds, And the three that bear witness on earth are the spirit, water and blood, and the three are one, according to some manuscripts.

We, however, with the approval of this sacred and universal council, believe and confess with Peter Lombard that there exists a certain supreme reality, incomprehensible and ineffable, which truly is the Father and the Son and the holy Spirit, the three persons together and each one of them separately. Therefore in God there is only a Trinity, not a quaternity, since each of the three persons is that reality — that is to say substance, essence or divine nature-which alone is the principle of all things, besides which no other principle can be found. This reality neither begets nor is begotten nor proceeds; the Father begets, the Son is begotten and the holy Spirit proceeds. Thus there is a distinction of persons but a unity of nature. Although therefore the Father is one person, the Son another person and the holy Spirit another person, they are not different realities, but rather that which is the Father is the Son and the holy Spirit, altogether the same; thus according to the orthodox and catholic faith they are believed to be consubstantial. For the Father, in begetting the Son from eternity, gave him his substance, as he himself testifies : What the Father gave me is greater than all. It cannot be said that the Father gave him part of his substance and kept part for himself since the Father’s substance is indivisible, inasmuch as it is altogether simple. Nor can it be said that the Father transferred his substance to the Son, in the act of begetting, as if he gave it to the Son in such a way that he did not retain it for himself; for otherwise he would have ceased to be substance. It is therefore clear that in being begotten the Son received the Father’s substance without it being diminished in any way, and thus the Father and the Son have the same substance. Thus the Father and the Son and also the holy Spirit proceeding from both are the same reality.

When, therefore, the Truth prays to the Father for those faithful to him, saying I wish that they may be one in us just as we are one, this word one means for the faithful a union of love in grace, and for the divine persons a unity of identity in nature, as the Truth says elsewhere, You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect {2} , as if he were to say more plainly, You must be perfect in the perfection of grace, just as your Father is perfect in the perfection that is his by nature, each in his own way. For between creator and creature there can be noted no similarity so great that a greater dissimilarity cannot be seen between them. If anyone therefore ventures to defend or approve the opinion or doctrine of the aforesaid Joachim on this matter, let him be refuted by all as a heretic. By this, however, we do not intend anything to the detriment of the monastery of Fiore, which Joachim founded, because there both the instruction is according to rule and the observance is healthy; especially since Joachim ordered all his writings to be handed over to us, to be approved or corrected according to the judgment of the apostolic see. He dictated a letter, which he signed with his own hand, in which he firmly confesses that he holds the faith held by the Roman church, which is by God’s plan the mother and mistress of all the faithful.^[6]

Erasmus was Revered by Cisneros

Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, who funded the Complutensian Polyglot tried to recruit Erasmus to work on the project twice. In November 1516 the abbot of Husillos wrote to Cisneros, praising Erasmus' Novum Instrumentum omne, his first edition of the New Testament, which had just been printed by Froben press. The abbot praised Erasmus as a good theologian, knowledgeable in Greek and Hebrew, and an elegant Latin stylist. He suggested to Cisneros that he employ Erasmus to work on the Complutensian Polyglot project:

"Given that he has anticipated Your Reverence with his publication, I believe that he could be of assistance in making your work appear somewhat more polished ... I believe that Your Reverence should not deprive yourself of a person like Erasmus. You should avail yourself of his assistance in the correction of the whole publication and hire his services for a certain period" (Bataillon, Erasmo, 72, n. 1).

Erasmus declined the invitation [Epistolae, ed. Allen, 582:9), and was again approached in May 1517 Erasmus briefly states the reason for a second refusal:

"The Cardinal of Toledo has invited me again, but I do not like Spain" (Ep. 598:47-8).

In 1527 Juan Vergara refers to the matter in a letter to Erasmus, recalling that "Cardinal Cisneros, the founder of the Complutensian university, . . . had the most wonderful esteem for you and was keen on enjoying your company" (Ep. 1814:459-61).

Steven Avery stated that:

"Joachim did not reject the heavenly witnesses. He was accused of Arianism because his (correct, majority) Latin text had two 'tres unum sunt'. Easier for the unity of consent/agreement interp e.g. Calvin as opposed to the interp of the unity of essence (ontological)."

Joachim's text was the standard Latin combination of the heavenly and earthly witnesses, where both end with tres unum sunt. Aquinas embraced a textual corruption where the early witnesses did not have the phrase, in order to more easily allow a unity of essence interpretation.

[1]

Evanson]

...the Printed Editions of the Greek New Testament ...First in honor stands that stupendous and

magnificent monument, the Complutensian Polyglott of Ximenes, which contains the "Princeps" Edition of the Greek Testament. Every "Princeps" Edition is prima facie evidence of the Readings in contemporary or antecedent Manuscripts. The Complutensian reads 1 John 5:7: therefore that verse stood in the Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament then existing and consulted by the Editors. Those Greek Manuscripts, we are assured by the Editors, were the most ancient, [PAGE xviii] and the most valuable which could then be procured from the best public or private Collections in the world. The munificent Patron and Projector of that Work spared no expense or toil and employed the ablest Scholars and Critics of the day in its completion. Its authority was held equivalent to that of the most authentic and ancient Greek Manuscripts then extant (as even Michaelis admits). It was referred to as the ultimate appeal from every subsequent Printed Edition; and it remained in the undisputed possession of that preeminence, throughout all Christendeom, for nearly one hundred and fifty years, during the brightest days of the Reformation. (William Alleyn Evanson, "Translator's Introduction" in New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John V. 7, 1829, p. xvii-xviii)

...The Manuscripts employed by the Complutensian Editors have not yet been discovered, being either destroyed in the great conflagration of the Escurial [PAGE xxvii] 1671, or disposed of by some ignorant or dishonest Librarian, or concealed in the Library at Alcala, or possibly in the Vatican at Rome, under the apprehension of their proving unfavourable to the authority of the Vulgate; therefore, until the materials, on which a negative testimony can be admitted, be very considerably augmented in number and authenticity, the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the disputed clause, must be allowed to preponderate under this head also. (William Alleyn Evanson, "Translator's Introduction" in New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John V. 7, 1829, p. xxvi-xxvii)

Much stress has been laid on the Marginal Note annexed to 1 John 5:7,8 in the [PAGE xxv]

Complutensian New Testament, as if it implied that the Editors had no Greek manuscript authority for inserting the seventh verse. Really nothing but a predetermination not to see, could have obscured the obvious purport of that Note (in the eyes of the “Anti-Complutensians”). Its plain and palpable intent is, not to account for the insertion of 1 John 5:7, but to vindicate the omission of the latter clause of 1 John 5:8 "these three agree in one" (Greek: οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι), which corresponds to the Latin "these three are one" (Latin: Hi tres unum sunt); - an omission, which affords amongst many other evidences, and incontestable proof that the Editors had no intention of forming the Greek Text on the Vulgate, or elevating the authority of the Latin Version above that of the Original Greek Text. (William Alleyn Evanson, "Translator's Introduction" in New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John V. 7, 1829, p. xxiv-xxv) Sistine Vulgate (1590 AD)

References

1. Travis, op. cit. p. 4.
2. Daryl R. Coates, That Rascal Erasmus, (New Jersey,The Bible for Today, 1994), p. 5.
3. (Translation source: MEMOIR OF THE CONTROVERSY RESPECTING THE I JOHN V. 7. INCLUDING CRITICAL NOTICES OF THE PRINCIPAL WRITERS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DISCUSSION. by Rev. William Orme (1787-1830) (see pages 80/81-81/82): https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AJF5099.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext )
4. Fourth Lateran Council – 1215 A.D.
5. As explained by Thomas Joseph Lamy, American Ecclesiastical Review, The Decision of the Holy Office, 1897, pp. 478–479.
6. Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · 36 · 37 · 38 · 39 · 40 · 41 · 42 · 43 · 44 · 45 · 46 · 47 · 48 · 49 · 50 · 51 · 52 · 53 · 54 · 55 · 56 · 57 · 58 · 59 · 60 · 61 · 62 · 63 · 64 · 65 · 66 · 67 · 68 · 69 · 70 · 71 · 72 · 73 · 74 · 75 · 76 · 77 · 78 · 79 · 80 · 81 · 82 · 83 · 84 · 85 · 86 · 87 · 88 · 89 · 90 · 91 · 92 · 93 · 94 · 95 · 96 · 97 · 98 · 99 · 100 · 101 · 102 · 103 · 104 · 105 · 106 · 107 · 108 · 109 · 110 · 111 · 112 · 113 · 114 · 115 · 116 · 117 · 118 · 119 · 120 · 121 · 122 · 123 · 124 · 125 · 126 · 127 · 128 · 129 · 130 · 131 · 132 · 133 · 134 · 135 · 136 · 137 · 138 · 139 · 140 ·