Editing Johannine Comma (section)

==Patristic writers==

=== Clement of Alexandria ===
[[File:Clement alexandrin.jpg|thumb|Clement of Alexandria quotes 1 John 5:7 without the comma.]]
The comma is absent from an extant fragment of [[Clement of Alexandria]] ({{circa|200}}), through [[Cassiodorus]] (6th century), with homily style verse references from 1 John, including verse [[:s:Bible (King James)/1 John#5:6|1 John 5:6]] and [[:s:Bible (King James)/1 John#5:8|1 John 5:8]] without verse 7, the heavenly witnesses.

{{Blockquote|He says, "This is He who came by water and blood"; and again, – For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, which is life, and the water, which is regeneration and faith, and the blood, which is knowledge; "and these three are one. For in the Saviour are those saving virtues, and life itself exists in His own Son."<ref name="wilson">[http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/clement-fragments.html "Fragments of Clemens Alexandrius"], translated by Rev. William Wilson, section 3.</ref><ref>Charles Forster in [https://archive.org/details/anewpleaforauth00porsgoog/page/n90 ''A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witnesses'' p 54–55 (1867)] notes that the quote of verse 6 is partial, bypassing phrases in verse 6 as well as verse 7. And that Clement's "words ''et iterum'' clearly mark the interpolation of other topics and intervening text, between the two quotations". ''Et iterum'' is "and again" in the English translation.</ref>}}

Another reference that is studied is from Clement's ''Prophetic Extracts'':
{{Blockquote|Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses, before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom, as witnesses and helpers, what are called the commandments ought to be kept.<ref>''Eclogae propheticae 13.1''[https://books.google.com/books?id=GX4UAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA277 Ben David, Monthly Review, 1826 p. 277)]</ref>}}

This is seen by some<ref>Bengel, John Gill, Ben David and Thomas Burgess</ref> as allusion evidence that Clement was familiar with the verse.

=== Tertullian ===
Tertullian, in ''Against Praxeas'' ({{circa|210}}), supports a [[Trinitarianism|Trinitarian]] view by quoting [[:s:Bible (King James)/John#10:30|John 10:30]]:

{{Blockquote|So the close series of the Father in the Son and the Son in the [[Paraclete]] makes three who cohere, the one attached to the other: And these three are one substance, not one person, (qui tres unum sunt, non unus) in the sense in which it was said, "I and the Father are one" in respect of unity of substance, not of singularity of number.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=vkXV2MZYLrYC&pg=PA159 ''Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives,''], Francis Schüssler Fiorenza, John P. Galvin, 2011, p. 159, the Latin is  "Ita connexus Patris in Filio, et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero: qui tres unum sunt, non unus quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus"</ref>}}

While many other commentators have argued against any Comma evidence here, most emphatically John Kaye's, "far from containing an allusion to 1 Jo. v. 7, it furnishes most decisive proof that he knew nothing of the verse".<ref>John Kaye, [https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalh00kaye/page/550 ''The Ecclesiastical History of the Second and Third Centuries, Illustrated from the Writings of Tertullian''] 1826. p. 550.</ref> [[:de:Georg Strecker|Georg Strecker]] comments cautiously "An initial echo of the {{lang|la|Comma Johanneum}} occurs as early as Tertullian Adv. Pax. 25.1 (CChr 2.1195; written c. 215). In his commentary on John 16:14 he writes that the Father, Son, and Paraclete are one ({{lang|la|unum}}), but not one person ({{lang|la|unus}}). However, this passage cannot be regarded as a certain attestation of the {{lang|la|Comma Johanneum.}}"<ref name="Strecker"/>

References from Tertullian in ''De Pudicitia'' 21:16 (On Modesty):

{{Blockquote|The Church, in the peculiar and the most excellent sense, is the Holy Ghost, in which the Three are One, and therefore the whole union of those who agree in this belief (viz. that God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one), is named the Church, after its founder and sanctifier (the Holy Ghost).<ref>August Neander, [https://books.google.com/books?id=izc_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA183 ''The History of the Christian Religion and the Church During the Three First Centuries, Volume 2''], 1841, p. 184. Latin, Item de pudic. 21. Et ecclesia proprie et principaliter ipse est spiritus, in quo est trinitas unius divinitatis Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus. [http://tischendorf-8th.blogspot.com/p/1st-jn-57-8.html Tischendorf apparatus]</ref>}}

and ''De Baptismo'':

{{Blockquote|Now if every word of God is to be established by three witnesses ... For where there are the three, namely the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, there is the Church which is a body of the three.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=cSxv8LCQKAcC&pg=PA178 ''Documents in Early Christian Thought''], editors Maurice Wiles and Mark Santer, 1977, p.178, Latin [https://books.google.com/books?id=KPwrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA37 Bibliotheca Patrum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Selecta] 1839.</ref>}}

have also been presented as verse allusions.<ref>Burgess, [https://books.google.com/books?id=NbgHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA334 ''Tracts on the Divinity of Christ''], 1820, pp.333–334. [https://archive.org/stream/irishecclesiasti05dubluoft#page/274/mode/2up ''Irish Ecclesiastical Review'', Traces of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses], 1869 p. 274</ref>

=== Treatise on Rebaptism ===
The Treatise on Rebaptism, placed as a 3rd-century writing and transmitted with Cyprian's works, has two sections that directly refer to the earthly witnesses, and thus has been used against authenticity by Nathaniel Lardner, Alfred Plummer and others.  However, because of the context being water baptism and the precise wording being {{lang|la|"et isti tres unum sunt"}}, the Matthew Henry Commentary uses this as evidence for Cyprian speaking of the heavenly witnesses in Unity of the Church. Arthur Cleveland Coxe and Nathaniel Cornwall also consider the evidence as suggestively positive, as do Westcott and Hort. After approaching the Tertullian and Cyprian references negatively, "morally certain that they would have quoted these words had they known them" Westcott writes about the Rebaptism Treatise:

{{Blockquote|the evidence of Cent. III is not exclusively negative, for the treatise on Rebaptism contemporary with Cyp. quotes the whole passage simply thus (15: cf. 19), {{lang|la|"quia tres testimonium perhibent, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, et isti tres unum sunt"}}.<ref>Westcott and Hort, [https://books.google.com/books?id=b9YUAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA104 ''The New Testament in the Original Greek''] Note on Selected Readings, 1 John v 7,8, 1882, p104.</ref>}}

=== Jerome ===
The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1910 asserts that Jerome "does not seem to know the text",<ref name="CE"/> but Charles Forster suggests that the "silent publication of [the text] in the [[Vulgate]]&nbsp;... gives the clearest proof that down to his time the genuineness of this text had never been disputed or questioned."<ref>{{cite book |last= Forster |first= Charles |title= A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witness; Or, Porson's Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined and the External and Internal Evidences for 1 John V, 7 Eclectically Re-surveyed |publisher= Deighton, Bell | date= 1867 |url=https://archive.org/details/anewpleaforauth00porsgoog |pages= [https://archive.org/details/anewpleaforauth00porsgoog/page/n147 111]-112|isbn= 9780790500805 }}. Quote: "...&nbsp;the witness of Tertullian and Cyprian is followed and sustained in the Latin Church by that of St. Jerome; whose adoption of the text of the three Heavenly Witnesses in the Vulgate carries in it more weight than the most formal quotation. This point has been unaccountably overlooked in the controversy; insomuch that one of the latest writers on it, Dr. Adam Clarke, sets down Jerome among those to whom the text was unknown! On the contrary, by his silent publication of it in the Vulgate, this most learned of the Fathers not only puts his sign-manual to its authenticity, but gives the clearest proof that down to his time the genuineness of this text had never been disputed or questioned."</ref>

Many Vulgate manuscripts, including the [[Codex Fuldensis]], the earliest extant Vulgate manuscript, include a Prologue to the [[Canonical Epistles]] referring to the Comma:

{{Blockquote|If the letters were also rendered faithfully by translators into Latin just as their authors composed them, they would not cause the reader confusion, nor would the differences between their wording give rise to contradictions, nor would the various phrases contradict each other, especially in that place where we read the clause about the unity of the Trinity in the first letter of John. Indeed, it has come to our notice that in this letter some unfaithful translators have gone far astray from the truth of the faith, for in their edition they provide just the words for three [witnesses]—namely water, blood and spirit—and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened, and proof is tendered of the single substance of divinity possessed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.77<ref name = "GrantleyRGA">{{Cite thesis |publisher=Leiden University |last=McDonald |first=Grantley Robert |title=Raising the ghost of Arius: Erasmus, the Johannine comma and religious difference in early modern Europe |date=2011-02-15 |hdl=1887/16486 |pages=54–55}}</ref>}}

The Prologue presents itself as a letter of Jerome to [[Eustochium]], to whom Jerome dedicated his commentary on the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. Despite the first-person salutation, some claim it is the work of an unknown imitator from the late 5th century.<ref name="Houghton">{{Cite book |last=Houghton |first=H. A. G. |title=The Latin New Testament: a guide to its early history, texts, and manuscripts |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-874473-3 |location=Oxford |pages=178–179 |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744733.001.0001}}</ref> (The {{lang|la|[[Codex Fuldensis]]}} Prologue references the Comma, but the Codex's version of 1 John omits it, which has led many to believe that the ''Prologue''{{'s}} reference is spurious.)<ref name="metzger">Bruce M. Metzger, ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 2nd ed., Stuttgart, 1993.</ref> Its inauthenticity is arguably stressed by the omission of the passage from the manuscript's own text of 1 John; however, this can also be seen as confirming the claim in the Prologue that scribes tended to drop the text.

==== Marcus Celedensis ====
Coming down with the writings of Jerome is the extant statement of faith attributed to Marcus Celedensis, friend and correspondent to Jerome, presented to Cyril:

{{Blockquote|To us there is one Father, and his only Son [who is] very [or true] God, and one Holy Spirit, [who is] very God, and these three are one; – one divinity, and power, and kingdom. And they are three persons, not two nor one.<ref>Horne, [https://books.google.com/books?id=BrtUAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA451 critical study 1933, p. 451]</ref><ref>Travis references Jerome as writing approvingly of the confession. George Travis, [https://archive.org/details/letterstoedwardg00trav/page/108 Letters to Edward Gibbon], 1785 p. 108. The Latin is "Nobis unus Pater, et unus Filius ejus, verus Deus, et unus Spiritus Sanctus, verus Deus; et hi tres unum sunt; una divimtas, et potentia, et regnum.  Sunt autem tres Personae, non-duae, non-una" Marc Celed. Exposit. Fid. ad Cyril apud Hieronymi Opera, tom. ix. p. 73g. Frederick Nolan, [https://archive.org/details/a601052600nolauoft/page/n242 <!-- pg=29 --> ''An inquiry into the integrity of the Greek Vulgate''], 1815, p. 291.</ref> }}

==== Phoebadius of Agen ====
Similarly, Jerome wrote of Phoebadius of Agen in his ''Lives of Illustrious Men''. "Phoebadius, bishop of Agen, in Gaul, published a book Against the Arians. There are said to be other works by him, which I have not yet read. He is still living, infirm with age."<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=8nEXAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA381 Jerome, ''Lives of Illustrious Men''], translated by Ernest Cushing Richardson, footnote: "Bishop 353, died about 392".</ref> William Hales looks at Phoebadius:

{{Blockquote|Phoebadius, A. D. 359, in his controversy with the Arians, Cap, xiv. writes, "The Lord says, I will ask of my Father, and He will give you another advocate." (John xiv. 16) Thus, the Spirit is another from the Son as the Son is another from the Father; so, the third person is in the Spirit, as the second, is in the Son. All, however, are one God, because the three are one, (tres unum sunt.) ... Here, 1 John v. 7, is evidently connected, as a scriptural argument, with John xiv. 16.<ref>William Hales, ''Inspector'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ni4ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA590 ''Antijacobin Review''], Sabellian Controversy, Letter XII 1816, p. 590. "Denique Dominus: Petam, inquit, a Patre meo et alium advocatum dabit vobis ... Sic alius a Filio Spiritus, sicut a Patre Filius. Sic tertia in Spiritu, ut in Filio secunda persona: unus tamen Deus omnia, tres unum sunt. [http://www.kennydominican.joyeurs.com/LatinPatrology/PhoebadiusAdversusArianos.htm Phoebadius, Liber Contra Arianos]</ref>}}

Griesbach argued that Phoebadius was only making an allusion to Tertullian,<ref>Griesbach, [http://www03.us.archive.org/stream/DiatribeInLocumIIoann.5.7-8/DiatribeInLocumIIoann.57.8#page/n14/mode/1up ''Diatribe''], p. 700</ref> and his unusual explanation was commented on by [[Franz Xaver Reithmayr|Reithmayer]].<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=mFxPVG8qVrAC&pg=PA564 ''Introduction historique et critique aux libres de Nouveau Testament''] 1861, p.564.</ref><ref>In dismissing Phoebadius in this fashion, Griesbach was following Porson, whose explanation began, "Phoebadius plainly imitates Tertullian&nbsp;... and therefore, is not a distinct evidence", [https://books.google.com/books?id=SUg7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA247 ''Letters to Archdeacon Travis''], 1790, p. 247.</ref>

=== Augustine ===
[[Augustine of Hippo]] has been said to be completely silent on the matter, which has been taken as evidence that the Comma did not exist as part of the epistle's text in his time.<ref>Catholic Encyclopedia: "The silence of the great and voluminous Augustine and the variation in form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militate against the canonicity of the three witnesses."</ref> This {{lang|la|[[argumentum ex silentio]]}} has been contested by other scholars, including Fickermann and Metzger.<ref>"The silence of Augustine, contrary to prevailing opinion, cannot be cited as evidence against the genuineness of the Comma. He may indeed have known it" ''Annotated bibliography of the textual criticism of the New Testament'' p.&nbsp;113 [[Bruce M. Metzger|Bruce Manning Metzger]], 1955. Metzger was citing ''S. Augustinus gegen das Comma Johanneum?'' by Norbert Fickermann, 1934, who considers evidence from a 12th-century Regensburg manuscript that Augustine specifically avoided referencing the verse directly.  The manuscript note contrasts the inclusion position of Jerome in the Vulgate Prologue with the preference for removal by Augustine. This confirms that there was awareness of the Greek and Latin ms. distinction and that some scribes preferred omission. Raymond Brown writes: "Fickermann points to a hitherto unpublished eleventh-century text which says that Jerome considered the Comma to be a genuine part of 1 John—clearly a memory of the Pseudo-Jerome Prologue mentioned above. But the text goes on to make this claim: 'St. Augustine, on the basis of apostolic thought and on the authority of the Greek text, ordered it to be left out.{{'"}} Raymond Brown, ''Epistles of John'', 1982, p.&nbsp;785.</ref>  In addition, some Augustine references have been seen as verse allusions.<ref>Augustine scholar Edmund Hill says about a reference in The Trinity – Book IX that "this allusion of Augustine's suggests that it had already found its way into his text".</ref>

The City of God section, from Book V, Chapter 11:

{{Blockquote|Therefore God supreme and true, with His Word and Holy Spirit (which three are one), one God omnipotent&nbsp;...<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=b-9EAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA197 ''The City of God'', Volume 1], trans. by Marcus Dods 1888 p. 197, Latin: Deus itaque summus et verum cum Verbo suo et Spiritu sancto, quae tria unum sunt, Deus unus omnipotens</ref>}}

has often been referenced as based upon the scripture verse of the heavenly witnesses.<ref>e.g. Franz Anton Knittel, Thomas Burgess, Arthur-Marie Le Hir, Francis Patrick Kenrick, Charles Forster and Pierre Rambouillet</ref> George Strecker acknowledges the City of God reference: "Except for a brief remark in {{lang|la|De civitate Dei}} (5.11; CChr 47.141), where he says of Father, Word, and Spirit that the three are one. Augustine († 430) does not cite the {{lang|la|Comma Johanneum}}. But it is certain on the basis of the work {{lang|la|Contra Maximum}} 2.22.3 (PL 42.794–95) that he interpreted 1 John 5:7–8 in trinitarian terms."<ref name="Strecker"/> Similarly, Homily 10 on the first Epistle of John has been asserted as an allusion to the verse:

{{Blockquote|And what meaneth "Christ is the end"? Because Christ is God, and "the end of the commandment is charity" and "Charity is God": because Father and Son and Holy Ghost are One.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=-EsMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1224 ''Homilies''], 1849, p. 1224. Latin: et quid est: finis christus? quia christus deus, et finis praecepti caritas, et deus caritas quia et pater et filius et spiritus sanctus unum sunt.</ref><ref>George Travis summarized of Augustinian passages: The striking reiteration, in these passages, of the same expressions, ''Unum sunt—Hi tres unum sunt—Unum sunt'', and ''Hi tres qui unum sunt'' seems to bespeak their derivation from the verse&nbsp;...[https://books.google.com/books?id=nf0qAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA24 Letters to Edward Gibbon, 1794, p. 46]</ref>}}

{{lang|la|Contra Maximinum}} has received attention especially for these two sections, especially the allegorical interpretation.

{{Blockquote|I would not have thee mistake that place in the epistle of John the apostle where he saith, "There are three witnesses: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three are one." Lest haply thou say that the spirit and the water and the blood are diverse substances, and yet it is said, "the three are one": for this cause I have admonished thee, that thou mistake not the matter. For these are mystical expressions, in which the point always to be considered is, not what the actual things are, but what they denote as signs: since they are signs of things, and what they are in their essence is one thing, what they are in their signification another. If then we understand the things signified, we do find these things to be of one substance ...

But if we will inquire into the things signified by these, there not unreasonably comes into our thoughts the Trinity itself, which is the One, Only, True, Supreme God, Father and Son and Holy Ghost, of whom it could most truly be said, "There are Three Witnesses, and the Three are One": there has been an ongoing dialog about context and sense.|[http://www.tertullian.net/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-141.htm  ''Contra Maximinum (2.22.3; PL 42.794-95)'']}}

John Scott Porter writes:

{{Blockquote|Augustine, in his book against Maximin the Arian, turns every stone to find arguments from the Scriptures to prove that the Spirit is God, and that the Three Persons are the same in substance, but does not adduce this text; nay, clearly shows that he knew nothing of it, for he repeatedly employs the 8th verse, and says, that by the Spirit, the Blood, and the Water—the persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are signified (see Contr. Maxim, cap. xxii.).<ref>[https://archive.org/details/principlestextu00portgoog/page/n534 <!-- pg=506 --> ''Principles of Textual Criticism''], p. 506, 1820.</ref>}}

Thomas Joseph Lamy offers a different view based on the context and Augustine's purpose.<ref>Thomas Joseph Lamy [https://books.google.com/books?id=EAPOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA468 ''The Decision of the Holy Office on the "Comma Joanneum"''] pp.449–483 American ecclesiastical review, 1897.</ref> Similarly Thomas Burgess.<ref>Thomas Burgess, [https://archive.org/details/avindicationijo00burggoog/page/n77 <!-- pg=46 --> ''A vindication of I John, V. 7''], p.46, 1821.</ref> And Norbert Fickermann's reference and scholarship supports the idea that Augustine may have deliberately bypassed a direct quote of the heavenly witnesses.

=== Leo the Great ===
In the ''[[Tome of Leo]]'', written to [[Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople]], read at the [[Council of Chalcedon]] on 10 October 451 AD,<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA23 ''The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Vol 3'', The Second Session, pp. 22–23, 2005, Richard Price, editor]</ref> and published in Greek, [[Pope Leo I|Leo the Great]]'s usage of 1 John 5 has him moving in discourse from verse 6 to verse 8:

{{Blockquote|This is the victory which overcometh the world, even our faith"; and: "Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood; and it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. For there are three that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three are one." That is, the Spirit of sanctification, and the blood of redemption, and the water of baptism; which three things are one, and remain undivided ...<ref>Edward Rochie Hardy [https://books.google.com/books?id=0PNnTTspIAcC&pg=PA368 ''Christology of the Later Fathers''] 1954, p. 368</ref>}}

This epistle from Leo was considered by [[Richard Porson]] to be the "strongest proof" of verse inauthenticity.<ref>"the strongest proof that this verse is spurious may be drawn from the Epistle of Leo the Great to Flavianus upon the Incarnation" Richard Porson, [https://books.google.com/books?id=sTROAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA378 ''Letters to Archdeacon Travis'' 1790 p.378] "The verse ...remained a rude, unformed mass, and was not completely licked into shape till the end of the tenth century" p. 401</ref> In response, Thomas Burgess points out that the context of Leo's argument would not call for the 7th verse. And that the verse was referenced in a fully formed manner centuries earlier than Porson's claim, at the time of Fulgentius and the Council of Carthage.<ref>Thomas Burgess, [https://books.google.com/books?id=GyTD51w2lnMC&pg=PR26 An introduction to the controversy on the disputed verse of st. John], 1835, p. xxvi</ref> Burgess pointed out that there were multiple confirmations that the verse was in the Latin Bibles of Leo's day. Burgess argued, ironically, that the fact that Leo could move from verse 6 to 8 for argument context is, in the bigger picture, favourable to authenticity. "Leo's omission of the Verse is not only counterbalanced by its actual existence in contemporary copies, but the passage of his Letter is, in some material respects, favourable to the authenticity of the Verse, by its contradiction to some assertions confidently urged against the Verse by its opponents, and essential to their theory against it."<ref>Thomas Burgess, [https://books.google.com/books?id=GyTD51w2lnMC&pg=PR31 An introduction to the controversy on the disputed verse of st. John], 1835, p. xxxi</ref> Today, with the discovery of additional Old Latin evidences in the 19th century, the discourse of Leo is rarely referenced as a significant evidence against verse authenticity.

=== Cyprian of Carthage - ''Unity of the Church'' ===
[[File:Stcyprian.jpg|thumb|Cyprian of Carthage]]
The 3rd-century Church father Cyprian ({{circa|200–58}}), in writing on the ''Unity of the Church 1.6'', quoted John 10:30 and another scriptural spot:
{{poemquote|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."<ref>Robert Ernest Wallis, translator, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=hMU7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA382 The writings of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage], Volume 1'' 1868, p. 382</ref>}}

The ''Catholic Encyclopedia'' concludes "Cyprian&nbsp;... seems undoubtedly to have had it in mind".<ref name="CEQ">''Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est—Et hi tres unum sunt''. Cyprian, ''De Unitate Ecclesiæ'' (''On the Unity of the Church'') IV. [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08435a.htm "Epistles of Saint John"], ''[[Catholic Encyclopedia]]''.</ref> Against this view, [[Daniel B. Wallace]] writes that since Cyprian does not quote 'the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit', "this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording".<ref>While mentioning the usage of Son instead of Word as a possible argument against Cyprian awareness of the Comma, Raymond Brown points out that ''Son'' "is an occasional variant in the text of the Comma" and gives the example of Fulgentius referencing "Son" in ''Contra Fabrianum'' and "Word" in ''Reponsio Contra Arianos'', ''Epistles of John'' p. 784, 1982.</ref> The fact that Cyprian did not quote the "exact wording... indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian".<ref name= "wallace">Daniel B. Wallace, [http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1185 ''The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian''].</ref> The Critical Text apparatuses have taken varying positions on the Cyprian reference.<ref>The earlier critical edition of the New Testament ([[Novum Testamentum Graece|NA26]] and UBS3) considered Cyprian a witness against the Comma. This can be seen in ''The Greek New Testament'' (1966) UBS p. 824 by Kurt Aland. In 1983 the UBS Preface p.x announced plans for a "thorough revision of the textual apparatus, with special emphasis upon evidence from the ancient versions, the Diatessaron, and the Church Fathers". The latest edition of UBS4 updated many early church writer references and now has Cyprian for Comma inclusion. This citation is in parentheses, which is given the meaning that while a citation of a Father supports a reading, still it "deviates from it in minor details" UBS4, p. 36.</ref>

The Cyprian citation, dating to more than a century before any extant Epistle of John manuscripts and before the Arian controversies that are often considered pivotal in verse addition/omission debate, remains a central focus of comma research and textual apologetics. The [[Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener|Scrivener]] view is often discussed.<ref name="Scrivener">[[Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener|Scrivener]], while opposing verse authenticity, wrote in [[A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament|Plain Introduction]] in 1861 "it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read v. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus, that the holy Bishop was merely putting on v. 8 a spiritual meaning". Scrivener then placed mystical interpretation as the root of Comma formation "although we must acknowledge that it was in this way v. 7 obtained a place, first in the margin, then in the text of the Latin copies ... mystical interpretation". In the [https://books.google.com/books?id=hZQHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA511 1883 edition] Scrivener wrote "It is hard to believe that 1 John v. 7, 8 was not cited by Cyprian". Thus, Scrivener would be taking the position of a ''mystical interpretation'' by scribes unknown, working through the margin and later adding to the text, all before Cyprian. "they were originally brought into Latin copies in Africa from the margin, where they had been placed as a pious and orthodox gloss on ver. 8" p.654. Under this possible scenario the comma "was known and received in some places, as early as the second or third century" (p. 652 1883-ed) which, in the Scrivener textual economy, would be analogous to Acts 8:37. Acts 8:37 has undisputed early citations by Irenaeus and Cyprian and yet is considered by Scrivener and most modern theorists as inauthentic. Despite allowing an early textual formation for the Unity of the Church citation, Scrivener quoted approvingly negative views of the Tertullian and Cyprian Jubaianum references. Scrivener also quoted Tischendorf about the weightiness of the Cyprian referencing ''gravissimus est'' Cyprianus ''de eccles. unitate 5''.</ref> Westcott and Hort assert: "Tert and Cyp use language which renders it morally certain that they would have quoted these words had they known them; Cyp going so far as to assume a reference to the Trinity in the conclusion of v. 8"<ref>Westcott and Hort [https://books.google.com/books?id=8tI8AAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA104 ''The New Testament in the Original Greek'', p. 104, 1881.]</ref><ref>Bruce Metzger, who is used as the main source by many writers in recent decades, ignores the references entirely: "the passage ... is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine)", ''A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament'', p. 717, 1971, and later editions. James White references Metzger and writes about the possibility that "Cyprian ... could just as well be interpreting the three witnesses of 1 John 5:6 as a Trinitarian reference" [http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1292 A Bit More on the Comma 3/16/2006] (White means 5:8). White is conceptually similar to the earlier Raymond Brown section: "There is a good chance that Cyprian's second citation, like the first (Ad Jubianum), is Johannine and comes from the OL text of I John 5:8, which says, 'And these three are one', in reference to the Spirit, the water, and the blood. His application of it to the divine trinitarian figures need not represent a knowledge of the comma, but rather a continuance of the reflections of Tertullian combined with a general patristic tendency to invoke any scriptural group of three as symbolic of or applicable to the Trinity. In other words, Cyprian may exemplify the thought process that gave rise to the Comma." In a footnote Brown acknowledges "It has been argued seriously by Thiele and others that Cyprian knew the Comma". ''Epistles of John'' p. 784, 1982.</ref>

In the 20th century, Lutheran scholar [[Franz August Otto Pieper|Francis Pieper]] wrote in ''Christian Dogmatics'' emphasizing the antiquity and significance of the reference.<ref>Two [[Franz August Otto Pieper|Francis Pieper]] extracts: "In our opinion the decision as to the authenticity or the spuriousness of these words depends on the understanding of certain words of Cyprian (p. 340) ... Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds: ''Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: "Et tres unum sunt'' ("and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: 'And the Three are One{{'"}}) Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: ''{{'}}Et tres unum sunt{{'}}'' applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. 'The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.' That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: 'I and the Father are one', but also in the words: 'And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.' These are, in our opinion, the objective facts." p.341 (1950 English edition). Similarly, Elie Philippe wrote "Le témoignage de saint Cyprien est précieux, peut-être même péremptoire dans la question." (The testimony of St. Cyprian is precious, perhaps even peremptory to the question.) [https://books.google.com/books?id=cKIkAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA238 ''La Science Catholique''], 1889, p. 238.</ref> Frequently commentators have seen Cyprian as having the verse in his Latin Bible, even if not directly supporting and commenting on verse authenticity.<ref>[[Henry Donald Maurice Spence]], in [[Edward Hayes Plumptre|Plumptre's]] [https://books.google.com/books?id=qhoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA1-PA118 ''Bible Educator''] wrote "...&nbsp;there is little doubt that Cyprian, before the middle of the third century, knew of the passage and quoted it as the genuine words of St. John." James Bennett, in [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZXnkax6AxKwC&pg=PA136 ''The Theology of the Early Christian Church: Exhibited in Quotations from the Writers of the First Three Centuries, with Reflections''] 41, p.136, 1841, wrote "the disputed text in John's First Epistle, v. 7, is quoted ... Jerome seems to have been falsely charged with introducing the disputed words, without authority, into the Vulgate; for Cyprian had read them in a Latin version, long before." Bennett also sees the "probability is strengthened" that the Tertullian reference is from his Bible. And Bennett rejects the Griesbach "allegorised the eighth verse" attempt "for they (Tertullian and Cyprian) here argue, as from express testimonies of Scripture, without any hint of that allegorical interpretation which, it must be confessed, the later writers abundantly employ". And the most emphatic position is taken by the modern Cyprian scholar, Ezio Gallicet of the University of Turin, in this book on Cyprian's ''Unity of the Church'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=Q5VZuQ9L1nkC&pg=PA206 ''La Chiesa: Sui cristiani caduti nella persecuzione; L'unità della Chiesa cattolica''] p. 206, 1997. Gallicet, after referencing the usual claims of an interpolation from Caspar René Gregory and Rudolf Bultmann, wrote: "Dal modo in cui Cipriano cita, non sembra che si possano avanzare dubbi: egli conosceva il « comma giovanneo ». (Colloquially ... "there is no doubt about it, the Comma Johanneum was in Cyprian's Bible".)</ref> Some writers have also seen the denial of the verse in the Bible of Cyprian as worthy of special note and humor.<ref>[[Arthur Cleveland Coxe]], annotating Cyprian in the early church writings edition, wrote of the positions denying Cyprian referring the Bible verse in Unity of the Church, as the "usual explainings away" [https://books.google.com/books?id=aDcMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA418 ''Ante-Nicene Fathers''] p.418, 1886. And Nathaniel Ellis Cornwall referred to the logic behind attempts to deny Cyprian's usage of the verse (Cornwall looks closely at Porson, [[Johann Peter Lange|Lange]] and [[Constantin von Tischendorf|Tischendorf]]) as "astonishing feats of sophistical fencing". [https://books.google.com/books?id=av7NAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA638 ''The Genuineness of I John v. 7''] p. 638, 1874.</ref>

[[Daniel B. Wallace]] notes that although Cyprian uses 1 John to argue for the Trinity, he appeals to this as an allusion via the three witnesses—"written of"—rather than by quoting a [[proof-text]]—"written that".<ref name="wallace"/> Therefore, despite the view of some that Cyprian referred to the passage, the fact that other theologians such as [[Athanasius of Alexandria]] and [[Sabellius]] and [[Origen]] never quoted or referred to that passage is one reason why even many Trinitarians later on also considered the text spurious, and not to have been part of the original text.

==== {{lang|la|Ad Jubaianum}} (Epistle 73) ====
The second, lesser reference from Cyprian that has been involved in the verse debate is from {{lang|la|Ad Jubaianum}} 23.12. Cyprian, while discussing baptism, writes:

{{Blockquote|If he obtained the remission of sins, he was sanctified, and if he was sanctified, he was made the temple of God. But of what God? I ask. The Creator?, Impossible; he did not believe in him. Christ? But he could not be made Christ's temple, for he denied the deity of Christ. The Holy Spirit? Since the Three are One, what pleasure could the Holy Spirit take in the enemy of the Father and the Son?<ref>Stanley Lawrence Greenslade, [https://books.google.com/books?id=130YTvKKClsC&pg=PA164 ''Early Latin Theology: Selections from Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Jerome''] 1956, p. 164. The Latin is "si peccatorum remissam consecutus est, et sanctificatus est, et templum Dei factus est: quaero, cujus Dei? Si creatoris, non potuit, qui in eum non credidit: si Christi, non hujus potest sieri templum, qui negat Deum Christum : si Spiritus Sancti, cum tres unum sunt, quomodo Spiritus Sanctus placatus esse ei potest, qui aut Patris aut Filii inimicus est?"</ref>}}

Knittel emphasizes that Cyprian would be familiar with the Bible in Greek as well as Latin. "Cyprian understood Greek. He read Homer, Plato, Hermes Trismegistus and Hippocrates&nbsp;... he translated into Latin the Greek epistle written to him by Firmilianus".<ref>Franz Anton Knittel [https://archive.org/stream/newcriticismsonc00knitrich#page/34/mode/2up ''New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text''] 1785 p. 34</ref>
UBS-4 has its entry for text inclusion as (Cyprian).

=== Ps-Cyprian - Hundredfold Reward for Martyrs and Ascetics ===
The Hundredfold Reward for Martyrs and Ascetics: {{lang|la|De centesima, sexagesimal tricesima}}<ref>Philip Sellew, [https://books.google.com/books?id=XBLtIGhU9UYC&pg=PA94 Critica Et Philologica], 2001, p. 94</ref> speaks of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as "three witnesses" and was passed down with the Cyprian corpus. This was only first published in 1914 and thus does not show up in the historical debate. UBS-4 includes this in the apparatus as (Ps-Cyprian).<ref>The use of parentheses is described as "these witnesses attest the readings in question, but that they also exhibit certain negligible variations which do not need to be described in detail". Kurt Aland, [https://books.google.com/books?id=2pYDsAhUOxAC&pg=PA243 The Text of the New Testament], 1995, p.&nbsp;243.</ref>

=== Origen and Athanasius ===

Those who see Cyprian as negative evidence assert that other church writers, such as [[Athanasius of Alexandria]] and [[Origen]],<ref>Origen, discussing water baptism in his [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-john6.html commentary on the Gospel of John], references only verse 8 the earthly witnesses: "And it agrees with this that the disciple John speaks in his epistle of the spirit, and the water, and the blood, as being one."</ref> never quoted or referred to the passage, which they would have done if the verse was in the Bibles of that era. The contrasting position is that there are in fact such references, and that "evidences from silence" arguments, looking at the extant early church writer material, should not be given much weight as reflecting absence in the manuscripts—with the exception of verse-by-verse homilies, which were uncommon in the Ante-Nicene era.

==== Origen's scholium on Psalm 123:2 ====
In the scholium on Psalm 123 attributed to Origen is the commentary:
{{poemquote|spirit and body are servants to masters,
Father and Son, and the soul is handmaid to a mistress, the Holy Ghost;
and the Lord our God is the three (persons),
for the three are one.}}

This has been considered by many commentators, including the translation source Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall, as an allusion to verse 7.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=av7NAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA634 ''The Church Review'' p. 625-641, 1874.], The Genuineness of I John v. 7, Scholium on pp. 634–635</ref> Ellsworth especially noted the Richard Porson comment in response to the evidence of the Psalm commentary: "The critical chemistry which could extract the doctrine of the Trinity from this place must have been exquisitely refining".<ref>Richard Porson, [https://books.google.com/books?id=SUg7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA234  ''Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis''], p.234, 1790.</ref> [[Johann Albert Fabricius|Fabricius]] wrote about the Origen wording "ad locum 1 Joh v. 7 alludi ab origene non est dubitandum".<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=Yvw2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA544 ''Codex Apocryphus Novi Testamenti''], p.544 first published in 1703.</ref>

==== Athanasius and Arius at the Council of Nicea ====
Traditionally, Athanasius was considered to lend support to the authenticity of the verse, one reason being the ''Disputation with Arius at the Council of Nicea'' which circulated with the works of Athanasius, where is found:

{{Blockquote|Likewise is not the remission of sins procured by that quickening and sanctifying ablution, without which no man shall see the kingdom of heaven, an ablution given to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name. And besides all these, John says, And the three are one.<ref>English translation by Richard Porson, also given in Charles Forster's ''New Plea''. Greek text, [http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/04z/z_0295-0373__Athanasius__Disputatio_contra_Arium__MGR.pdf.html Disputation Contra Arium]</ref>}}

Today, many scholars consider this a later work ''Pseudo-Athanasius'', perhaps by [[Maximus the Confessor]]. Charles Forster in ''New Plea'' argues for the writing as stylistically Athanasius.<ref>In modern times, scholars on early church writings outside the textual battles are more likely to see the work as from Athanasius, or an actual account of an Athanasius-Arius debate. Examples are John Williams Proudfit [https://books.google.com/books?id=YWQ_AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA58 ''Remarks on the history, structure, and theories of the Apostles' Creed''] 1852, p.58 and [[George Smeaton (theologian)|George Smeaton]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=AewGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA272 ''The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit''], 1882, p. 272</ref> While the author and date are debated, this is a Greek reference directly related to the doctrinal Trinitarian-Arian controversies, and one that purports to be an account of Nicaea when those doctrinal battles were raging. The reference was given in UBS-3 as supporting verse inclusion, yet was removed from UBS-4 for reasons unknown.

The ''Synopsis of Scripture'', often ascribed to Athanasius, has also been referenced as indicating awareness of the Comma.

=== Priscillian of Avila ===
The earliest quotation which some scholars consider a direct reference to the heavenly witnesses from the First Epistle of John is from the Spaniard [[Priscillian]] {{circa|380}}. The Latin reads:

{{Blockquote|{{lang|la|Sicut Ioannes ait: tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra aqua caro et sanguis et haec tria in unum sunt, et tria sunt quae testimonium dicent in caelo pater uerbum et spiritus et haiec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.}}<ref>{{cite web |url=https://archive.org/stream/corpusscriptoru01wissgoog#page/n55/mode/1up |title=Kaiserl.[lichen] Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien; Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (1866) Vol XVIII, p. 6}}. Also [https://books.google.com/books?id=_ekYAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA158 Alan England Brooke from Georg Schepps, Vienna Corpus, xviii]</ref>}}

The English translation:

{{Blockquote|As John says and there are three which give testimony on earth the water the flesh the blood and these three are in one and there are three which give testimony in heaven the Father the Word and the Spirit and these three are one in Christ Jesus.<ref>''Liber Apologetics'' given in Maynard p. 39.  [capitals speculative; punctuation deleted from English translation as probably little or no punctuation in original]</ref>}}

[[Theodor Zahn]] calls this "the earliest quotation of the passage which is certain and which can be definitely dated (circa 380)",<ref>[https://archive.org/details/introductionton00zahngoog/page/n383 ''Introduction to the New Testament''], p. 372, Vol. 3, 1909.</ref> a view expressed by Westcott, Brooke, Metzger and others.<ref>Westcott comments "The gloss which had thus become an established interpretation of St John's words is first quoted as part of the Epistle in a tract of Priscillian (c 385)." [https://archive.org/details/cu31924074296629/page/n264 ''The Epistles of St. John'' p. 203, 1892.]  Alan England Brooke "The earliest certain instance of the gloss being quoted as part of the actual text of the Epistle is in the Liber Apologeticus (? a.d. 380) of Priscillian" [https://books.google.com/books?id=_ekYAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA2-PA158 ''The Epistles of St. John''], p.158, 1912. And Bruce Metzger "The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus". ''Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', p.717, 1971. Georg Strecker : "The oldest undoubted instance is in Priscillian" ''Liber apologeticus'' I.4 ([[CSEL]] 18.6). Similar to these are William Sullivan, John Pohle, John Seldon Whale, F. F. Bruce, Ian Howard Marshall and others.</ref>

Priscillian was probably a Sabellianist or [[Modalistic Monarchianism|Modalist Monarchian]].<ref>For an alternate view, and explanation of the terms, see [https://www.academia.edu/3045552/Was_Priscillian_a_Modalist_Monarchian ''Was Priscillian a Modalist Monarchian?'' by Tarmo Toom]</ref> Some interpreters have theorized that Priscillian created the {{lang|la|Comma Johanneum}}. However, there are signs of the {{lang|la|Comma Johanneum}}, although no certain attestations, even before Priscillian".<ref name="Strecker">[[:de:Geoerg Strecker|Georg Strecker]], ''The Johannine Letters'' (Hermeneia); Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996. 'Excursus: The Textual Tradition of the "Comma Johanneum"'.</ref> And Priscillian in the same section references The Unity of the Church section from Cyprian.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=XYpAAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA264 John Chapman ''Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels'' (1908) p. 264]</ref> In the early 1900s the Karl Künstle theory of Priscillian origination and interpolation was popular: "The verse is an interpolation, first quoted and perhaps introduced by Priscillian (a.d. 380) as a pious fraud to convince doubters of the doctrine of the Trinity."<ref>Preserved Smith [https://books.google.com/books?id=l0obJ9XfPMUC&pg=PA165 ''Erasmus, A Study Of His Life, Ideals And Place In History''], p.165, 1st ed. 1923. However, Priscillian is generally considered as non-Trinitarian. The Künstle idea was more nuanced. William Edie summarizes "To Priscillian, therefore, in all probability, must be attributed the origin of the gloss in this its original and heretical form. Afterwards it was brought into harmony with the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity by the omission of the words ''in Christo Jesu'' and the Substitution of ''tres'' for ''tria''." [https://books.google.com/books?id=SUB-y16CuUgC&pg=PA169 ''The Review of Theology and Philosophy''] The Comma Joanneum p.169, 1906. The accusation of a Trinitarian heresy by Priscillian was not in the charges that led to the execution of Priscillian and six followers; we see this in the later 5th-century writings.</ref>

==== {{lang|la|Expositio Fidei}} ====
Another complementary early reference is an exposition of faith published in 1883 by Carl Paul Caspari from the Ambrosian manuscript, which also contains the Muratorian (canon) fragment.

{{Blockquote|{{lang|la|pater est Ingenitus, filius uero sine Initio genitus a patre est, spiritus autem sanctus 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 lesu. Non tamen dixit "Unus est in Christo lesu."}}}}

Edgar Simmons Buchanan,<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=rr0QAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA537 The Codex Muratorianus], ''Journal of Theological Studies'', 1907 pp.537–545</ref> points out that the reading {{lang|la|"in Christo Iesu"}} is textually valuable, referencing 1 John 5:7.

The authorship is uncertain, however it is often placed around the same period as Priscillian.  Karl Künstle saw the writing as anti-Priscillianist, which would have competing doctrinal positions utilizing the verse. Alan England Brooke<ref>Alan England Brooke, ''A critical and exegetical commentary on the Johannine epistles'', 1912, pp.158–159</ref> notes the similarities of the Expositio with the Priscillian form, and the Priscillian form with the Leon Palimpsest. Theodor Zahn<ref>Theodor Zahn, ''Introduction to the New Testament, Vol 3'', 1909, p. 372</ref> refers to the {{lang|la|Expositio}} as "possibly contemporaneous" to Priscillian, "apparently taken from the proselyte Isaac (alias Ambrosiaster)".

[[John Chapman (priest)|John Chapman]] looked closely at these materials and the section in {{lang|la|Liber Apologeticus}} around the Priscillian faith statement {{lang|la|"Pater Deus, Filius, Deus, et Spiritus sanctus Deus; haec unum sunt in Christo Iesu"}}. Chapman saw an indication that Priscillian found himself bound to defend the comma by citing from the "Unity of the Church" Cyprian section.<ref>"It seems plain that the passage of St, Cyprian was lying open before the Priscillianist author of the Creed (Priscillian himself?) because he was accustomed to appeal to it in the same way. In Priscillian's day St. Cyprian had a unique position as the one great Western Doctor." John Chapman, [https://archive.org/details/notesonearlyhis00chapgoog/page/n280 <!-- pg=264 --> ''Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels''], 1908, p.264</ref>

=== Council of Carthage, 484 ===

"The Comma ... was invoked at Carthage in 484 when the Catholic bishops of North Africa confessed their faith before Huneric the Vandal (Victor de Vita, ''Historia persecutionis Africanae Prov'' 2.82 [3.11]; CSEL, 7, 60)."<ref>Raymond Brown, ''The Epistles of John, the Anchor Yale Bible Commentary'', 1982 p. 782.</ref> The Confession of Faith representing the hundreds of Orthodox bishops<ref> About four hundred bishops of Africa and Mauritania, together with others from Corsica and Sardinia, met in Carthage" Thomas Joseph Lamy, [https://books.google.com/books?id=EAPOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA464 ''American Ecclesiastical Review''], 1 John v 7, 1897 p.464</ref> included the following section, emphasizing the heavenly witnesses to teach {{lang|la|luce clarius}} ("clearer than the light"):

{{Blockquote|And so, no occasion for uncertainty is left. It is clear that the Holy Spirit is also God and the author of his own will, he who is most clearly shown to be at work in all things and to bestow the gifts of the divine dispensation according to the judgment of his own will, because where it is proclaimed that he distributes graces where he wills, servile condition cannot exist, for servitude is to be understood in what is created, but power and freedom in the Trinity. And so that we may teach the Holy Spirit to be of one divinity with the Father and the Son still more clearly than the light, here is proof from the testimony of John the evangelist. For he says: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Surely he does not say "three separated by a difference in quality" or "divided by grades which differentiate, so that there is a great distance between them"? No, he says that the "three are one". But so that the single divinity which the Holy Spirit has with the Father and the Son might be demonstrated still more in the creation of all things, you have in the book of Job the Holy Spirit as a creator: "It is the divine Spirit" ..
<ref>John Moorhead, ''Victor of Vita: history of the Vandal persecution'' 1992, p. 56, Latin at [http://remacle.org/bloodwolf/historiens/victordevita/histoire3.htm Histoire de la Persécution des Vandales par Victor, évêque de Vita, dans la Byzacène]</ref><ref>Frederick Nolan summarizes the history and gives his view of the significance: "Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received text, is wholly inconceivable: and admitting that 1 Joh v. 7 was then generally received, its universal prevalence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning." [https://books.google.com/books?id=FF4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA296 Inquiry, 1815, p. 296]. Bruce Metzger, in the commentary that accompanies the UBS GNT, bypassed the context of the Council and the Confession of Faith, "In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle" ''A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament'', 1971, p.717 and 2nd ed. 1993, and 2002 p.648.</ref>}}

==== {{lang|la|De Trinitate}} and {{lang|la|Contra Varimadum}} ====
{{Further|Pseudo-Vigilius|Contra Varimadum}}
There are additional heavenly witnesses references that are considered to be from the same period as the Council of Carthage, including references that have been attributed to Vigilius Tapsensis who attended the Council. Raymond Brown gives one summary:
<blockquote>... in the century following Priscillian, the chief appearance of the Comma is in tractates defending the Trinity. In PL 62 227–334 there is a work {{lang|la|De Trinitate}} consisting of twelve books&nbsp;... In Books 1 and 10 (PL 62, 243D, 246B, 297B) the Comma is cited three times. Another work on the Trinity consisting of three books {{lang|la|Contra Varimadum}}&nbsp;... North African origin ca. 450 seems probable. The Comma is cited in 1.5 (CC 90, 20–21).<ref>Raymond Brown, Anchor Bible, Epistles of John pp. 782–783.</ref></blockquote>

One of the references in {{lang|la|De Trinitate}}, from Book V:
{{Blockquote|But the Holy Ghost abides in the Father, and in the Son [Filio] and in himself; as the Evangelist St. John so absolutely testifies in his Epistle: And the three are one. But how, ye heretics, are the three ONE, if their substance he divided or cut asunder? Or how are they one, if they be placed one before another? Or how are the three one. if the Divinity be different in each? How are they one, if there reside not in them the united eternal plenitude of the Godhead?<ref>Travis, [https://books.google.com/books?id=nf0qAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA39, Letters to Edward Gibbon], 1794, pp. 41–42. Latin at [http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/0518-0518,_Vigilius_Tapsensis,_De_Trinitate_Libri_Duodecim,_MLT.pdf ''De Trinitate'' Book V, p. 274] In total, Travis notes five times in the books that John is referenced in the context of the wording of 1 John 5:7, twice in Book One, and once each in Books 5, 7, and 10.</ref>
These references are in the UBS apparatus as Ps-Vigilius.}}

The {{lang|la|Contra Varimadum}} reference:

{{Blockquote|John the Evangelist, in his Epistle to the Parthians (i.e. his 1st Epistle), says there are three who afford testimony on earth, the Water, the Blood, and the Flesh, and these three are in us; and there are three who afford testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one.<ref>John Scott Porter, [https://archive.org/details/principlestextu00portgoog/page/n537 <!-- pg=509 --> ''Principles of Textual Criticism''], 1848, p.509 Latin: Et Joannes evangelista ait; In principio erat verbum, et verbum erat apud Deurn et Deus erat verbum. Item ad Parthos; Tres sunt, inquit, qui testimonium perhibent in terra, aqua sanguis ''el caro'', et tres in ''nobis sunt''. Et tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum, et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt. McCarthy, Daniel [https://books.google.com/books?id=SuxS-z-6SIUC&pg=PA518 ''The Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays''], 1866, p. 518. The full book is at [https://archive.org/stream/patrologiaecur62mign#page/180/mode/1up ''Patrologiae cursus completus'']: Series latina Vol 62:359, 1800. Nathaniel Ellis Cornwall explains how Idacius Clarus, of the 4th century and an opponent of Priscillian, is internally accredited as the original author [https://books.google.com/books?id=YaPSAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA515 ''Genuineness Proved by Neglected Witnesses''] 1877, p. 515. The work was originally published in 1528 by Sichard as ''Idacius Clarus Hispanus'', Otto Bardenhewer, [https://archive.org/details/00848717.1464.emory.edu/page/n447 ''Patrology, the Lives and Works of the Fathers'', p. 429, 1908.]</ref>}}

This is in the UBS apparatus as Varimadum.

[[Johannes Heinrich August Ebrard|Ebrard]], in referencing this quote, comments, "We see that he had before him the passage in his New Testament in its corrupt form ({{lang|la|aqua, sanguis et caro, et tres in nobis sunt}}); but also, that the gloss was already in the text, {{em|and not merely in a single copy}}, but that it was so widely diffused and acknowledged in the West as to be appealed to by him bona fide in his contest with his Arian opponents."<ref>[https://archive.org/stream/commentarystjohn00ebrauoft#page/n5/mode/2up ''Biblical commentary on the Epistles of St John''], 1850, p.326, "In Continuation of the Work of [[Hermann Olshausen|Olshausen]] ... translated (from the German) by W. B. Pope".</ref>

=== Fulgentius of Ruspe ===

In the 6th century, [[Fulgentius of Ruspe]], like Cyprian a father of the North African Church, skilled in Greek as well as his native Latin, used the verse in the doctrinal battles of the day, giving an Orthodox explanation of the verse against Arianism and Sabellianism.

==== {{lang|la|Contra Arianos}} ====
From {{lang|la|Responsio contra Arianos}} ("Reply against the Arians"; Migne (Ad 10; CC 91A, 797)):

{{Blockquote|In the Father, therefore, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, we acknowledge unity of substance, but dare not confound the persons. For St. John the apostle, testifieth saying, "There are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."}}

Then Fulgentius discusses the earlier reference by Cyprian, and the interweaving of the two Johannine verses, John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7.

{{Blockquote|Which also the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his epistle {{lang|la|de unitate Ecclesiae}} (Unity of the Church), confesseth, saying, Who so breaketh the peace of Christ, and concord, acteth against Christ: whoso gathereth elsewhere beside the Church, scattereth. And that he might shew, that the Church of the one God is one, he inserted these testimonies, immediately from the scriptures; The Lord said, "I and the Father are one." And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it is written, "and these three are one".<ref>"[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ni4ZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA595 William Hales, ''Antijacobin Review'', Sabellian Controversy, Letter XII, 1816 p. 595]</ref>}}

==== {{lang|la|Contra Fabianum}} ====
Another heavenly witnesses reference from Fulgentius is in {{lang|la|Contra Fabianum Fragmenta}} (Migne (Frag. 21.4: CC 01A,797)):<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=6ll-M_qNzsUC&pg=PT171 Migne (Frag. 21.4: CC 01A,797)]</ref>
{{Blockquote|The blessed Apostle, St. John evidently says, {{em|And the three are one}}; which was said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as I have before {{em|shewn}}, when you demanded of me for a reason<ref>Thomas Burgess, [https://books.google.com/books?id=DI1QNrUdMpAC&pg=PA56 Letter to the Reverend Thomas Beynon] 1829, p.649. The Latin is "Beatus vero Joannes Apostolus evidenter ait, ''Et tres unum sunt,'' quod de Patre, et Filio et Spiritu Sancto, dictum, sicut superius, cum rationem flagitares, ostendimus."</ref>}}

==== {{lang|la|De Trinitate ad Felicem}} ====
Also from Fulgentius in {{lang|la|De Trinitate ad Felicem}}:

{{Blockquote|See, in short you have it that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another, in Person, each is other, but in nature they are not other. In this regard He says: "The Father and I, we are one." He teaches us that one refers to Their nature, and we are to Their persons. In like manner it is said: "There are three who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit; and these three are one."<ref>Fulgentius continues "Let Sabellius hear we are, let him hear three, and let him believe that there are three Persons. Let him not blaspheme in his sacrilegious heart by saying that the Father is the same in Himself as the Son is the same in Himself and as the Holy Spirit is the same in Himself, as if in some way He could beget Himself, or in some way proceed from Himself. Even in created natures it is never able to be found that something is able to beget itself. Let also Arius hear one; and let him not say that the Son is of a different nature, if one cannot be said of that, the nature of which is different." [[William Jurgens|William A. Jurgens]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=rkvLsueY_DwC&pg=PA291 ''The Faith of the Early Fathers''], 1970 Volume 3. pp. 291–292.</ref>}}

Today these references are generally accepted as probative to the verse being in the Bible of Fulgentius.<ref>In the historic debate, Thomas Emlyn, George Benson, Richard Porson, Samuel Lee and John Oxlee denied these references as demonstrating the verse as in the Bible of Fulgentius, by a set of differing rationales. Henry Thomas Armfield reviews debate theories and history and offered his conclusion "Surely it is quite clear from the writings of Fulgentius, both that he had himself seen the verse in the copies of the New Testament; and that those with whom he argues had not the objection to offer that the verse was not then extant in St. John's Epistle." Armfield, [https://books.google.com/books?id=5eQCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA171 ''The Three Witnesses, the Disputed Text''], 1883, p.171.  Armfield also reviews the Facundus and Fulgentius comparison in depth.  Facundus and Fulgentius were often compared in their Cyprian references, with Facundus quoted in support of Cyprian being involved in a mystical interpretation.</ref>

==== {{lang|la|Adversus Pintam episcopum Arianum}} ====
A reference in {{lang|la|De Fide Catholica adversus Pintam episcopum Arianum}} that is a {{lang|la|Testimonia de Trinitate}}:
{{poemquote|{{lang|la|in epistola Johannis, tres sunt in coelo, qui testimonium reddunt,
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus: et hi tres unum sunt}}<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=w45BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA710 Migne]</ref>}}
has been assigned away from Fulgentius to a "Catholic controvertist of the same age".<ref>Alban Butler, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=GjQsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA68 The lives of the fathers, martyrs, and other principal saints], Volume 1''(1846) and is referenced by Karl Künstle as ''Pseudo-Fulgentius''.</ref>

=== Cassiodorus ===

[[Cassiodorus]] wrote Bible commentaries, and was familiar with Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts,<ref name="Pohle">[[:de:Joseph Pohle|Joseph Pohle]] in ''The Divine Trinity: A Dogmatic Treatise'' accuses Cassiodorus of inserting the Comma into the Vulgate from early manuscripts. "The defence can also claim the authority of Cassiodorus, who, about the middle of the sixth century, with many ancient manuscripts at his elbow, revised the entire Vulgate of St. Jerome, especially the Apostolic Epistles, and deliberately inserted I John V, 7, which St. Jerome had left out." [https://archive.org/details/divinetrinityad00pohlgoog/page/n48 <!-- pg=38 --> ''Divine Trinity, 1911 p. 38-39'']</ref> seeking out sacred manuscripts. Cassiodorus was also skilled in Greek. In {{lang|la|Complexiones in Epistolis Apostolorum}}, first published in 1721 by [[Scipio Maffei]], in the commentary section on 1 John, from the Cassiodorus corpus, is written:

{{poemquote|On earth three mysteries bear witness,
  the water, the blood, and the spirit,
  which were fulfilled, we read, in the passion of the Lord.
  In heaven, are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
  and these three are one God.<ref>The Latin is "Cui rei testificantur in terra tria mysteria: aqua, sanguis et spiritus, quae in passione Domini leguntur impleta: in coelo autem Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus sanctus; et hi tres unus est Deus" [https://books.google.com/books?id=arLUAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA5-PA1376 – Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina] by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373. HTML version at [http://www.kennydominican.joyeurs.com/LatinPatrology/CassiodorusInEpistActApoc.htm ''Cassiodorus Complexiones in Epistulas apostolorum''] English text based on Porson and Maynard p.46.</ref>}}

[[Thomas Joseph Lamy]] describes the Cassiodorus section<ref>Lamy says that in going through 1 John 5 Cassiodorus "mystically interprets water, blood and spirit as three symbols concerning the Passion of Christ. To those three earthly symbols ''in terra'', he opposes the three heavenly witnesses ''in coelo'' the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, ''and these three are one God''. Evidently we have here verse 7. Cassiodorus does not cite it textually, but he gives the sense of it. He puts it in opposition to verse 8, for he contrasts ''in coelo'' with ''in terra''. The last words: ''Et hi tres unus est Deus'' can be referred only to verse 7, since Cassiodorus refers ''tria unum sunt'' of verse 8, to the Passion of Our Saviour&nbsp;... Maffei's conclusion is therefore justified when he says : Verse 7 was read not only in Africa, but in the most ancient and the most accurate Codices of the Roman Church, since Cassiodorus recommended to the monks to seek, above all else, the correct copies and to compare them with the Greek."</ref> and references that Tischendorf saw this as Cassiodorus having the text in his Bible. However, earlier "Porson endeavoured to show that Cassiodorus had, in his copy, no more than the 8th verse, to which he added the gloss of Eucherius, with whose writings he was acquainted."<ref>William Wright, [https://books.google.com/books?id=1J4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA639 ''Biblical hermeneutics''], 1835, p.640.</ref>

=== Isidore of Seville ===
In the early 7th century, the {{lang|la|Testimonia Divinae Scripturae et Patrum}} is often attributed to [[Isidore of Seville]]:

{{Blockquote|{{lang|la|De Distinctions personarum, Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.

In Epistola Joannis. Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra Spiritus, aqua, et sanguis; et tres unum sunt in Christo Jesu; et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in coelo, Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt.}}<ref>Daniel M'Carthy [https://books.google.com/books?id=SuxS-z-6SIUC&pg=PA521 The Epistles and Gospels of the Sundays] 1866, p. 521. (Patrolog. Lat. ed. Migne), Tom. lxxxiii. p. 1203).</ref>}}

Arthur-Marie Le Hir asserts that evidences like Isidore and the Ambrose Ansbert Commentary on Revelation show early circulation of the Vulgate with the verse and thus also should be considered in the issues of Jerome's original Vulgate text and the authenticity of the Vulgate Prologue.<ref>Arthur-Marie Le Hir, [https://books.google.com/books?id=gHAaNqjzbioC&pg=PA1 ''Les Trois Témoins Célestes''] Études bibliques, 1869 pp.1–72</ref> Cassiodorus has also been indicated as reflecting the Vulgate text, rather than simply the Vetus Latina.<ref>Some see ''Testimonia Divinae Scripturae'' as earlier than Isidore. "Most learned critics believe to be more ancient than St. Isidore". John MacEvilly [https://books.google.com/books?id=Yb4CAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA424 An Exposition of the Epistles of St. Paul], 1875, p.424, M'Carthy: "The question of authorship is not, however, important in our controversy, provided the antiquity of the document be admitted"</ref>

=== ''Commentary on Revelation'' ===
Ambrose Ansbert refers to the scripture verse in his Revelation commentary:

{{Blockquote|Although the expression of faithful witness found therein, refers directly to Jesus Christ alone, – yet it equally characterises the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; according to these words of St. John. There are three which bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.<ref>Robert Jack, "[http://www.1john57.com/RJack.htm Remarks on the Authenticity of 1 John v. 7]" c. 1834. "...&nbsp;sicut scriptum est: Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt de caelo, Pater et Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus, et hi tres unum sunt, in primo huius opens libro aperte docuimus." Ambrose Ansbert, [https://books.google.com/books?id=wYw3Zqy6lgsC&pg=PT43 ''Ambrosij Ansberti ... Apocalypsim libri decem'']</ref>}}

"Ambrose Ansbert, in the middle of the eighth century, wrote a comment upon the Apocalypse, in which this verse is applied, in explaining the 5th verse of the first chapter of the Revelation".<ref>David Harrower, [https://archive.org/details/adefencetrinita00harrgoog/page/n51 <!-- pg=43 --> "A Defence of the Trinitarian System"], 1822 pp.43–44</ref>