Article 2: Early Church Witnesses: Tertullian and Cyprian
(Drawing on insights from “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” by C. H. Pappas ThM and “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard M.L.S.)
When one studies the origin and transmission of 1 John 5:7, often called the Comma Johanneum, it becomes evident that some of the earliest potential references to the verse come from Latin-speaking Church Fathers of the third century. Among the most notable figures typically cited in this connection are Tertullian of Carthage (c. 155–220 AD) and Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD). Advocates for the authenticity of the Comma Johanneum (that is, the text reading “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”) view Tertullian and Cyprian as critical witnesses that the verse was accepted—at least in some circles—very early in church history.
In this article, we will explore both Tertullian’s and Cyprian’s contributions to the debate. We will examine how they wrote about Trinitarian doctrine, whether they explicitly quoted or referenced 1 John 5:7, and why the discussion surrounding their works remains pivotal for modern defenders of the Comma. We will rely heavily on the discussions provided in “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” by C. H. Pappas ThM, as well as “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard M.L.S. These two major works offer comprehensive insights into how patristic testimony shapes the conversation about the authenticity of 1 John 5:7.
1. The Context of Early Church Witnesses
Before delving into Tertullian and Cyprian specifically, it is important to set the stage by clarifying why early references to 1 John 5:7 matter at all. As explained in “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard M.L.S., references to the Comma Johanneum in the early centuries of Christianity can significantly strengthen the argument that the verse existed in manuscripts prior to the fourth century, well before the emergence of major codices like Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (which do not contain the Comma). If Tertullian and Cyprian, writing in Latin-speaking North Africa, quoted or alluded to the Comma, that would be a strong indicator that the verse was known among some communities at a relatively early date.
Critics, on the other hand, point out that neither Tertullian nor Cyprian provide a verbatim quote that exactly matches the wording of 1 John 5:7 as often rendered in later Latin texts. They suggest that the fathers might have been referencing other passages in John’s epistle, especially verse 8, or were speaking generally about Trinitarian theology without actually citing the Comma Johanneum. Hence, the debate over these two figures is not just a matter of historical curiosity but a key flashpoint in the question of whether the Comma existed in an original or early form of 1 John.
2. Tertullian (c. 155–220 AD): Trinitarian Polemicist
2.1 Tertullian’s Background and Writings
Tertullian, often regarded as the “Father of Latin Christianity,” was a prolific writer who defended Christian orthodoxy against various heresies, including those that denied the full deity of Christ or conflated the persons of the Trinity into a single person (Modalism). One of his most famous works, Adversus Praxean (Against Praxeas), addresses a modalistic teacher named Praxeas who denied the distinct persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
According to “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” by C. H. Pappas ThM, Tertullian’s emphasis on Trinitarian unity and distinction is strikingly similar to what 1 John 5:7 expresses—three persons identified as one. Tertullian famously wrote: “They are three, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, one condition, and one power.” Such statements show his robust articulation of a triune Godhead centuries before the Council of Nicaea (325 AD).
2.2 Did Tertullian Quote 1 John 5:7?
The central question is whether Tertullian directly quoted the Comma Johanneum. Advocates of the Comma, such as Michael Maynard, point to passages in Adversus Praxean that seem to reflect the idea of three heavenly witnesses. Tertullian uses the phrase “And thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes three co-hering Persons, one from the other, which three are One (unum), not one (unus) person.” The language “these three are one” mirrors the structure of 1 John 5:7.
However, Pappas cautions that Tertullian never explicitly states he is quoting 1 John 5:7. Instead, Tertullian deploys a wide array of scriptural references, theological reasonings, and rhetorical flourishes. While the presence of “these three are one” is suggestive, some textual critics argue that Tertullian is simply expressing the triune nature of God in his own words, or potentially referencing John 10:30 (“I and the Father are one”) combined with other Christological texts. They further note that Tertullian’s argument does not contain the phrase “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”—he uses synonyms or theological expressions.
“In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” acknowledges these criticisms yet contends that Tertullian’s argument is so closely aligned with the substance of the Comma that it is hard to imagine he had never encountered the text. Pappas reasons that Tertullian’s repeated usage of “the Father, Son, and Paraclete” as “three persons, one substance” might easily reflect a known biblical reading that expressly spelled out that the Father, Word, and Spirit are one. In Tertullian’s era, Scripture was often cited loosely, without modern chapter and verse divisions. Thus, one cannot expect an exact, letter-perfect quote every time an early father references a biblical concept.
2.3 Evaluating the Evidence
Critics remain unconvinced, preferring to see Tertullian’s language as a creative exegesis of John’s theology rather than a direct nod to 1 John 5:7. Maynard, however, provides an array of patristic scholarship that suggests Tertullian’s words more naturally flow from a textual reading that explicitly said “these three are one.” The question hinges on how frequently theological expositions in the early church took shape around explicitly cited verses. From a purely historical-critical standpoint, Tertullian’s references are intriguing but not indisputable.
A middle position acknowledges that Tertullian’s usage of Trinitarian language, so resonant with 1 John 5:7, implies at least the presence of a similar textual tradition, if not an outright quote. This uncertain territory is precisely what leads supporters of the Comma to claim Tertullian as a supporting witness, while skeptics argue the evidence is too vague.
3. Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD): “And Again It Is Written …”
3.1 Cyprian’s Life and Influence
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, was a towering figure in the mid-third century. Much like Tertullian, he wrote in Latin, and his treatises significantly shaped Western Christian thought on topics such as ecclesiology, martyrdom, and sacraments. Possibly the most famous line attributed to him—though not directly from his pen—was “He cannot have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother,” underscoring his robust view of church unity and authority.
In “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8,” Michael Maynard notes that Cyprian’s writings have long been of special interest to proponents of the Comma Johanneum. While Tertullian may be ambiguous, Cyprian appears to deliver something closer to a direct allusion to 1 John 5:7. Defenders of the Comma see in Cyprian’s quotes a genuine second- or third-century reference to the text.
3.2 Key Passages in Cyprian’s Works
The main statement from Cyprian that draws attention is found in his treatise De Unitate Ecclesiae (On the Unity of the Church). In one passage, he says:
“The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written, ‘And these three are one.’”
Those defending 1 John 5:7 argue that the phrase “and these three are one” echoes the exact or near-exact wording found in the Comma Johanneum. Critics of the Comma, however, counter that Cyprian may have been referencing 1 John 5:8, which in many early manuscripts reads, “there are three that bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree in one.” They posit that Cyprian, known for his theological interpretation, might have paraphrased verse 8 in a Trinitarian sense, rather than explicitly citing a separate verse about three heavenly witnesses.
C. H. Pappas, in “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7,” emphasizes that Cyprian’s language “these three are one” stands out because 1 John 5:8 uses the phrase “these three agree in one” or “are in agreement” (in some translations). To say “these three are one” is more forceful and aligns better with the Comma’s wording. Furthermore, Maynard’s work catalogs how various scholars from earlier centuries recognized Cyprian as a direct witness to the Comma rather than an allegorical reading of verse 8.
3.3 The Counter-Argument: Spiritual Interpretation
Opponents of the Comma’s authenticity often appeal to the explanation first proposed by Facundus of Hermiane (6th century), who suggested that Cyprian was applying a “spiritual interpretation” to the earthly witnesses of verse 8. According to this view, Cyprian read “the Spirit, the water, and the blood” and interpreted them theologically to refer to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, thus rendering “and these three are one.” In effect, critics claim that Cyprian was exegetically creative, not quoting a distinct verse unknown to the modern critical text.
“In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” challenges this rationale. Pappas points out that such an allegorical leap, while not unthinkable in patristic writings, would be unusually abrupt. Additionally, if Cyprian intended an allegory, why explicitly tie it to “it is written,” as if referencing an actual scriptural text that states “these three are one”? Typically, when the church fathers used allegorical or spiritual interpretations, they signaled it more clearly, rather than introducing it as a straightforward citation.
Maynard likewise underscores the strength of the phrase “and again it is written,” which strongly implies Cyprian is drawing upon an authoritative text. In the broader patristic milieu, when a father or bishop wrote “it is written,” it normally indicated a quote from Scripture rather than a personal allegorical spin.
4. The Trinitarian Dimension
Both Tertullian and Cyprian wrote against heresies that diminished or misunderstood the relationship between the persons of the Godhead. Tertullian combated Modalism, which tends to collapse the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit into one Person with different modes of manifestation. Cyprian, for his part, was deeply concerned with church unity and sacramental issues but also weighed in on orthodox Christology. In each case, a verse that explicitly states “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost … these three are one” would be a powerful scriptural tool.
From the perspective of “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8,” this emphasis on the Trinity in both Tertullian and Cyprian is a major reason defenders of the Comma Johanneum believe these fathers had access to a textual form of 1 John that already included verse 7 in a robust, heavenly-witness format. If the earliest forms of 1 John known to them lacked the Comma, how did they arrive at such a strong triadic formula so closely resembling that verse?
One might respond that John’s Gospel (especially John 10:30 and John 14:9–11) and the broader New Testament are replete with Trinitarian motifs. Hence, they could have formulated the language “these three are one” from various passages. Nonetheless, as Pappas observes, the near-verbatim alignment with the Comma’s phrase is conspicuous.
5. Implications for the Authenticity of the Comma Johanneum
So, does Tertullian’s or Cyprian’s testimony alone definitively prove the early existence of 1 John 5:7? Both “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” and “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” offer a nuanced view:
Cumulative Evidence: Each individual reference—Tertullian’s phraseology or Cyprian’s quote—may be open to interpretation. However, when one aggregates these references with others (e.g., Priscillian in the 4th century, Fulgentius in the 6th century, the Old Latin manuscripts, and Jerome’s testimony), the case for the Comma’s antiquity grows stronger.
Latin vs. Greek Transmission: A major theme in both works is that 1 John 5:7 appears more prominently in the Latin tradition (Tertullian, Cyprian, Old Latin Bible, Jerome’s Vulgate) than in the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts. Tertullian and Cyprian bolster the idea that the verse was known, loved, and cited in the Latin church from an early period. According to Maynard, this could indicate that some early Greek manuscripts that do not include the Comma might have lost it due to scribal omissions, or that the Latin tradition preserved a reading that was less widespread in the East.
Limitations of Patristic Citation: Even Pappas concedes that patristic evidence can be elusive. The fathers often paraphrased Scripture, conjoining multiple verses into a single quote, or referencing them loosely. Determining if they used a text that exactly matches modern reconstructions of the Comma is challenging. Nevertheless, the overall sense is that if Tertullian and Cyprian are indeed referencing a reading akin to 1 John 5:7, the verse has roots far earlier than what modern textual critics who favor an 8th- or 9th-century origin might claim.
Doctrinal Impact: Both Tertullian and Cyprian wrote vigorously in defense of Trinitarian doctrines. Their combined witness suggests that the dogmatic significance of “these three are one” was highly valued as early as the third century. If they recognized a verse explicitly stating that Father, Word, and Holy Spirit are one, it further explains their confident citation of scriptural authority in shaping the church’s doctrines.
6. Counterarguments and Scholarly Responses
6.1 Paraphrase vs. Quotation
One of the dominant counterarguments is that Tertullian and Cyprian might merely be paraphrasing 1 John 5:8 or alluding to general Trinitarian theology from John’s Gospel. Critics argue that reading the Comma Johanneum into their statements is a case of eisegesis—imposing an anachronistic view of the text. Tertullian’s “three are one” can be taken as a creed-like formula independent of any specific verse. Cyprian’s “and these three are one” might be a homiletic or rhetorical flourish, not a quotation.
6.2 The Possibility of Variant Texts
Maynard concedes the complexity: the Latin tradition at that time might have contained textual variants that are not perfectly attested by the handful of Greek manuscripts we now possess. Scholars such as Westcott and Hort famously argued that older Greek manuscripts lacking the Comma are more reliable than the Latin tradition that includes it. Yet Maynard points out that just because a Greek manuscript is older does not guarantee that the Latin tradition (influenced by Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, etc.) is incorrect. Scribal practices, geographic distribution, and the hazards of manuscript survival can muddy such judgments.
6.3 The Symbolic Nature of Early Trinitarian Debates
Another angle is that the early church was forging precise Trinitarian language in response to heresies. Tertullian and Cyprian might have used repeated formulae in line with the eventual Nicene tradition to enforce orthodoxy. But “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” states that the simplest conclusion remains that they had read or heard a scriptural text that plainly said, in effect, “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.”
7. Broader Significance for the Comma Debate
Exploring Tertullian and Cyprian matters because it draws the question of 1 John 5:7’s authenticity out of a purely textual realm and into a historical and ecclesiastical one. Their testimonies represent:
An Early Latin Tradition: If either father is explicitly quoting the Comma, then the reading must be at least as old as the mid-third century, potentially predating or paralleling the formation of key Greek uncials.
The Church’s Theological Usage: Even if they were not quoting an exact text, the fact that Tertullian and Cyprian so clearly championed the notion “these three are one” underscores the spiritual momentum behind a reading that explicitly unites Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.
Foreshadowing Future Debates: The role of Tertullian and Cyprian in referencing the Comma (or something like it) laid a groundwork for how later Latin writers, councils, and eventually Protestant reformers would handle 1 John 5:7. Trinitarian controversies through subsequent centuries found some of their earliest scriptural anchors in passages strongly resembling what Tertullian and Cyprian present.
8. Conclusion
The testimonies of Tertullian and Cyprian, while not the only pieces of evidence for the Comma Johanneum, provide a glimpse into how third-century Latin theologians might have encountered a text resembling 1 John 5:7. As documented in “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard M.L.S., these references become central to the broader conversation about whether the Comma was an authentic part of John’s First Epistle from the beginning, or whether it crept in as a later expansion.
In “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” by C. H. Pappas ThM, the author underscores the difficulty of dismissing Tertullian and Cyprian’s potential citations outright. Even critics who are certain that Tertullian and Cyprian did not quote 1 John 5:7 word for word must still acknowledge how closely their language approximates the heart of that verse. Their writings are, at minimum, suggestive of a scriptural tradition in which “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit” appear together as a single unit.
Yet the evidence from these two Church Fathers, taken alone, is not the final verdict. Tertullian and Cyprian may be referencing 1 John 5:8 in a spiritualizing way, or they may be conflating John 10:30 with the general theology of 1 John 5:6–8. Patristic literature of this era often blends sources and employs paraphrase. Nevertheless, the possibility that they were aware of and citing the Comma is strong enough that historians of the text cannot ignore it.
In the next articles, we will further develop these early hints by examining other ancient Latin sources, including Priscillian and the Old Latin manuscripts, Jerome’s Vulgate, and the role of later theologians such as Fulgentius. Piece by piece, we will assemble a mosaic of evidence that shows whether 1 John 5:7 was truly an early and venerable reading or a medieval insertion that found its way into ecclesiastical usage.
For now, Tertullian and Cyprian stand as two prominent figures of the early African church, testifying—at the very least—to a lively tradition of Trinitarian exegesis. Their phraseology, reminiscent of “and these three are one,” foreshadows the extent to which 1 John 5:7 would become one of the most hotly debated verses in biblical history. Far from being an obscure textual footnote, the debate about whether Tertullian’s and Cyprian’s statements refer to the Comma Johanneum reveals the depth and longevity of a controversy that involves not only manuscripts and scribes, but also the foundational pillars of Christian theology itself.
