Article 3: Priscillian and the Latin Evidence
(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 discussing the history and transmission of 1 John 5:7, the spotlight often falls on how deeply the verse (commonly known as the “Comma Johanneum”) is entrenched in Latin Christianity. Unlike the Greek manuscript tradition—which for many centuries appeared to omit 1 John 5:7 from the oldest surviving codices—the Latin tradition strongly testifies to its presence. One of the earliest and most significant Latin witnesses invoked by defenders of the Comma’s authenticity is Priscillian of Ávila (c. 340–385 AD). A bishop in Roman Hispania, Priscillian left behind writings that appear to quote or reference the fuller form of 1 John 5:7.
This article investigates how Priscillian’s work supports the idea that the Comma Johanneum was part of the biblical text in at least some communities by the fourth century. We will examine who Priscillian was, why his citation of 1 John 5:7 stands out, and how the Latin tradition more broadly bolsters the Comma’s claim to authenticity. Along the way, we will draw extensively from two major works on this topic: “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.
1. Who Was Priscillian?
1.1 Priscillian’s Background and Historical Context
Priscillian was a bishop and theologian active in the fourth century, primarily in the region of Hispania (today’s Spain). He became the center of considerable controversy in his lifetime, partly due to accusations of heresy (especially concerning doctrines like Sabellianism or Manichaeism) and partly because of political tensions between various ecclesiastical factions. Priscillian’s opponents, including prominent bishops and imperial authorities, ultimately pressed charges that led to his execution around 385 AD—one of the earliest instances of a Christian executed for heresy at the behest of other church leaders.
In “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8,” Michael Maynard points out that Priscillian’s theological perspectives are not uniformly understood; later sources portrayed him as a quasi-Gnostic or dualist, but modern scholars debate how far these accusations reflect reality as opposed to polemical labeling. Regardless of the exact nature of his beliefs, one thing is clear: Priscillian was a serious exegete who engaged directly with Scripture, leaving textual traces that scholars analyze to this day.
1.2 Priscillian’s Literary Remains
Much of what Priscillian wrote has been lost. Nevertheless, some of his authentic works survive, the most noted of which is the Liber Apologeticus, an apology in which he articulates and defends his faith. Within the Liber Apologeticus, defenders of 1 John 5:7 find a particular quotation that strongly suggests the text of 1 John 5:7 in its longer (comma) form was at Priscillian’s disposal. According to C. H. Pappas in “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7,” Priscillian’s usage of the verse is one of the earliest unequivocal references to the Comma Johanneum that names “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit” in heaven.
2. Priscillian’s Quotation of 1 John 5:7
2.1 The Specific Quotation
In the surviving text of the Liber Apologeticus (often dated around 380 AD), Priscillian writes a passage which, in one of its key segments, reads very close to: “And there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, and 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.” While some manuscripts differ slightly in wording, the essence is that Priscillian references “three that bear witness in heaven”—the same triad enumerated in the Comma Johanneum.
Where did Priscillian get this reading? Michael Maynard explains that because Priscillian was writing in Latin, it is very plausible he was citing a Latin biblical text. This could have been an Old Latin version pre-dating Jerome’s Vulgate or at least paralleling the textual tradition that Jerome would later standardize. Since the Greek manuscripts that modern textual critics rely on often omit the Comma (especially key uncial codices such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus), Priscillian’s citation stands as powerful evidence that the verse (or something akin to it) circulated in the Latin church in the fourth century.
2.2 The Phrase “In Christ Jesus”
Priscillian’s citation in the Liber Apologeticus ends with “… and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” That phrase “in Christ Jesus” does not typically appear in modern English translations of 1 John 5:7, nor does it appear in the standard Textus Receptus version. C. H. Pappas, in “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7,” addresses the significance of this extra phrase, explaining that certain ancient theological tendencies—especially modalistic ones—sometimes inserted expansions to clarify that the unity of the three persons was centered in Christ. Critics, therefore, claim the presence of “in Christ Jesus” is a scribal or theological gloss that modifies the verse.
Yet defenders of the Comma stress that a small addition, such as “in Christ Jesus,” does not diminish the overall point: the base reading of “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit … these three are one” is still present. According to Pappas, what matters most is that Priscillian’s text explicitly distinguishes between “three that give testimony on earth” and “three that give testimony in heaven,” an unmistakable hallmark of the Comma Johanneum. The slight differences in wording can be chalked up to normal variations common in patristic citations and the fluid nature of Latin biblical texts before the Vulgate became standardized.
2.3 Why Priscillian’s Citation Is So Important
The significance of Priscillian’s citation can hardly be overstated for three reasons:
Chronological Proximity: Priscillian died in 385 AD, making him a near-contemporary of figures like Jerome (who completed the Vulgate around 405 AD) and less than a century removed from Eusebius and the era of Constantine. If he is quoting the Comma, it means that the verse circulated in Latin manuscripts well before the earliest surviving Greek codices that textual critics often champion.
Doctrinal Usage: Because Priscillian faced accusations of heterodoxy, it may appear surprising that he quotes a verse strongly affirming the tri-personality of God (“the Father, the Word, and the Spirit”). This goes against any assumption that the Comma was introduced specifically to fight Arianism or to bolster a certain brand of Trinitarian doctrine in the 5th or 6th century. If someone accused of Sabellian or other unorthodox views was using 1 John 5:7, it indicates the verse was simply part of the Scripture he knew, rather than an invention by later councils.
Connection to Wider Latin Practice: Priscillian’s text corroborates the robust presence of 1 John 5:7 in the Old Latin tradition. As Maynard recounts, the existence of multiple Old Latin codices that contain the Comma is well documented (e.g., Codex Speculum, Codex Monacensis, and others). Priscillian’s usage shows that the tradition was not merely a phenomenon from the 7th or 8th century but had roots in the fourth century or earlier.
3. The Importance of the Latin Tradition
3.1 Old Latin Bibles and Their Early Origin
Outside of Priscillian specifically, the Old Latin textual tradition is frequently highlighted by defenders of the Comma Johanneum as a major pillar supporting authenticity. Latin translations of the New Testament began to appear in the second century, well before Jerome’s standardized Vulgate. These translations were used extensively in the Western portions of the Roman Empire, including North Africa, Italy, and Spain. By the fourth century, the Old Latin traditions were numerous and somewhat diverse, but they often contained 1 John 5:7.
As explained in “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard, this consistent witness in many Old Latin manuscripts is not easily explained if the Comma originated as a late medieval insertion. Critics who consider the Comma spurious typically argue that it was a scribal note that crept into the Latin textual stream over time. However, the presence of the Comma in such an early witness as Priscillian calls that narrative into question. If the Comma’s “insertion” had occurred significantly later, how was it that a fourth-century bishop was confidently using it as Scripture?
3.2 Jerome’s Vulgate and Post-Vulgate Reception
Following Priscillian, Jerome emerged as a towering figure in biblical translation. He completed his Vulgate around the turn of the fifth century, standardizing Latin renderings of the Bible for centuries. Many question whether Jerome originally included the Comma or whether it was added to later manuscripts of the Vulgate. C. H. Pappas devotes significant attention to this question, contending that Jerome’s references to unfaithful translators who omitted certain texts could well imply that Jerome believed 1 John 5:7 belonged in the authentic text.
Regardless of whether Jerome explicitly included it, scribes and editors of the subsequent centuries widely copied the Vulgate with 1 John 5:7 intact. By the Middle Ages, it was embedded so deeply in Western Christianity that it gained recognition among Roman Catholic scholars and, eventually, the Protestant Reformers. Priscillian’s usage predates Jerome, reinforcing that the verse was not invented by him or introduced solely to strengthen a Latin doctrinal tradition at a later date.
3.3 The Latin versus Greek Manuscript Divide
One of the recurring themes in “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” is the apparent divide between Latin and Greek manuscript traditions regarding the Comma. Pappas and others argue that an unfortunate assumption has taken root in modern textual criticism: if the oldest surviving Greek manuscripts omit a passage, then that passage is likely spurious. But the large-scale acceptance of 1 John 5:7 in the early Latin church suggests that older Greek manuscripts might be silent witnesses not because the verse did not exist, but because it was lost or not copied in certain Greek textual streams.
Priscillian’s citation becomes a critical example. He is not alone; we also see references to the Comma in writers like Fulgentius of Ruspe and Cassiodorus, who followed in the Latin tradition. Hence, the question arises: Could the Comma Johanneum have been an authentic reading in a stream of Greek manuscripts that simply did not survive or was overshadowed by other text types commonly preserved in the East? The Latin tradition, exemplified by Priscillian, upholds this possibility.
4. Answering Objections
4.1 The Heresy Argument
A frequent objection is that Priscillian was declared a heretic and executed for alleged heretical views. Skeptics might argue that citing a “heretical bishop” as evidence for textual authenticity undermines, rather than strengthens, the case. After all, if Priscillian is alleged to have taught unorthodox ideas, perhaps he also tampered with Scripture?
However, as Michael Maynard clarifies, historical labels like “heretic” were sometimes used in political and doctrinal power struggles. In the late Roman Empire, bishoprics held considerable authority, and accusations of heresy could be weaponized against opponents. Whether Priscillian’s theology was truly aberrant or not, it remains undisputed that he was a practicing Christian bishop immersed in Scripture. Even if his theology diverged from emerging mainstream norms, it is improbable he singlehandedly invented a reading as widespread as 1 John 5:7. Moreover, references to the Comma appear in many other Latin sources, some thoroughly orthodox, which corroborates that Priscillian was not alone in having this text.
4.2 The “He Quoted Verse 8” Argument
Another objection claims that Priscillian (and other Latin Fathers) were simply quoting 1 John 5:8, then adding Trinitarian language to it, or conflating it with interpretations from John’s Gospel. Indeed, 1 John 5:6–8 references “water, blood, and spirit,” which some early theologians interpreted symbolically to represent the Father, Son, and Spirit.
Yet in the Liber Apologeticus, Priscillian explicitly distinguishes between “three in heaven” and “three on earth”—a distinction that is absent in verse 8’s typical wording, which speaks only of the Spirit, water, and blood. C. H. Pappas repeatedly emphasizes that this dual triad (one set in heaven and one on earth) is the hallmark of the Comma Johanneum. If Priscillian were simply expanding verse 8, one might expect no mention of a “heavenly triad” at all. Thus, Pappas concludes that Priscillian’s text more plausibly indicates knowledge of a biblical reading that contained a separate enumerated triad for heavenly witnesses.
4.3 “It Was Only a Marginal Gloss” Claim
Some textual critics maintain that the Comma began as a marginal gloss in Latin commentaries or manuscripts. Later scribes supposedly inserted it into the text itself, leading to widespread acceptance. While scribal glosses were indeed common, “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7” counters that a gloss becoming so consistently woven into a wide range of Latin manuscripts by the fourth century is improbable. If it truly were a gloss, one might expect scattered or inconsistent insertions, not a broad consensus across multiple geographical regions.
Priscillian’s usage shows more than a mere gloss: he treats it as an authoritative Scriptural reading. As Maynard points out, an apologetic treatise aimed at defending one’s theology or ecclesiastical standing typically cites Scripture in a manner designed to be recognized by others. That means a large enough audience would have also recognized 1 John 5:7 as Scripture—strengthening the argument it was not just a local or idiosyncratic marginal note.
5. Concluding Reflections on Priscillian and Latin Evidence
The figure of Priscillian of Ávila, while overshadowed by controversies about his teaching, emerges as a highly significant witness for 1 John 5:7. By citing the distinct heavenly triad, Priscillian shows that a text essentially containing the Comma Johanneum was part of the fabric of Latin Christianity before the close of the fourth century. This predates major doctrinal battles like the Arian controversy in the West by several decades, suggesting the Comma was not invented as a later proof-text for the Trinity. Instead, it appears to have been an accepted reading for many believers, heretical or otherwise, in the Roman West.
Drawing on C. H. Pappas’s arguments in “In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7,” we see that critics who dismiss the Comma as wholly spurious must grapple with why someone like Priscillian would quote it so plainly if it was unknown or brand new. The complexities of textual transmission allow for the possibility that the verse was indeed present in a line of Greek manuscripts that informed the Old Latin versions—versions that, in turn, shaped the theology of Western bishops like Priscillian.
Meanwhile, Michael Maynard’s meticulous historical survey in “A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8” situates Priscillian within a larger tapestry of Latin witnesses, including Victor of Vita, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Cassiodorus, and others who followed in subsequent centuries. These testimonies collectively reveal that 1 John 5:7 was not a marginal or ephemeral reading but a widely recognized biblical text in Western Christianity. The question remains why such a strong presence in Latin tradition did not equally appear in the surviving Greek manuscript tradition—yet textual criticism acknowledges that the survival of manuscripts is often haphazard, reflecting only a fraction of all textual lineages that once existed.
From a theological standpoint, Priscillian’s usage underscores that the Comma Johanneum was invoked both by orthodox and heterodox voices. The verse itself was not the invention of a single theological stance but rather a recognized portion of 1 John that multiple camps referenced. This historical reality weakens claims that a group of orthodox scribes or a later council concocted 1 John 5:7 to settle Trinitarian disputes. If that had been the case, one might expect more uniform alignment with particular theological controversies, yet the verse appears in contexts that cannot be neatly reduced to one time or place.
Furthermore, the significance of the Old Latin tradition extends beyond 1 John 5:7. It demonstrates that the Latin-speaking churches possessed and cherished biblical texts that sometimes differed from what later came to dominate modern Greek text-critical editions. This is a reminder that early Christianity was not monolithic but spread across cultural and linguistic frontiers, each preserving Scripture according to local manuscript lineages. Where Greek manuscripts might have omitted or lost certain passages, Latin (or Syriac, or other versions) could have retained them.
For those who stand by the Comma’s authenticity, Priscillian’s quote is one of their strongest points of evidence, illustrating that the verse did not emerge out of nowhere in the Middle Ages; it already existed in high-profile usage among Western bishops well before the turn of the fifth century. On the other hand, critics might continue to argue that a single father’s citation cannot override the collective silence of the earliest extant Greek manuscripts. Yet as we have seen, Priscillian is not entirely alone: the Old Latin tradition and several later Latin authorities also present a united front that the Comma Johanneum was recognized and read as Scripture.
Ultimately, the Priscillian case thrusts us back into the broader question of how to weigh textual evidence. Do we prioritize older Greek manuscripts that omit 1 John 5:7, or do we give substantial weight to an extensive and early Latin tradition that consistently includes it? Neither approach is without difficulties, but the presence of the Comma in such an early and clearly referenced manner in Priscillian’s writings forces a reconsideration of simplistic assumptions. The debate is not purely black and white; instead, it invites deeper exploration into the complexities of early Christian textual transmission.
In the coming articles, we will see how Jerome’s Vulgate (and the prologue to the Catholic Epistles) further solidified the Comma within Western Christianity, and how other Latin Fathers like Fulgentius and Cassiodorus reinforced its presence. We will also engage with the role of councils and ecclesiastical usage in spreading or defending the verse. For now, Priscillian stands as a remarkable milestone on this road, his voice echoing through the centuries with a citation that strongly suggests 1 John 5:7 had a seat at Scripture’s table well before the medieval period. Whether accepted or rejected by modern critics, that testimony remains a cornerstone in the case for the Comma’s authenticity in the Western church.
