Article 4: The Old Latin Manuscripts and the Early Versions
(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.)
The debate over the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 (often called the Comma Johanneum) stands at a curious junction between textual criticism, church history, and doctrinal development. Having surveyed Tertullian, Cyprian, and Priscillian in previous articles, we now turn to the broader world of Old Latin manuscripts and the early versions of Scripture. While Greek manuscripts typically draw the most attention in modern textual criticism, the Latin tradition has proven to be a vital reservoir for studying the earliest form of 1 John. In particular, multiple Old Latin witnesses appear to contain a form of 1 John that includes the Comma Johanneum—“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This article delves into the following key areas:
- Why the Old Latin Bible is so important for determining the text of 1 John 5:7.
- The specific Old Latin manuscripts that contain (or reference) the Comma.
- Jerome’s role in shaping Latin Scripture through the Vulgate, and how it impacted the Comma’s transmission.
- The significance of early councils and ecclesiastical use in spreading or defending the Comma Johanneum.
- Responses to skepticism about the reliability of the Latin tradition.
Along the way, we will lean on “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., which systematically treat the subject of the Latin evidence and its implications for this enduring textual debate.
1. The Importance of the Old Latin Bible
1.1 Latin Christianity and Its Early Roots
Christianity spread extensively in the western Roman Empire where Latin, rather than Greek, prevailed as the primary language. By the end of the second century, multiple translations (collectively referred to as Old Latin versions) of the Greek New Testament existed. Michael Maynard, in A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, emphasizes that these Old Latin translations are crucial for at least two reasons:
- They predate or at least run parallel to many of the earliest surviving Greek manuscripts.
- They were used widely in ecclesiastical settings—meaning that any verse firmly established in the Old Latin tradition likely had deep roots in early Western Christianity.
If 1 John 5:7 was part of the Old Latin tradition by the third or fourth century, that would cast serious doubt on theories that the Comma Johanneum was a late medieval insertion. As we have seen with the examples of Priscillian and Cyprian, the presence of the Comma in the Old Latin tradition suggests that it was recognized quite early—potentially at a time when the Greek manuscript tradition had not yet coalesced into the codices many modern scholars rely upon (e.g., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus).
1.2 The Relevance to Modern Textual Criticism
Modern textual critics often privilege Greek manuscripts—especially the so-called “earliest and best” ones. When those oldest Greek codices (typically dated to the fourth century) omit a passage, the assumption arises that the passage might be spurious. C. H. Pappas, in In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7, challenges that assumption by highlighting that Latin and other ancient versions can be equally vital witnesses to a text’s original state. The transmission history in the West may well reflect readings from Greek exemplars no longer extant.
Furthermore, Pappas notes how the early use of Old Latin in worship, theology, and councils indicates that if 1 John 5:7 was widely known or quoted, it was not some tiny scribal addition lurking in a corner of the Latin tradition. Instead, it enjoyed broad recognition. Understanding how the Old Latin tradition formed and disseminated is key to appreciating the impact these versions had on how the Comma Johanneum was received in Western Christianity.
2. The Key Old Latin Manuscripts Containing the Comma
2.1 Identifying the Manuscripts
From Maynard’s A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, we learn about several Old Latin manuscripts that reportedly preserve or reference the Comma Johanneum. These include:
- Codex Monacensis 64
- Speculum (often attributed to Augustine, but it is essentially a 5th-century anthology of biblical citations)
- Codex Colbertinus
- Codex Demidovianus
- Codex Divionensis
- Codex Perpinianensis
Each of these manuscripts may not have the exact same wording for 1 John 5:7, yet they share a distinct pattern: a reference to three that bear witness in heaven (the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit) and three that bear witness on earth. Such a pattern is absent in Greek manuscripts widely adopted by modern critical editions of the New Testament. The existence of these Old Latin copies suggests that a large swath of the Western church indeed circulated a text of 1 John matching the Comma Johanneum.
2.2 Variations in the Old Latin Tradition
While the Old Latin tradition is robust, it is also diverse. Pappas stresses in In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7 that even among these manuscripts, some variance exists—occasional differences in wording, sometimes references to “in Christ Jesus” added at the end, and other small expansions. Nonetheless, the underlying testimony is consistent about the presence of a heavenly trio.
For critics, the fact that these Old Latin sources are relatively late (ranging mostly from the 6th to 13th centuries in surviving forms) poses a challenge; they argue the Comma might have sneaked in before our earliest extant Old Latin codices. But Maynard reminds us that textual lineages often represent copies of much earlier exemplars. The date of a surviving manuscript is not necessarily the date of its text. If a 6th-century Old Latin codex is shown paleographically or textually to reflect a second- or third-century archetype, that strongly suggests that the reading (including 1 John 5:7) is older than the manuscript.
3. Jerome’s Vulgate and the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles
3.1 Jerome’s Commission and the Formation of the Vulgate
In the late fourth century, Pope Damasus I commissioned Jerome (c. 347–420 AD) to produce a standardized Latin Bible—what eventually became known as the Vulgate. Jerome undertook this endeavor in part because the Old Latin versions displayed wide variations, and the western church needed a singular reliable standard. According to both Pappas and Maynard, the question of whether Jerome originally included the Comma Johanneum in his “official” Vulgate is monumental for Comma defenders.
3.2 Jerome’s Prologue to the Catholic Epistles
In In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7, Pappas devotes considerable space to Jerome’s “Prologue to the Catholic Epistles.” Often overlooked in modern editions, this prologue accuses certain unfaithful translators of omitting key texts. Jerome writes that in his revision work, he noticed discrepancies in the transmission of 1 John, implying some manuscripts lacked a full account of the text. Comma advocates interpret Jerome’s statement as an indication he found the heavenly witnesses missing in some Greek copies yet preserved in the Latin tradition—hence, he restored it. Conversely, critics challenge the authenticity of that prologue or suggest Jerome only vaguely referred to general textual corruptions.
Nevertheless, Maynard underscores that Jerome’s Vulgate, as it evolved over the following centuries, typically includes 1 John 5:7, albeit with some manuscript-based variations. By the early medieval period, the Vulgate became the dominant Bible of Western Europe. That broad usage meant the Comma was read and taught as part of sacred Scripture for centuries. While some later scholars (especially from the 16th century onward) disputed its originality, within Latin Christianity the Comma enjoyed canonical status, partly because Jerome’s authority was nearly unimpeachable.
3.3 Did Jerome Omit or Reintroduce the Comma?
A point of contention is whether Jerome himself might have omitted the Comma initially, only to see it reinserted by later scribes. In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7 addresses the argument that the earliest surviving Vulgate copies allegedly lack the Comma, with it appearing in marginal notes or in subsequent revisions. Pappas retorts that Jerome’s so-called “original” Vulgate is not something we actually possess as a single autographic volume. Instead, we have multiple streams of the Vulgate, many of which show the Comma as part of 1 John from an early stage.
Maynard also weighs in, suggesting that if Jerome objected to its omission in certain Greek witnesses, it stands to reason he might have championed its inclusion, especially in the Western church where the Old Latin tradition already recognized it. Regardless of whether Jerome personally penned the Comma into his earliest Latin edition, it’s clear that subsequent manuscripts bearing his name typically included the verse. By the Middle Ages, any question about 1 John 5:7 being part of Scripture was overshadowed by near-universal acceptance in the Latin West—one of the reasons it was unchallenged for so long.
4. Carthaginian Councils and Ecclesiastical Usage
4.1 The Council of Carthage (484 AD)
Though not as famous as the Council of Nicaea (325 AD) or Chalcedon (451 AD), the Council of Carthage in 484 AD is particularly noted in the writings of Fulgentius of Ruspe, Victor of Vita, and others. Michael Maynard, in A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8, recounts how this North African council was summoned in the midst of conflicts with Vandal rulers who professed Arian beliefs. The Comma Johanneum, referencing the unity of “the Father, the Word, and the Spirit,” became a theological weapon used against Arian teachings that denied the full co-equality of the Son with the Father.
That the Comma was explicitly cited or alluded to in the context of an official council underscores its ecclesiastical authority in Latin-speaking regions. Some scholars, noting that many Greek bishops and texts of the period do not invoke the Comma, suggest it might have been a peculiarity of the Western tradition. But In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7 counters that widespread Western usage is strong evidence that the verse was already well established in Latin manuscripts, particularly those that derived from earlier Old Latin lines.
4.2 Liturgical and Confessional Usage
Beyond councils, the Old Latin tradition’s presence of 1 John 5:7 also found expression in liturgical readings, sermons, and confessional statements throughout the medieval West. In various treatises (such as those by Cassiodorus and Isidore of Seville), the Comma often emerges as a standard proof text for Trinitarian doctrine. Maynard points out that the repeated ecclesiastical usage indicates the verse was not a minor or fringe reading; it was integral to the theological identity of the Latin Church.
Such usage probably helped entrench the Comma in the Vulgate tradition, ensuring that generations of theologians, priests, and eventually Protestant reformers inherited a text that firmly contained 1 John 5:7. When the Reformation era arrived, debates over Scripture’s purity naturally involved defending or challenging the Comma, yet for the majority of Latin-based Bibles, it remained uncontroversial—at least initially.
5. Responding to Skepticism About the Latin Evidence
5.1 “Late Manuscripts” Objection
One primary objection is that the extant Old Latin manuscripts with the Comma are not dated as early as the oldest Greek codices (like Sinaiticus, c. 350, or Vaticanus, c. 325). Critics thus claim the Greek omission is more authoritative. Both C. H. Pappas and Michael Maynard caution against conflating the date of physical manuscripts with the provenance of their text. Old Latin codices typically represent a text that could be far older than the parchment or vellum on which they were finally copied.
Moreover, many scholars acknowledge that the Greek manuscripts tradition may have suffered various omissions or editorial adjustments—some accidental, some intentional. The Latin tradition, being semi-independent, may well preserve authentic readings lost in certain Greek lines. This is not unheard-of in textual criticism: sometimes a version (like the Syriac or Latin) preserves a reading older than all surviving Greek manuscripts.
5.2 “Interpolation for Trinitarian Controversies” Claim
Another critique asserts that 1 John 5:7 was interpolated into the Latin Bible to combat Arianism or other heresies, artificially buttressing the doctrine of the Trinity. However, both Pappas and Maynard document that the verse appears to have existed in Old Latin lines before Arianism took firm hold in the Latin West. While the Comma was indeed handy in anti-Arian polemics, its presence cannot be wholly explained as a later polemical invention. The repeated references by earlier figures—like Cyprian (3rd century), Priscillian (4th century), and the wide Old Latin tradition—point toward its existence prior to major theological controversies of the 5th century.
5.3 “Marginal Gloss” Argument
Opponents sometimes argue that the Comma began life as a marginal gloss or an exegetical comment that scribes mistakenly inserted into the main text. They suggest medieval scribes conflated theological commentary with the scriptural text. In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7 rebuts that to become so thoroughly embedded in the Old Latin textual tradition, a marginal note would have had to be universally accepted, across diverse regions and scriptoriums—a scenario that seems improbable. More typically, marginal or interlinear glosses result in varied additions, partial placements, or scattered acceptance. The strong uniformity of the Comma in many Old Latin witnesses, and its usage by councils and theologians, undermines the notion that it was just an accidental insertion.
6. A Broader Perspective on the Old Latin Evidence
6.1 Did the Comma Originate in the West?
The notion that the Comma Johanneum was unique to the West has long circulated in textual criticism. If indeed it originated in the West, one might expect Greek-speaking Eastern churches to omit it. This is roughly consistent with the fact that many Eastern manuscripts do not contain the Comma. However, even if it first gained ascendancy in the West, that does not necessarily make it a “spurious addition.” Early transmission could have allowed for a reading to flourish in the Western provinces based on a Greek archetype now lost or overshadowed by later Greek textual lineages in the East.
Maynard underscores that textual transmission in Late Antiquity was not as centralized or systematic as one might think. Church fathers like Jerome complained about the wide divergence of manuscripts, and local scriptoriums might have had older readings that never circulated widely across the Empire. This historical environment creates a plausible scenario where an originally authentic reading remained robust in Old Latin lines while diminishing in some Greek lines.
6.2 The Internal Consistency Argument
Proponents of the Comma also argue that 1 John 5:6–8 reads more smoothly when the Comma is included, particularly in its Latin textual form. The shift from masculine to neuter pronouns, for instance, is more intelligible if the text references “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit” in verse 7 (masculine) and “the Spirit, the water, and the blood” in verse 8 (more neutral forms). In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7 notes that the passage becomes grammatically and theologically coherent with the Comma, hinting that older Latin translators were likely reflecting an original Greek structure of the text.
Critics respond that grammar alone cannot override a lack of Greek manuscript support. But the Latin grammar argument adds a second dimension: if these Old Latin translators encountered a Greek exemplar that supported the Comma in a grammatically fitting way, then the reading’s antiquity is more credible than if it were a forced insertion.
7. The Role of the Old Latin in Later Developments
7.1 Transition to the Middle Ages
By the end of the patristic era, Latin had solidified as the liturgical and scholarly language of the Western Church. Countless medieval manuscripts reinforced the presence of 1 John 5:7, including monastic copies and scholastic references. This meant that when the Renaissance brought renewed interest in classical languages, and Erasmus began his work on the printed Greek New Testament (early 16th century), a sharp contrast arose between the Latin evidence he knew (which contained the Comma) and the few Greek manuscripts he initially consulted (some lacking it). Many are aware of the well-known controversy regarding Erasmus and 1 John 5:7, but the roots of that controversy trace back to the Old Latin tradition’s unwavering transmission of the verse.
7.2 Influence on Protestant Translations
Significantly, the Old Latin-based Vulgate eventually shaped the textual choices of the Reformers, especially Luther in Germany (though Luther’s primary textual influences were Greek editions, he was familiar with the Vulgate tradition) and the translators of the King James Version in England. A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 details how early printed Greek New Testaments compiled by Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza wound up including 1 John 5:7 under the impetus of persistent Latin support and the presence of a handful of Greek codices that eventually surfaced. Over time, this shaped the so-called Textus Receptus, used by the KJV translators—thus ensuring that the Comma Johanneum entered the mainstream of Protestant Bibles for centuries.
Had the Old Latin tradition not been so consistent in transmitting 1 John 5:7, the verse might have long disappeared from the Western consciousness before the Reformation. Instead, the ongoing reliance on Latin manuscripts guaranteed that, for a large portion of church history, the Comma was as normative as any other part of 1 John.
8. Conclusion
Investigating the Old Latin manuscripts and early Latin versions of the Bible reveals that the Comma Johanneum enjoyed a firm foothold in Western Christianity from at least the third or fourth centuries onward. Scholars like C. H. Pappas (in In Defense of the Authenticity of 1 John 5:7) and Michael Maynard (in A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8) demonstrate that references to the Comma frequently appear in Old Latin codices, in ecclesiastical proceedings (e.g., at the Council of Carthage), and in the mainstream Vulgate tradition.
Far from being a minor or late addition, the Comma occupies a central role in Latin biblical heritage, shaping Trinitarian debates, liturgical practices, and theological formulations. While modern critical scholars often point to the absence of this reading in the earliest surviving Greek witnesses, the Old Latin tradition shows that the Comma was neither obscure nor universally absent in the ancient church. On the contrary, it had ample acceptance among Latin-speaking Christians, who read 1 John as testifying to a threefold witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.
Certainly, questions remain. The manuscript trail for Old Latin codices can be labyrinthine, and some of these codices were written centuries after the apostolic age. Yet textual history consistently reveals that a manuscript’s date does not necessarily reflect the date of its textual tradition. Many Old Latin copies evidently reproduce readings from earlier archetypes, plausibly linking back to a time when Latin was a new language for believers stretching from North Africa to Iberia.
The abiding challenge for textual critics is how best to weigh these Western, Latin witnesses against the Greek evidence that omits the Comma. C. H. Pappas argues that internal evidence (such as grammar and context), along with Jerome’s remarks, tilts the balance toward accepting the Old Latin’s testimony. Meanwhile, Michael Maynard reminds us that patristic usage, especially from figures like Priscillian, Cyprian, and Fulgentius, reaffirms that the Comma cannot be dismissed as a trivial gloss. Its usage permeates the very core of Western theological tradition, surfacing in councils, confessions, and biblical readings for over a millennium.
Looking ahead, any modern defender of 1 John 5:7 must grapple seriously with the Old Latin tradition as a foundational pillar in the Comma’s defense. The argument extends beyond counting Greek manuscripts into analyzing how early the verse appeared in Western versions and how integral it became to the Christian witness for the Trinity. Whether one accepts or rejects the Comma’s authenticity, the Old Latin manuscripts stand as a clear reminder that the history of the text is not merely the story of Alexandrian or Byzantine Greek codices, but also of Latin translations that shaped the faith of a major portion of the early and medieval church.
In subsequent discussions, we will see how this Latin legacy dovetails with the Reformation era and later controversies, culminating in the textual battles of the 19th and 20th centuries. For now, the Old Latin tradition confirms that 1 John 5:7 was deeply embedded in Western Christian consciousness—enough so that neither time, theological disputes, nor textual criticism could easily uproot it from the hearts and minds of countless believers.
