1 John 5:7-8 Comma Johanneum – Hessian State Library, Codex Bonifatianus I, or Codex Fuldensis, (circa. 6th century C.E.) – Ps-Jerome Prologue to the Catholic or Canonical Epistles : Part 1.

 

NOTE: This Blog post has been edited and updated a few times (latest 03/03/20) since it’s original posting. There will be another post in the future, with information gathered since, which is not below.

As mentioned earlier. We are coming back to the “Prologue” to the “Canonical Epistles” in the Codex Fuldensis.

( F ) = Codex Fuldensis, (circa. 6^th century C.E.), officially known as Hessian State Library, Codex Bonifatianus I, also known as the: “Victor Codex.” A Latin Vulgate New Testament manuscript.

Folios 443r, Page 869, 443v, Page 870, 434r, Page 871 = “Epistulae Canonice Prologus.”

Folio 463r, Page 929 = 1^st John 5:7-8, Comma-J excluded.

I think I’ve discovered something, that I really want to share with you. It’s in regards to a passage about the Comma Johanneum mentioned within the “Catholic Epistles” Prologue, generally attributed to the Pseudo-works of Jerome in the Codex Fuldensis.

First images of the Prologue from the manuscript itself.

[ “Inc Epistulae Canonice Inc Prologus” ] Prologue to the Canonical Epistles begins on Folio 869:443r

https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN325289808/869/

Continues on Folio 870:433v

https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN325289808/870/

Ends on Folio 871:434r

https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/object/PPN325289808/871/

Below are two paged images, single-page images, then a zoomed-in image of the main text of the Prologue:

 

 

 

 

The main text of the Prologue without the title heading:

Now, let’s take a closer look at what’s in the Latin text.

First the heading to the Prologue, “Epistulae Canonice Prologus” which is believed to be (with degrees of certainty) a handwritten note from Victor Caupa himself:

Now here’s the same image with Ernst Franke’s Latin transcription above:

Codex Fuldensis: Novum Testamentum latine interprete Hieronymo By Ernst Ranke (1868) = Prologue Pages 398-399:

https://archive.org/details/codexfuldensisn00rankgoog/page/n430

Now let’s have a close up look at the Prologue text.

Page 1 of the Prologue, Folio 433v:

Page 2 of the Prologue, Folio 434r:

For reference and comparison, here are some key printed texts of the Prologue below.

 

PLEASE NOTE: At this date, I’m waiting for the critical text of the Stuttgart Vulgate to arrive from a friend. Hopefully, if it contains the text of the Prologue and a critical apparatus, I will add it later to this post. [UPDATE (03/03/20) there are other even more detailed (and important) printed texts that have been kindly pointed out to me by Hugh Houghton, that will be part of, and the subject of another post.].

 

Ernst Ranke’s text:

Codex Fuldensis: Novum Testamentum latine interprete Hieronymo By Ernst Ranke (1868) = Prologue Pages 398-399:

https://archive.org/details/codexfuldensisn00rankgoog/page/n430

Migne’s text:

MPL, Vol. 29, Col. 865-874

https://archive.org/details/patrologiaecurs121unkngoog/page/n433

http://www.mlat.uzh.ch/MLS/xanfang.php?tabelle=Hieronymus_Stridonensis_Incertus_cps2&corpus=2&allow_download=0&lang=0

Chapman’s text:

Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels,” By J. Chapman (1908) = Prologue Pages 262-263:

https://archive.org/details/NotesOnTheEarlyHistoryOfTheVulgate/page/n278

Now going back quite a bit, here’s an older printed text of the Prologue, which will become relevant later in the post.

Complutensian Polyglot 1514-1517

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complutensian_Polyglot_Bible

So you may be asking: What’s so remarkable about that?

We know what the Prologue says in the Codex Fuldensis about the Comma Johanneum! – Don’t we? It says that unfaithful translators “omitted” the Comma!

Right!

Wrong!

Ranke (published 1868), Migne (MPL volumes published 1856-61), and Chapman’s (published 1908) text’s have all been wrong for over a hundred years on one crucial word!

What’s that? = Latin: “omittentes”, in the phrase: “testimonium omittentes”.

Ranke (Page 399):

Migne (Vol. 29, Col. 872-873):

Chapman (Page 263):

 

What I think I’ve discovered (and I must say I’m flabbergasted that no one appears to have noticed this) which has no reference in any literature whatsoever (at least – that I’m aware of) is that: “testimonium omittentes” is not what the Codex Fuldensis actually says in that particular sentence, in that particular phrase!

So, what does that Codex really say?

See for yourself.

Here’s a close up look at Page 2 of the Prologue’s main text, Folio 434r, looking at the beginning of the fourth line from the top, on the left hand side:

A little closer yet again:

Notice the difference?

Does it say: “omittentes” with a single “m” and beginning with an “o”?

No, it doesn’t!

It says:

It says, Latin: “committentes”! (Plural, present, active, participle of Latin “committo”). Beginning with a: “c” and a double: “m”.

There’s more:

It’s followed by a Scribal mark of some sort.

It’s faded, but visible when zoomed in on (Ernst Ranke picked up on it!).

It is also followed by a larger sized “I” (the text is all in uncial script) in the phrase: “In quo” which follows.

Does “In quo” begin a new sentence? Therefore a separate thought by the author (whoever that may have been)? I don’t know for certain, but it seems some sort of thought break/change is indicated.

In the English translations below (with the exception of Wordsworth), there appears to be no sentence break or thought change here (as is indicated clearly in the manuscript). They take the two separate sentences as one continuous sentence.

Here are four examples in English:

“In this I found translators (or copyists) widely deviating from the truth; who set down in their own edition the names only of the three witnesses, that is, the Water, Blood, and Spirit; but omit the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; by which, above all places, the Divinity of the father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is proved to be one.” – (Ben David, trans., 1826)

 

“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.” – (Wordsworth, White and Sparks, trans., 1889-1954)

 

“In which we find many things to be mistaken of the truth of the faith by the unfaithful translators, who put down in their own edition only three words, that is, Water, Blood, and Spirit, and  who omit the witness of the Father and Word and Spirit, by which both the Catholic faith is greatly strengthened and also the one substance of the Divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is proved.” – (Kevin Edgecome, trans., 2006)

 

“Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested.” – (Thomas Caldwell, trans., 2010)

 

Download OpenOffice Word processor file with parallel Latin texts of Ranke, Migne, Chapman alongside four English translations from the link below:

Vul Prol Paralell Lat-Eng

 

All have one continuous sentence.

Such translators (IMO) were just following the printed editions of the text (mostly Ernst Ranke). So, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. They did this in good faith. So, I don’t blame them at all.

So what does all this mean?

What’s the big deal?

Well, the English translations, upon which the majority of people rely on to make an informed decision about the Comma Johanneum (from now on CJ) are not as accurate as they could be (Jerome himself might possibly say: “unfaithful” to the text – at least in this particular part of the text). They do not fully convey the very original sense of the Fuldensis text (which is the principal manuscript for Latin critical texts).

 

NOTE TO THE TRANSLATORS: This is not a personal criticism of the translators’ work. Most of them are a good translation of the texts they had available. According to my research, limited knowledge, and resources, it appears that not even Erasmus, or Sir Issac Newton (in his famous work: “Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture”) were aware of this reading. This makes for a new area of research that shows the Latin text (with the flow-on effect to the English texts) need’s revising (IMO).

 

The sense intended by the original author has therefore been obscured by later Scribal interference!

So the question needs to be asked, if: “testimoniu[m] committentes” was the original reading instead of: “testimoniu[m] omittentes,” then what does this part of the Prologue really mean?

One thing is certain according to the original text – it does not actually say in Latin: “omit” or “omitting”! And that’s a big deal when it comes to the Comma Johanneum!

But if only that was all there was to it!

If only it was a single variant in the Codex Fuldensis.

It isn’t.

It goes much deeper than this. It’s by no means a single variant in an isolated manuscript.

What I have found (just so far) in my research shows, that (IMO at least) Latin: “committentes” was most likely the original reading of the Canonical Epistles Vulgate Prologue (from now on CE-Vul-Prol, or CE-Prol), not: “omittentes”, and that (like the CJ itself) there is a clear pattern that emerges in the Vulgate MSS of tampering and erasure of the original reading.

Here are some examples of tampering and erasure of the original reading, that I’ve found so far.

Please note that not all Vulgate MSS have a CE-Prol in them. Also, there are no known Vulgate MSS (known to still exist) that have the CE-Prol in them dating from the Seventh-century C.E.

So, let’s have a look at MSS from the 8th-century onwards.

 

8th century C.E. Vulgate Manuscripts

 

BnF Latin ms. 8847 (circa 8^th-9^th century A.D.)

Folio 144r = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “omittentes” with “c” and the second: “m” erased, but still visible.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8438679t/f297.item.zoom

Folio 148r = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma J.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8438679t/f305.item.zoom

 

 

BnF, Latin ms. 11505 (circa 8^th-9^th century A.D.)

Folio 206r = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “omittentes” with “c” erased, but still visible.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426780x/f417.item.zoom

Folio 211v = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma J.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426780x/f428.item.zoom

 

 

BnF Latin ms. 9380 [Codex Theodulphianus] (circa 8^th-9^th century A.D.)

NOTE: This a revision of the Vulgate.

Folio 305r = Prologue (Anonymous), reads: “testimonium omittentes” with two dots above “o” in “omittentes” where “c” would be. This might show the Scribe was aware of the reading (or it could be merely coincidental).

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452776m/f615.image.r=Latin%209380

Folio 308r = 1 John 5:7, is Comma-J inclusive. Text reads: “Filius” instead of “Verbum”.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452776m/f621.item.r=Latin%209380.zoom

 

 

Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana B.25II [Codex Iuvenianus, Codex Vallicellianus] (circa. 8^th-9^th century A.D.)

Folio 45r = Prologue (Anonymous). This manuscript definitely has a marginal Notae right beside: “omittentes”.

http://www.internetculturale.it/jmms/iccuviewer/iccu.jsp?id=oai%3Awww.internetculturale.sbn.it%2FTeca%3A20%3ANT0000%3ACNMD%5C%5C0000016423

Folio 58v = 1 John begins

http://www.internetculturale.it/jmms/iccuviewer/iccu.jsp?id=oai%3Awww.internetculturale.sbn.it%2FTeca%3A20%3ANT0000%3ACNMD%5C%5C0000016423

Folio 62r-62v = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J.

http://www.internetculturale.it/jmms/iccuviewer/iccu.jsp?id=oai%3Awww.internetculturale.sbn.it%2FTeca%3A20%3ANT0000%3ACNMD%5C%5C0000016423

 

9th century C.E. Manuscripts

 

 

St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 75 (circa. 9^th century A.D.)

Folio 769 = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “omittentes” with “c” erased, but still visible.

https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0075/769

Folio 778 = 1st John 5:7-8, no Comma J.

https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0075/778

 

 

London, British Library, MS Add. 10546, (circa. 9^th century A.D.)

Folios 402r-403v = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “committentes”. No signs of tampering.

https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_10546_f001r

Folio 406v = 1 John begins

https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_10546_f001r

Folio 407r = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J.

https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_10546_f001r

 

 

London, British Library, MS Add. 11852 [Codex Ulmensis] (circa 9^th century A.D.)

http://www.stgallplan.org/stgallmss/viewItem.do?ark=p21198-zz002971c4

NOTE: This is possibly a Hartmut revision of the Vulgate.

Folio 168v = Prologue number one (Anonymous), incomplete.

http://www.stgallplan.org/stgallmss/viewItem.do?ark=p21198-zz002971c4&pageArk=p21198-zz00297f1r&xmlstylesheet=TEITranscription.xsl&fileId

Folio 169r = Prologue two (attrib. Jerome) begins.

http://www.stgallplan.org/stgallmss/viewItem.do?ark=p21198-zz002971c4&pageArk=p21198-zz00297f1r&xmlstylesheet=TEITranscription.xsl&fileId

Folio 169v = Prologue two continues over page and reads: “omitentes” (single: “m” single: “t”) with the “c” still visible but erased.

http://www.stgallplan.org/stgallmss/viewItem.do?ark=p21198-zz002971c4&pageArk=p21198-zz00297f1r&xmlstylesheet=TEITranscription.xsl&fileId

Folio 183v = 1 John begins

http://www.stgallplan.org/stgallmss/viewItem.do?ark=p21198-zz002971c4&pageArk=p21198-zz00297g2r&xmlstylesheet=TEITranscription.xsl&fileId

Folio 187v = 1 John 5:7-8, has Comma-J with the comparative variant of: “Sicut in caelo tres sunt” (“just like/as there is/are three in heaven” etc).

http://www.stgallplan.org/stgallmss/viewItem.do?ark=p21198-zz002971c4&pageArk=p21198-zz00297gbw&xmlstylesheet=TEITranscription.xsl&fileId

 

 

London, British Library, MS Add. 24142 (circa 9^th-10^th century A.D.)

NOTE: This is a revision by Theodolf of the Vulgate.

Folio 247r-247v = Prologue (Anonymous) reads “omittentes” with no signs of tampering.

http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_24142_f247r

Folio = The manuscript breaks off at 1 Peter 4:3.

https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_24142_fs001r

 

 

BnF Latin ms. 1 (circa 9^th century A.D.)

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8455903b

Folio 377v = Prologue (Anonymous [marginalia possibly refers to Jerome]) reads: “testimonium omittentes” with the “c” erased yet clearly visible, and a marginal note right beside this part of the text about the Comma-J.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8455903b/f762.image

Marginal note:

Folio 382r = John 5:7-8, no Comma-J.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8455903b/f771.item.zoom

 

BNF, Latin ms. 2 (circa. 9^th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 407v = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “omittentes” no obvious signs of erasure.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452767n/f824.item

Folio 411v = 1 John begins

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452767n/f832.item

Folio 412v = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452767n/f834.item.zoom

 

BnF Latin ms. 3 (circa. 9^th century [A.D.] C.E.)

Folio 353v = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “comittentes” with no signs of tampering.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426789n/f712.item.zoom

Folio 357r = 1 John begins

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426789n/f719.item

Folio 357v = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426789n/f720.item

 

 

BnF Latin ms. 4, (circa. 9^th century A.D.)

Folio 152v = Prologue (Anonymous [a later corrector’s hand attributes to Jerome]) reads: “testimonium ommittentes” with the: “o” in different colored ink to the rest of the word. Above the “o” is an erased: “o” showing “c” must have been in the main text originally. There is heavy signs of erasure all around this part of the text.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84546957/f308.item.zoom

Folio 157v = 1 John 5:7-8, has half of vs 7 erased completely, with an adjacent marginal note with the Comma-J in a later hand with the vairant: “sanguis, aqua, & caro”.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84546957/f318.item.zoom

 

 

BnF Latin ms. 47 (circa. 9^th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 141v = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “comittentes”

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84267909/f290.item

Folio 146v = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J, but marginalia with CJ.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84267909/f300.item.zoom

 

 

BnF Latin ms. 111 (circa. 9^th century [A.D.] C.E.)

Folio 122r = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “omittentes” with “c” clearly erased.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426292d/f251.item.zoom

Folio 125r = 1 John begins

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426292d/f257.item.zoom

Folio 126r = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J, yet has: “[et (?)] terra” extending out into the margin in darker ink, with erasure and evident signs of tampering in this text.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426292d/f259.item.zoom

 

 

BnF Latin ms. 250 (circa. 9^th century [A.D.] C.E.)

Folio 61v = Prologue (attrib. to Jerome) reads: “ommittentes” with “c” erased but clearly visible.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84267887/f132.item.zoom

Folio 65v = 1 John begins

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84267887/f140.item.zoom

Folio 66v = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J, but a scribal Notae in the margin.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b84267887/f142.item.zoom

 

 

BNF Latin ms. 13174 (circa. 9^th century C.E. [A.D.])

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8427447k.r=Latin%2013174?rk=21459;2

Folio 72v = Prologue (attrib. to Jerome) bottom line mentions Johns Epistle

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8427447k/f153.item.r=Latin%2013174.zoom

Folio 72r = Prologue continues, reads: “omittentes” with: “c” and: “m” erased but visible where they were.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8427447k/f154.item.r=Latin%2013174.zoom

Folio 92r = 1 John begins

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8427447k/f193.item.r=Latin%2013174.zoom

Folio 98r = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J in main text, but has Notae, and: “in t[e]r[r]a” above line. Comma-J is written in a marginal note by a later hand.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8427447k/f205.item.r=Latin%2013174.zoom

Folio 139v = three Patristic citations of the CJ. On the same folio I noticed two Pater Noster (aka: “the Lord’s Prayer” literally the: “Our Father” Prayer from Matt. 6:9) references, one of them in very faded ink along side differing variants of the CJ. The Pater Noster references might be an older text than the CJ variants. The Pater Noster in this case, might have acted as a switch, or trigger (mentioned in Grantley McDonald’s “Raising the Ghost of Arius,” Page 38). Matt. 6:9 according to Jerome’s Vulgate reads: “in caelis,” which is very close to: “in caelo” from the CJ. This might have triggered thoughts (i.e. activated the switch from one to the other) about the CJ (or perhaps vice versa) that Grantley McDonald has very astutely observed.

 

 

Bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims. Ms. 2 (circa 9^th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 163v = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “omittentes” with: “c” clearly erased.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8449583z/f330.item

Folio 167v = 1 John begins, and note on 1 John 5:7-8 (no CJ).

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8449583z/f338.item.zoom

Folio 168v = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J. But marginalia with CJ cut in half on edge of page.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8449583z/f340.item.zoom

 

 

Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek, Msc. Bibl. 1. [formerly A.I.5] (circa 9^th century A.D.)

Folio 392r = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “omittentes” with: “c” erased yet still visible.

Folio 396r = 1 John begins

Folio 397r = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J.

https://zendsbb.digitale-sammlungen.de/db/0000/sbb00000032/images/

 

 

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 185 (circa. 9^th century A.D. [C.E.])

https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbhs/content/zoom/2290270

Folio 77v = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “committentes” with a spelling correction for “t”.

https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbhs/content/zoom/2290425

Folio 86r = 1 John begins

Folio 87v = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J, but very messy text with corrections abounding.

https://digital.blb-karlsruhe.de/blbhs/content/zoom/2290445

 

 

Codex Fulda. Aa 11 (circa. 9^th century C.E.)

Folio 257 = Prologue (attrib. to Jerome) reads: “omittentes” with no signs of correction.

Folio 262v = 1 John 5:7-8, has Comma-J with the comparative variant of: “Sicut in caelo tres sunt” (“just like/as there is/are three in heaven” etc).

https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN314753974/1/LOG_0003/

 

 

St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 63 (circa. 9^th century A.D. [C.E.])

Folio 245 = Prologue (attrib. to Jerome) reads: “omittentes” with gaps in the word and signs of heavy correction and/or erasure surrounding that part of the text.

https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0063//245

Folio 277 = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J in main text, but a Notae pointing to marginalia at bottom of page with the comparative variant: “Sicut in caelo tres sunt Pater & Verbu[m] & Sp[iritum] S[an]c[tum] & tres unum sunt” (“just like/as there is/are three in heaven” etc).

https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0063//277

https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/description/csg/0063/Scherrer

 

10th century C.E. Vulgate manuscripts containing the CE-Prol.

 

Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 9 (circa. 10^th century C.E.)

Folio 303v = Prologue (Anonymous [added in a different/later hand attrib. Jerome]) reads: “omittentes” with: “c” erased and still visible.

https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/bbb/A0009/303v

Folio 307r = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J, but a later ahnd has put: “in t[e]r[r]a” above the line, and a scribal Notae pointing to bottom marginalia which has the Comma-J “& Filius” varriant.

https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/bbb/A0009/307r/0/Sequence-44

 

 

BnF Latin ms. 6 [Codex Rodensis] (circa 10^th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 67v = Prologue (attrib. to Jerome), reads: “comittetes” with what appears to be a spelling mistake.

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8538814d/f140.item.zoom

Folio 73r = 1 John 5:7-8, no Comma-J. But has a marginal note containing the standard CJ.

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8538814d/f151.item.zoom

 

 

Cava de’ Trirrenei, Biblioteca statle del Monumento nazionale della Abbazia Benedettina della Ss. Trinita, Codices Cavenses, Cod. 1 Biblio Sacra [Codex Cavensis] (circa. 10^th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 273r = Prologue (attrib. to Jerome) reads: “conmittentes” with the alternative spelling  “n” (comp. Toletanus).

http://www.internetculturale.it/jmms/iccuviewer/iccu.jsp?id=oai%3Awww.internetculturale.sbn.it%2FTeca%3A20%3ANT0000%3ACNMD0000204849&mode=all&teca=MagTeca+-+ICCU&viewType=onepage&mediaType=image&objectIndex=557

Folio 276v = 1 John 5:7-8, has Comma-J. Variant reading: “in Christ Jesus” (comp. Toletanus).

http://www.internetculturale.it/jmms/iccuviewer/iccu.jsp?id=oai%3Awww.internetculturale.sbn.it%2FTeca%3A20%3ANT0000%3ACNMD0000204849&mode=all&teca=MagTeca+-+ICCU&viewType=onepage&mediaType=image&objectIndex=557

 

 

Toledo, Catedral, Biblioteca del Cabildo, 35–8 [Codex Toletanus] (circa 10^th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 352 (700 PDF) = Prologue (attrib. to Jerome) reads: “conmittentes” also with an: “n” (comp. Cavensis).

http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000022964

Folio 355 (707 PDF) = 1^st John starts:

http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000022964

Folio 357 (710 PDF) = 1^st John 5:7-8, has Comma-J. Variant reading: “in Christ Jesus” (comp. Cavensis).

http://bdh-rd.bne.es/viewer.vm?id=0000022964

 

11th century Vulgate manuscripts

 

From the 11th century on-wards Latin: “omittentes”, plus slight variants such as: “omittens,” or as in one 12th century Ms: “omittentibus”, become the more consistent reading. So I’m not going to bother posting all of these (takes so much time).

 

12th century Vulgate manuscripts

 

Vatican Manuscript-Arch.Cap.S.Pietro.A.1 (circa. 12^th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 373r = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “comittentes”.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Arch.Cap.S.Pietro.A.1

Folio 379r = has Comma-J

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Arch.Cap.S.Pietro.A.1

 

 

British Library, Harley, MS 2834 (circa. 12^th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 215r = Prologue (Anonymous) reads: “omitten-tibus”.

https://manuscrits-france-angleterre.org/view3if/pl/ark:/81055/vdc_100059312949.0x000001/f435

Folio 221r = has Comma-J.

https://manuscrits-france-angleterre.org/view3if/pl/ark:/81055/vdc_100059312949.0x000001/f446

 

13th century Vulgate manuscripts

 

 

 

14th century Vulgate manuscripts

 

 

 

15th century Vulgate manuscripts

 

 

16th century Vulgate manuscripts

 

I randomly looked at a 16th century manuscript (I didn’t think any MS after the advent of printing would still have the original reading) but remarkably one still has the reading: “comittentes”. There might be other late manuscripts with this reading, but it’s the oldest ones that are the most important.

 

Vat. Lat. 4221 (circa. 16^th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 148r = Prologue (attrib. to Jerome) reads: “comittentes”.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.4221

Folio 152r = 1 John begins.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.4221

Folio 153r = 1 John 5:7-8, has Comma-J.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.lat.4221

 

Please bear in mind that my research is not exhaustive (by any means).

It appears that although some of the big players in the CJ-controversy must have had access to Vulgate manuscripts (men such as Erasmus, Sir Issac Newton, and their Pro-CJ opponents, etc), yet from what I can find, (among English writers at least) they:

1. Do not appear to have published anything on this reading, or
2. Were not aware of it.

When I searched online for the phrase: “testimonium committentes” nothing came up from manuscripts themselves. Some will scoff at this, but I used Steven Avery’s extensive online “Pure-Bible Forum” bibliography’s (S. Avery is a Pro-CJ and KJV-Only advocate) about the CJ-controversy. Though partially useful, I found no reference at all to this reading, by Avery, Maynard, or anyone else [NOTE: (03/03/20) I am now aware by his comments below, that he has since read this post] either Pro-CJ or against CJ.

In modern times (to my current knowledge at least) Daniel Wallace, Hugh Houghton, Grantley McDonald, Bruce Metzeger, Brown, Walter Thiele, say (or said – Thiele and Metzeger now disceased) nothing about this reading. So, unless someone kindly brings something to my attention that I’ve missed, I (for the time being at least) conclude that they were not aware of it [NOTE: (03/03/20) Since publishing this post I have had personal correspondence with some of these, and one of them (Hugh Houghton) was aware of this reading (will comment on this in a new Blog post later). Some were not aware of the above “commitentes” Fuldensis reading (and the other CE-Prol manuscripts) until I brought it to their attention].

The older writers (Newton etc) only appear to know: “testimonium omittentibus” in the CE-Prol. Below are some random examples from a Google search:

Lastly, in addition to all of the above, please remember that there is a real:

1. textual incompatibility and
2. logical discrepency

In the Codex Fuldensis – if – Jerome was the original author of both the Prologue and the Vulgate reading itself. For there is no Comma Johanneum in this manuscript at 1 John 5:7-8! Also, there are no marginal comments by the original writer (i.e. Victor Caupa), or any Latin Scribal Notae, by medieval Correctors in this manuscript beside/at 1 John 5:6-8.

Take a look!

1^st John 5:7-8 Codex Fuldensis = Folio 929:463r

http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/fullscreen/PPN325289808/929/

http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN325289808/929/

A little closer:

Oh wait, there is one exception, but of no textual value at all. Someone in recent times with a pencil has written in modern English: (7a) possibly corrected to (7v) [i.e. seventh “verse”], and a little further down has also written (8) with the brackets.

 

 

These have no more textual value than if I was to wright them tomorrow in the Fuldensis.

So again (to make the point) there is a real:

1. textual incompatibility and
2. logical discrepency

In the Codex Fuldensis (thee oldest known extant Ms., of the Vulgate) – if – Jerome was the publisher of both the Prologue and the original Vulgate reading itself.

That is the evidence (empirical evidence contra anecdotal) as it stands.

So!

Please excuse the font sizes and rough appearance of the post. I just want to get this online as quickly as possible [when originally posted].

If you have any useful, specific, detailed information that you possess, or have found on this particular reading (i.e. “committentes”) in the Fuldensis manuscript itself, (or on other variants of “committentes” in the early Vulgate CE-Prol Ms., not mentioned here = perhaps with images/links etc) please feel free to share them in the comments section below. But if you want to post off-topic irelavent information – then please refrain – from commenting. Otherwise, your comments will be deleted.

P.S. This post may be updated as more information comes to hand. Additionally, another updated post on this prologue is on the cards.