Editing Johannine Comma and Codex Fuldensis

The 6th century [[Codex Fuldensis]] is considered the second most important witness to the Vulgate text; and is also the oldest complete manuscript witness to the order of the [[Diatessaron]]. It is one of the earliest dated manuscripts of the New Testament. It was corrected until 2 May, 546 AD. Although 1 John 5:7 is omitted in the main body of text, where the the Comma Johanneum usually appears, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles includes a direct reference to the heavenly witnesses, with the Prologue written as a first-person note from Jerome to Eustocium. In this Prologue unfaithful translators are criticized for removal of the verse saying:

:“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.” 

In Latin:
:"Quae si ut ab eis digestae sunt ita quoque ab interpraetibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec sermonum se varietas inpugnaret illo praecipue '''<u>loco ubi de unitate trinitatis in prima iohannis epistula</u>''' (the place where it concerns the Trinity in the first epistle of John) positum legimus in qua est ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse fidei veritate conperimus trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione potentes et '''<u>patri verbique ac spiritus</u>''' (Father, the Word, and Spirit) testimonium omittentes."

This Prologue, its historical accuracy and textual significance, has been a major focal point in the Comma debate since its start at the times of Erasmus. And its authenticity and authorship became an issue in the late 17th century, when a new theory came forth that the Prologue was spurious. Only the internal evidence of the authorship is contested and that, long after the heavenly witnesses verse debate began. Even if this was fraudulent, of which claims are unproven, the Comma was certainly known to an Italian scribe who wrote the Prologue as early as in 546 AD.

This theory designed to discredit the witness of Fuldensis claimed that the Prologue was not created until hundreds of years after Jerome, by an unknown writer pretending to be Jerome. Naturally Westcott, who was in agreement with Hort when he called the Textus Recptus vile, is among those who have contended that the actual purpose of the theorized forgery was specifically to bring the verse into the Latin Vulgate text line; it "seems to have been written with this express purpose". While modern Critical Text proponents like [[James White]] and [[Daniel Wallace]] label TR people as conspiracy theorists, here we have their two main pillars, making all sorts of unfounded and wild claims. Metzger is more deceptive, and makes absolutely no reference of the Prologue, even while referencing the absence of the verse in the Johannine epistle of Fuldensis in order to assert that Jerome's original edition did not have the verse. "The passage ... is not found ...in the Vulgate as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716])"

Major figures in the early dialogue from about 1650–1725 were John Selden, Christopher Sandius, John Fell, Richard Simon, Isaac Newton, Jean Leclerc, Jean Martianay and Augustin Calmet. The discovery in the Bible scholarship community in the latter 19th century that the Prologue was in the well-respected Codex Fuldensis (while the Codex lacked the Comma in the text, an unusual discordance) contradicted many earlier forgery chronology scenarios. When a person attacks a document as a late forgery, they must provide proof for their claims, because mere accusation doesn't make it a forgery, no matter how much Critical Text proponents would like it to be.

{{Article Index Johannine Comma}}
{{Donate}}