Did Thaschus Cæcilius Cyprianus Quote The Comma Johanneum?

The Comma Johanneum, a reading in 1 John 5:7 of the Textus Receptus, is “the most obvious instance of a theologically motivated corruption in the entire manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”  This reading has gained great popularity in the English-speaking world by its inclusion in the 161 King James Bible and subsequent usage in the Socinian (and other anti-Trinitarian) controversy in the eighteenth century. Textual critics almost universally agree that the Comma is a later addition,  a conclusion based upon the cumulative force of scant Greek manuscript testimony, lack of secondary version support, and sparse patristic citation.  This text-critical question has long been considered settled. In recent years, a small group of KJV/TR advocates has argued in favor of the Comma by suggesting that Carthagian bishop Thaschus Cæcilius Cyprianus (Cyprian) quoted the Comma. The current scholarly consensus is that Priscillian made the earliest certain quotation of the Comma around AD 385 as noted in Metzger’s TCNT. Hence, a brief examination of the alleged Cyprian quotation follows.

In De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, Cyprian writes: “The Lord says, ‘The Father and I are one [John 10:30], and again of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is written, ‘And these three are one.’”[1] Pro-Comma advocates thus insist that Cyprian quoted the Comma. Armfield cites Fell’s work (1682), declaring, “the proof of the genuineness of this passage in St. Cyprian was put beyond all doubt.”[2] Forster argues, “It is undeniable that, so far as the identity of the words is concerned, the last and most peculiar clause of that verse is found, word for word, both in Tertullian and in St. Cyprian.”[3] Hills says that this “seems” to be a quotation from Cyprian and then gives a brief synopsis of the discussion.[4] Holland, who usually exhibits more aggressiveness in defending KJV readings, is similarly reserved.[5] Most critics who reject the Comma explain that Cyprian was interpreting the Spirit, water, and blood allegorically as the Trinity.[6]

THE EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF CYPRIAN QUOTING THE COMMA

There are a few reasons the claim that Cyprian quoted the Comma cannot be easily dismissed. Armfield considers it “an evident truth” that the Comma must have been “a received part of the sacred text, even before Cyprian’s time (for otherwise he would not have quoted it as such).”[7] Secondly, pro-Comma advocates insist that Cyprian “is very little given to indulge in lax and mystical interpretations,”[8] and “adheres to the letter of Scripture.”[9] A third reason is the claim that a second Cyprian quotation of the Comma occurs in Epistola ad Jubaianum, where Cyprian writes:

"If anyone could be baptized among the heretics, then he could obtain remission of sins. If he obtained the remission of sins, he was sanctified, and if he was sanctified, he was made the temple of God. But of what God? I ask. The Creator? Impossible; he did not believe in him. Christ? But he could not be made Christ’s temple, for he denied the deity of Christ. The Holy Spirit? Since the Three are One, what pleasure could the Holy Spirit take in the enemy of the Father and the Son?[10]

Knittel suggests that because Cyprian “knew Greek” and “translated Greek into Latin,” these two citations are sufficient proof that Cyprian had the Comma before him.[11] Armfield concurs: “Of all the Fathers, Greek or Latin, no one is more remarkable for citing Scripture verbatim than St. Cyprian.”[12]

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST CYPRIAN QUOTING THE COMMA

Although there are a few reasons to concede the possibility that these two quotations by Cyprian reference the Comma, the arguments against it are not easily overcome. First, it is not a verbatim quotation. A verbatim quotation would reference the “Father, Word, and Holy Spirit,” a distinctive phrase that occurs nowhere else in Scripture. Cyprian quotes “Son,” (filio) not “Word” (verbum). Although verbatim quoting is not always determinative, it plays an important role in evaluating patristic citations. In the immediate context of the quotation (et tres unum sunt), Cyprian references many Scriptures, including Gen 7:20; Matt 12:20; John 10:30; 2 Cor 11:2; Eph 5:23; and1 Pet 3:20. It is therefore possible that he was referencing the language of Matt 28:19 combined with 1 John 5:8. The quotation does not reference anything distinctly found in the Comma.

 Secondly, the phrase et tres unum sunt occurs regardless of whether the Comma is included. If Cyprian’s tendency was to quote Scripture verbatim, it is difficult to believe that he would have said “Son” (Filio) if he read “Word” (Verbum) in his text.[13] This is a double-edged sword: Comma advocates insist Cyprian quoted textually but overlook the fact he never quotes “Father, Word, and Holy Spirit.”[14] This quotation suggests that at least one of those two assumptions is incorrect or perhaps overstated.

Thirdly, Cyprian sometimes used allegorical interpretation even in places where his quotations seem text-based. In chapter seven of Unit. eccl, Cyprian proposes an unlikely allegorical interpretation of John 19:23: These are the words of Holy Scripture: Now as to His coat, because it was from the upper part woven throughout without a seam, they said to one another: Let us not divide it, but let us cast lots for it, whose it shall be. The ‘oneness’ with which He was clothed came ‘from the upper part,’ that is, from His Father in heaven, and could in no way be divided by whoever came to acquire it: it retained its well-knit wholeness indivisibly. That man cannot possess the garment of Christ, who rends and divides the Church of Christ.[15]

Bèvenot acknowledges that this is a “forced interpretation” by Cyprian, and it is enabled “because of the order of the words” in Cyprian’s Latin Scripture.[16] The point is not to impugn Cyprian’s interpretation but rather to observe that he did on occasion utilize allegory or mystical interpretation. This is one reason why most scholars believe the Comma rose from a similar occurrence.[17] A fourth problem lies in the fact that Latin copies of 1 John offer “support for a whole set of readings that have little or no attestation in Greek.”[18] Brooke provides a listing of various “explanatory glosses” given by Augustine and Cyprian as well as some glosses found in the Speculum.[19] Cyprian glosses the texts of 1 John 2:9;[20] 2:16;[21] and 4:3.[22] Cyprian’s tendency to gloss the text combined with the problems evaluating patristic citations suggest the tentative possibility that: 1) Cyprian is the source of the Comma; or 2) Cyprian demonstrates the process that gave rise to it.[23] The fact that a quotation is found in his writings does not necessarily mean it was drawn from the text of the New Testament.

It must be remembered that the Vulgate was commissioned because there were so many variant readings in the Old Latin as early as the third century.[24] This multiplicity of Old Latin readings led Augustine to say: "Those who translated the Scriptures from Hebrew into Greek can be counted, but the Latin translators are out of all number. For in the early days of the faith, every man who happened to gain possession of a Greek manuscript [of the New Testament] and who imagined that he had any facility in both languages however slight that might have been, dared to make a translation."[25]

This presents a peculiar problem for pro-Comma advocates because the Latin manuscript situation at the time was so diverse that numerous patristic citations exist. The mere existence of such citations, however, does not prove their authenticity.[26]

A fifth problem concerns why Augustine, who lived at the time of the Arian controversy, did not bother to invoke the Comma in his writings. “Cyprian was the prime influence on North African Christianity from the period of his episcopate until the time of Augustine.”[27] Cyprian’s writings were revered for over four centuries as one step below Scripture,[28] and Augustine so revered Cyprian that he presented at least a dozen sermons celebrating a memorial feast to Cyprian. Nowhere in any of his writings does Augustine quote the Comma.[29] Such a scenario is unlikely if Cyprian quoted the Comma. 

The most devastating argument suggesting that Cyprian did not quote the Comma is found by reading Cyprian’s other references to the Trinity. The most likely place to find an explicit reference to the Comma is in a Trinitarian polemic. Although he never wrote an extended treatise on the doctrine, Cyprian referenced the Trinity numerous times.

In one epistle he writes:

"The Lord, when, after His resurrection, He sent forth His apostles, charges them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.[30]"

This verbiage is obviously drawn from the end of Matthew’s Gospel. Such reasoning, however, cannot explain the following words from Cyprian, an instance that begs for a reference to the Comma if indeed he had it:

"In the forty-fourth Psalm: “My heart has breathed out a good Word. I tell my works to the King.” Also in the thirty-second Psalm: “By the Word of God were the heavens made fast; and all their strength by the breath of His mouth.” Also in Isaiah: “A Word completing and shortening in righteousness, because a shortened word will God make in the whole earth.” Also in the cvith Psalm: “He sent His Word, and healed them.” Moreover, in the Gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same with in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was nothing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.” Also in the Apocalypse: “And I saw the heaven opened, and lo, a white horse; and he who sate upon him was called Faithful and True, judging rightly and justly; and He made war. And He was covered with a garment sprinkled with blood; and His name is called the Word of God.”[31]

Cyprian finds references to Christ as “the Word of God” in Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, the Gospel of John, and Revelation but never mentions the Comma, the most explicit testimony to Christ as “the Word” outside of John’s gospel. While many other instances could be considered debatable, this lack of quotation strongly suggests that Cyprian never saw the Comma. Given his chain reference method[32] of citing every instance of Christ as the Word in this treatise, his failure to cite the Comma is best explained by the lack of the phrase in his text(s).[33]

THE ALLEGED SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CYPRIAN QUOTATION

Pro-Comma advocates place great significance on the Cyprian quotation. Because Cyprian (d. 258) lived in the third century, this citation is used to suggest the Comma has a potential claim to authenticity. It must be acknowledged there is one sense in which the quotation attains major significance because if Cyprian quoted the Comma then he is the earliest known Church Father to do so.[34]

However, while affirmation that Cyprian quoted the Comma would alter the specifics regarding its history, the major picture remains unchanged. Because of the failure of the grammatical argument, the overwhelming external evidence, and the lack of citation by the Greek church fathers, it is safe to conclude the Comma is a Latin interpolation. Therefore, even if Cyprian did quote the Comma then that merely moves the date of the first known quotation back a century. It does not change the fundamental reality: not one scrap of Greek evidence of the Comma exists in the first ten centuries, and all of the extant evidence comes from one secondary language, Latin. More problematic is that despite the dispute over the Trinity that covered several centuries, the citations (both real and alleged) of the Comma are small in both number and geographical distribution.[35] From the closing of the New Testament canon until the time of Priscillian (d. 385), Cyprian and Tertullian are the only church fathers alleged to have quoted this passage. Between Priscillian’s first quotation and the eleventh century there are a few citations of the Comma.[36] These facts suggest that the Comma citations after Priscillian are little more than multiple quotations of the same corruption. This particular issue exemplifies the problems regarding patristic evidence that are well known.

SOME OF THE PROBLEMS EVALUATING PATRISTIC EVIDENCE

Although virtually the entire New Testament can be constructed from patristic evidence, there are limitations.[37] Using Cyprian as an example, Metzger notes: "The importance of patristic quotations lies in the circumstance that they serve to localize and date readings and types of text in Greek manuscripts and versions. For example, since the quotations that Cyprian, bishop of Carthage in North Africa about A. D. 250, includes in his letters agree almost always with the form of text preserved in the Old Latin manuscript k, scholars have correctly concluded that this fourth- or fifth-century manuscript is a descendant of a copy current about 250 in North Africa. Occasionally, it happens that a patristic writer specifically cites one or more variant readings present in manuscripts existing in his day. Such information is of the utmost importance in providing proof of the currency of such variant readings at a given time and place."[38]

Gordon Fee spells out some of the problems involved with patristic quotations: "One of the problems with patristic evidence is that it must be carefully analyzed before it can be used. That is, one must be sure (a) a given Father’s work has been faithfully transmitted, (b) that the Father was actually quoting (=copying), not merely ‘remembering’ his NT, and (c), especially in the Gospels, that it was one Gospel and not another that was being quoted."[39]

Fee further observes, "It is simply a maxim in the citation of patristic evidence for the Gospels that a Father can be cited in support only (a) if he tells us he is citing one Gospel, not the others (including specific commentaries and homilies, of course), or (b) the citation is unique to one of the Gospel writers, or (c), when there are parallels, the language of one Gospel is so unique as to make identification probable. The problem here is a simple one: Early Fathers were as prone as we are today to harmonize and collate, and therefore to speak of the ‘rich young ruler,’ although all three of these designations appear in no single Gospel."[40]

Although Fee’s article references the Gospels, the general principles apply throughout. The text must be identifiable or explicitly identified by the commentator to constitute evidence. It is not enough to see the words “Trinity” or “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” for a writer to enlist him as a witness for the Comma. Nor is the phrase “these three are one” evidence of the Comma because those words are found in verse eight. To qualify as an explicit reference to the Comma, the reference must be distinctly identifiable. Thus, one must see “Father, Word, Holy Spirit” to be an explicit quotation. None exist prior to Priscillian.

One objection to this interpretation of the patristic (as well as manuscript) data is to allege that it constitutes nothing more than argumentum ex silentio. In other words, although a multitude of Trinitarian church writers never mention the Comma, this does not constitute evidence. There is some validity to such an objection because the Catholic Epistles are among the least cited of the NT books. One cannot necessarily assume that just because a patristic writer did not quote a passage that he did not have it in his text. The problem, however, is that this particular passage is not one of the numerous “begat” passages or a verse that occurs in three gospels with slight alteration; it is the most explicit text in the NT regarding the Trinity, a controversy that consumed the church for more than two centuries and through numerous ecumenical councils. What orthodox writer is not going to quote this particular passage if it is in his text? If a passage is not found in the manuscripts of a particular time then silence should be expected.  Furthermore, the objection is inconsistent with one of the major appeals made by pro-Comma advocates: the quotation of the Comma Johanneum at Carthage in the late fifth century. A congregation of hundreds of bishops confessed their faith at Carthage in 484.[41] Pro-Comma advocates appeal to this citation as evidence of the early existence of the reading. The reading is unquestionably quoted at Carthage, but the appeal is inconsistent. It is inconceivable that the councils of Nicea, Hippo, or Carthage that affirmed the doctrine of the Trinity possessed this text yet failed to cite it. Pro-Comma advocates want to insist that quotation is ironclad evidence of the reading but that lack of quotation is of no significance whatsoever. As noted earlier, this appeal may be valid regarding “begat” passages but is a form of special pleading concerning the Trinity. Noting the lack of citation by early church fathers in conjunction with lack of manuscript testimony is not an argument from silence but rather evidence from silence that the reading does not exist. It is inconceivable that the church failed to cite this passage if it existed.[42] The silence of both the patristic evidence and the manuscripts speaks loudly.[43]

Porson framed it eloquently: "I shall observe, that if we suppose the first Christians to have treated the Scriptures in this manner, we at once destroy the certainty and authority of our present canon. But whoever supposes, as I think every defender of the text ought to suppose, that it was extant and publicly known from the beginning, cannot, with the smallest appearance of reason, pretend that it ought not be formally and directly cited in almost every treatise on the Trinity.[44]

It is not because the Comma is not found in some ancient polemic works regarding the Trinity; it is that the Comma is found in none of the ancient polemic pro-Trinitarian works that brings the conviction that it is a later addition."

CONCLUSION

The purpose of this chapter was to investigate the claim that Cyprian quoted the Comma Johanneum. The data were examined and the following points were concluded:

1) the Cyprian quotations are not verbatim; 2) the quoted portion (“these three are one”) already exists in v. eight; 3) Cyprian glossed several passages including multiple glosses in John’s first epistle; 4) Cyprian sometimes engaged in mystical interpretation; 5) Cyprian failed to mention it in his most explicit exposition regarding the Trinity; 6) Augustine never cited the Comma despite his reverence for Cyprian; 7) the arguments in favor of authenticity presume a scenario regarding patristic citation that never existed; 8) the silence speaks loudly in light of the concurrent history. The cumulative force of the data suggests that the most probable conclusion is that Cyprian did not quote the Comma but instead found the Trinity in an allegorical interpretation of 1 John 5:8.

---

[1] Dicit Dominus: ‘Ego et Pater unum sumus’, et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et tres unum sunt. This is taken from the most recent critical edition, Maurice Bèvenot, Cyprian: De lapsis and De ecclesiae catholicae unitate, (Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), 66.

[2] Armfield, Disputed, 76. This alleged “proof” is found in the Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, a work allegedly by Jerome that is regarded as spurious by virtually all responsible scholarship.

[3] Forster, A New Plea, 43. Forster does acknowledge that critics of the passage argue that it comes from v. eight (54, 64-67, 110-11, 187).

[4] Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th ed. (Des Moines: Christian Research, 1984), 210.

[5] Thomas Holland, Crowned With Glory: The Bible from Ancient Text to Authorized Version (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2000), 167. There is no question that Holland believes Cyprian quoted it, but his verbiage is more reserved here than regarding some of his other arguments advocating the Comma.

[6] A few who reject Comma authenticity believe Cyprian quoted it. “It is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus (vi), that the holy Bishop was merely putting on ver. 8 a spiritual meaning” (F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament,. vol. 2, ed. Edward Miller. [London: George Bell, 1894], 405). Scrivener acknowledges that this is how the Comma entered the manuscript tradition. Cf. also Walter Thiele, “Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1 Joh 5, 7f.),” ZNW 50 [1959], 72-73.

[7] Armfield, The Three Witnesses, 73. The assumption that an early church father must have been quoting verbatim demonstrates a lack of familiarity with the patristic data. If there was a recognized and authoritative received text during Cyprian’s time that was so well known, why does no other Church Father quote it? This question will assume immense significance in chapter four.

[8] Ibid., 94.

[9] Ibid., 94.

[10] Cyprian, Epistula 73.12.2 (CC 3C, 542). Si baptizari quis apud haereticos potuit, utique et remissam peccatorum consequi potuit. Si peccatorum remissam consectus est, sanctificatus est: si sanctificatus est, templum dei factus est: quaero cuius dei? Si creatoris, non potuit qui in eum non credidit. Si Christi, nec huius fieri potest templum qui negat deum Christum. Si spiritus sancti, cum tres unum sint, quomodo spiritus sanctus placatus esse ei potest qui aut filii aut patris inimicus est?

[11] Franz A. Knittel, New Criticisms on the Celebrated Text, 1 John v.7. Translated by William A. Evanson (originally published Brunswick, 1785, London: Rivington, 1829), 34.

[12] Armfield, The Three Witnesses, 137. Armfield references this citation twice (117, 155).

[13] This presumes that the claim that Cyprian does not stray from the text is correct.

[14] Armfield, The Three Witnesses, 137.

[15] Bevenot, Unit. eccl., 69.

[16] Bevenot, Unit. eccl., 69.

[17] Porson, Letters, 260, lists the following passages where he states that Cyprian was “negligent in quoting:” Matt 6:13, 1 John 2:17, and Rev 19:10. Cyprian adds “As God remains forever” five times in 1 John 2:17.

[18] Brown, Epistles of John, 129-130. I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 236, lists other interpolations in the Latin text of 1 John, including 2:17, 4:3, 5:6, and 5:20.

[19] A. E. Brooke, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles (New York: Scribners & Sons, 1912), 198. Cf. also Armfield, Three Witnesses, 109.

[20] Cyprian adds homicida est et.

[21] Cyprian adds ex concupiscentia saeculi.

[22] Cyprian adds sed est de antichristi spiritu. In addition to these readings that are glossed by Cyprian, he shares some common readings with Augustine (2:17), the Speculum (2:23), and Priscillian (2:23).

[23] Brown, Epistles of John, 784.

[24] Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 101, record the maxim that Jerome uttered to Pope Damasus: tot enim sunt exemplaria paene quot codices (“There are almost as many versions as manuscripts”).

[25] Augustine, Doct. chr, II. 16. The Latin text reads: Qui enim Scripturas ex hebraea lingua in graecam verterunt, numerari possunt, Latini autem interpretes nullo modo. Ut enim cuique primis fidei temporibus in manus venit codex graecus, et aliquantulum facultatis sibi utriusque linguae habere videbatur, ausus est interpretari.

[26] In addition to the previously cited examples by Porson and Brooke, Metzger gives a number of Latin patristic quotations that are clearly not original. Cf. Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 31.

[27] Allan D. Fitzgerald, ed., Augustine through the Ages: an Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 263.

[28] Ibid., 263.

[29] Norbert Fickermann, “St. Augustinus gegen das ‘Comma Johaneum’?” BZ 22 (1934), 350-58, suggests Augustine knew the Comma but intentionally did not quote it. Scholarly consensus rejects this speculation.

[30] Cyprian, Epistle XXIV.2, trans. Ernest Wallis, in A. Cleveland Coxe, The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translations of the Writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Buffalo: Christian Literature, 1886),  5: 302.

[31] Cyprian, Treatise XII, 2.3, in ANF 5:516.

[32] The chain reference method occurs when an author combines texts from different books or sections that focus upon a central point the author is trying to make. The use of such passages is more topical than exegetical and often violates the original context of the author. In this instance, Cyprian grabs references that can be used to refer to Christ as “the Word” from the Psalms, Isaiah, John’s Gospel, and the Apocalypse. His failure to mention 1 John 5:7 here speaks loudly.

[33] I note the plural because one cannot assume that Cyprian or any other church father used only one text.

[34] Daniel B. Wallace, “The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian,” http://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian. Accessed 20 February 2013. Wallace notes, “He would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum.”

[35] Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, The Anchor Bible Series 30 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 784.

[36] The citations with approximate dates include: Contra Variadum (450), a citation at the Council of Carthage by North African bishops (484), Victor Vitensis  (485), Fulgentius (527), the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles (550), Cassiodorus (583), and Isidore of Seville (636). Other than debating manuscript data, pro-Comma advocate Maynard lists no other fathers who quote the Comma between these dates.

[37] Metzger and Ehrman, Text of the New Testament, 126.

[38] Ibid., 126-27. Note that Old Latin k (Codex Bobiensis) does not have 1 John.

[39] Gordon D. Fee, “The Majority Text and the Original Text of the New Testament,” Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism Studies and Documents, 45. ed. Irving Alan Sparks (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 202.

[40] Ibid., 194-97.

[41] Cf. Maynard, History, 484; Brown, Epistles, 782; Hills, King James Version Defended, 210; James, Corruption, 232).

[42] Hills (King James Version Defended, 210) explains the silence thusly: Christians intentionally chose to not cite the Comma because it would have been ineffective against the Sabellianism. A number of points refute this: 1) it is an unproven theory; 2) Hills simultaneously suggests that Cyprian, who lived during the Sabellian heresy, did quote it; 3) it is the least plausible alternative.

[43] Virtually the only value of this evidence is its demonstration that if the Comma had been known previously then it would have been cited by others.

[44] Porson, Letters, 285-86. Porson figures in a major way concerning a separate Comma controversy. One text-critical “urban legend” claimed that Erasmus added the Comma to his third edition in fulfillment of a promise he allegedly made to Edward Lee that if one Greek manuscript could be found containing the Comma then Erasmus would add it. This story was debunked in 1980 by H. J. deJonge, “Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,” ETL 56 no. 4, (1980), 381-89, who traced the story back as far as T. H. Horne in 1818 (383), but acknowledged that Horne was not the originator of the story. The date can now be moved back at least thirty years. In the opening of his Letters to Archdeacon Travis, Porson writes, “It is scarcely necessary to tell the reader, that in the years 1516 and 1519 Erasmus published his first and second editions of the Greek Testament, both which omitted the three heavenly witnesses. That having promised Lee to insert them in his text, if they were found in a single Greek MS. he was soon informed of the existence of such a MS. in England, and consequently inserted 1 John V.7. in his third edition, 1522” (Porson, Letters, 2).