JOHN
436
JOHN
ing the authenticity and canonicity whereof there is
serious question is the famous passage of the three
witnesses: "And there are three who give ttstimony
(in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy
Ghost. And these three are one. And there are
three that give testimony on earth): the spirit, and
the water, and the blood: and these three are one"
(I John, V, 7-S). Throughout the past three him-
dred years, effort has been made to expunge from our
Clementine Vulgate edition of canonical Scripture the
words that are bracketed. Let us examine the facts
of the case. A. Greek MSS. — The disputed part is
foimd in no uncial Greek MSS. and in only four rather
recent cursives, — one of the fifteenth and three of the
sixteenth century. No Greek epistolary MS. contains
the passage. B. Versions. — No Syriac MS. of any
family — Peshito, Philoxenian, or Harklean — has the
three witnesses; and their presence in the printed
Syriac Go.spels is due to translation from the Vulgate.
So, too, the Coptic MSS., — both Sahidic and Bohairic
— have no trace of the disputed part; nor have the
Ethiopic MSS. which represent Greek influence
through the medium of Coptic. The Armenian MSS.,
which favour the reading of the Vulgate, are admitted
to represent a Latin influence which dates from the
twelfth century; early Armenian MSS. are against the
Latin reading. Of the Itala or Old Latin MSS., only
two have our present reading of the three witnesses:
Codex Monacensis (q), of the sixth or seventh century;
and the Speculum (m), an eighth or ninth century MS.
which gives many quotations from the New Testa-
ment. Even the Vulgate, in the majority of its
earliest MSS., is without the passage in question.
Witnesses to the canonicity are: the Bible of Theo-
dulph (eighth century) in the National Library of
Paris; Codex Cavensis (ninth century), the best rep-
resentative of the Spanish type of text; Toletanus
(tenth centur}'); and the majority of Vulgate MSS.
after the twelfth century. There was some dispute as
to the canonicity of the three witnesses as early as the
sixth century; for the preface to the Catholic Epistles
in Codex Fuldensis (.\. d. 541-546) complains about
the omission of this passage from some of the Latin
versions.
C. The Fathers.— (1) Greek Fathers, until the twelfth century, seem one and all to have had no knowledge of the three witnesses as canonical Scrip- ture. At times they cite verses S and 9 and omit the disputed portions of verses 7 and S. The Fourth Lateran (a. d. 1215), in its decree against Abbot Joachim (see Denzinger, 10th ed., n. 431) quotes the disputed passage with the remark " sicut in quibusdam codicibus invenitur". Thereafter, we find the Greek Fathers making use of the text as canonical. (2) The Syriac Fathers never use the text. (3) The Armenian Fathers do not use it before the twelfth century. (4) The Latin Fathers make much earlier use of the text as canonical Scripture. St. Cyprian (third cen- tury) seems undoubtedly to have had it in mind, when he quotes John, x, 30. and adds: " Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, — Et hi tres unum sunt" (De Unitate Ecclesite, vi). Clear also is the witness of St. Fulgentius (si.xth century; " Respon- sio contra Arianos" in P. L., LXV, 224), who refers to the above witness of St. Cyprian. In fact, outside of St. .\ugustine, the Fathers of the African Church are to be grouped with St. Cyprian in favour of the canon- icity of the passage. The silence of the great and voluminous St. Augustine and the variation in form of the text in the African Church are admitted facts that militat* against the canonicity of the three witnesses. St. Jerome (fourth century) does not seem to know the te.xt. After the si.\th century, the disputed passage is more and more in use among the Latin Fathers; and, by the twelfth century, is commonly cited as canonical Scripture.
D. Ecclesiastical Documents. — ^Trent's is the first
certain cecumenical decree, whereby the Church estab-
lished the Canon of Scripture. We cannot say that
the decree of Trent on the Canon necessarily included
the three witnesses. For in the preliminary discus-
sions that led up to the canonizing of "the entire
books with all their parts, as these have been wont to
be read in the Catholic Church and are contained in
the old Latin Vulgate ", there was no reference what-
■soever to this special part; hence this special part is
not canonized by Trent, unless it is certain that the
text of the three witnesses has "been wont to be read
in the Catholic Church and is contained in the old
Latin Vulgate ". Both conditions must be verified
before the canonicity of the text is certain. Neither
condition has as yet been verified with certainty;
quite the contrary, textual criticism seems to indicate
that the Comma Johanninum was not at all times and
everywhere wont to be read in the Catholic (.'hurch
and is not contained in the original old Latin Vulgate.
However, the Catholic theologian must take into ac-
count more than textual criticism; to liim the au-
thentic decisions of all Roman Congregations are
guiding signs in the use of the Sacred Scripture, which
the Church and only the Church has given to him as
the Word of God. He cannot pass over the disciplin-
ary decision of the Holy Office (13 January, 1897),
whereby it is decreed that the authenticity of the
Comma Johanninum may not with .safety {hUo) he de-
nied or called into doubt. This disciplinary decision
was approved by Leo XIII two days later. Though
his approval was not in forma specifica, as was Pius
X's approval of the Decree " Lamentabili ", all further
discussion of the text in question must be carried on
with due deference to this decree. (See "Revue Bib-
lique", 1898, p. 149; and Pesch, " Pra;leetiones Dog-
raaticEe", II, 250.)
IV. Author. — It was of chief moment to determine that this letter is authentic, i. e., belongs to the Apos- tolic age, is Apostolic in its source, and is trustworthy. .■\mong those who admit the authenticity and canonic- ity of the letter, some hold that its sacred writer was not John the Apostle but John the Presbyter. We have traced the tradition of the Apostohc origin of the letter back to the time of St. Irena-us. Harnack and his followers admit that Irensus, the disciple of Poly- carp, assigns the authorship to St. John the Apostle; but have the hardihood to throw over all tradition, to accuse Irena^us of error in this matter, to cling to the doubtful witness of Papias, and to be utterly regard- less of the patent fact that throughout three centuries no other ecclesiastical writer knows anything at all of this John the Presbyter. The doubtful witness of Papias is saved for us by Eusebius (" Hist, eccl.", Ill, xxxix; Funk, " Patres Apostolici ", I, p. 350): "And if any one came my way who had been a follower of the elders, I enquired the sayings of the elders, — what had .Andrew, or what had Peter said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John (^ Ti'Iud^vT)?) or Matthew or any one else of the disciples of the Lord; and what were Aristiou and John the elder, the dis- ciples of the Lord, saying? " (4 te ' Apicrluiv koI h Trpetr/Surepos \w6.vvt^s^ ol tou Kvplov fiadrjTaL \^ov<tlp). Harnack insists that Eusebius read his sources thoroughly; and, on the authority of Eusebius and of Papias, postulates the existence of a dis- ciple of the Lord named John the Elder, who was distinct from John the Apostle; and to this ficti- tious John the Elder assigns all the Johannine writ- ings. (See Geschichte der Altchristliche Litteratur, II, i, 657.) With all Catholic authors, wo consider that either Eusebius alone, or Papias and Eu.sofiius, erred, and that IreniEus and the rest of the Fathers were right; in fact we lay the blame at the door of Eusebius. As Bardenhewer (Geschichte der Altkirch- lichen Literatur, I, 540) says, Eusebius set up a straw man. There never was a John the Elder. So think Funk (Patres Apostohci, I, 354), Dr. Salmon (Diction-
