Ok, the Codex Cavensis - La Cava 1. There are 2 dates. The date the mss was copied which is early 9th century (before 850). and the date of the original exemplar which would be 5th or 4th century.
2. The exemplar is very important to this evidence. Since La Cava is an example of the transition from Uncial to Minuscule.
La Cava is such a transcription. This dates the exemplar as very old indeed.
3. The marginalia is probably original,
I mean in the original exemplar since it pertains to Arius. the wording is much like that found in Marius Victorinus and Fulgentius. "Let Arius read this"
or something of the like.
4. The transposition of the verse
s indicates again the Old Latin exemplar Uncial that La Cava was transcribed from. And I want to emphasize that this is no ordinary copying, but instead one of the manuscripts that was transcribed from Uncial to Minuscule. That is a very critical and undeniable fact that puts this manuscript way above other Latin mss of the time and place. I could add as well that this was part of the desperate attempt to salvage manuscripts from the destruction of the rise of Islam conquering the Christendom territories. which is another fact that puts this manuscript in critical unique importance for carrying the text.
Wiseman makes some of these points in his essay.
Of course the critics attempt to diminish this information and place this manuscript with the rest of the Latin witnesses. However, it is in every way above, superior, and exemplary of the kind of evidence that should exist given that these verses are in fact and always have been Scripture.
IOW, this is another "that should never happen" "we would never find XYZ" instance that refutes the critics expectations about these verses. It is not the "Latin" aspect of this manuscript that is unique, it is the Uncial to Minuscule and the marginalia and the transposition of verses and the fact that this is happening so late in the millennium and the fact that it is one of the manuscripts rescued (considered of great value) that is transcribed from Uncial.
All of these facts demonstrate how wrong the critics are in their perspective of these verses.
I would also add that Jerome's Prologue is also in this manuscript. Another fact that slams the critics.
All of this would have originally been in an 4th or 5th century Uncial exemplar as the original source for this manuscript.
The other issue that the critics raise, is "Oh, yeah, this is another Spanish MSS".
But the truth is, why is it in Spain? or why did it end up in Spain?
It came to Spain because MSS were being brought to the Iberian peninsula and to France because it was free of the Vandals/Visigoths/Ostrogoths persecution (i.e., Fulgentius and other North African Christians that were escaping or exiled).
Treasured manuscripts were brought to this part of the Roman Empire because of the freedom for Christians. And when this manuscript was copied (early 9th century), The Iberian peninsula was still Christian and free.
An effort was being made to transcribe precious manuscripts (Uncials) into Minuscules in the still free areas of the old Roman Empire. So, we should expect to find manuscripts in these places at this time.
IOW, the territory this manuscript was found/transcribed in has nothing to do with the "interpolation" and/or "corruption" of the text. Rather it has to do with the demographics of Christians in the midst of persecution from the Germanic tribes and Islam.
Really, the critics attempt to breeze over these facts when they work so hard to diminish this incredible evidence.
However the earlier it is, the more the Vulgate aspects have to be textual updates, which may be problematic.
I have quoted the scholars who talk about this movement of manuscripts
during the time of the Vandals under the section on Fulgentius.
Which is important since these Christians knew both Latin & Greek who were choosing MSS to save and bring to Sardinia & Spain/France.
Similarly, the Prologue could easily be an add-on after the original - e.g. if the original was 4th century it is too early for Prologue
Yes, I don't know how the prologue was written, I cannot remember if it had a title, or what...
No title in Fuldensis, I think
Let Arius and the Others hear this : Codex Cavensis : Grantley affirms Fulgentius quote
Click or press enter to display Screenshot_2019-10-30-08-31-14.png in the image preview
Here are some of my notes on this "Let Arius hear this"
marginalia in Codex Cavensis
I John 5 7 : Gaius Marius Victorinus (290-364) : Rhetor of Rome : LISTEN TO THIS ARIUS NOTE: This phrase "Listen to this Arius" is also in the Codex Cavensis margin next to I John 5 7 & 8. Audiat hoc arius et ceteri. [Codex Cavensis] Let Arius and the others listen to this! [Codex Cavensis] Audi, Arrie, audi, Eusebie, et omnes audite, Arriani Listen Arius, listen Eusebius, and all you Arians, listen ===SOURCE: [PAGE 53] The ninth-century Spanish bible known as “Codex Cavensis” (La Cava de’ Tirreni, Biblioteca della Badia, ms memb. 1), has a note in the margin next to verse 7, indicating the doctrinal weight given to the comma in the fight against heresy: “Let Arius and the others listen to this!” (Audiat hoc Arrius et ceteri). F76 == F76. Ziegler, 1876, 6, Ln 149, points out that Cavensis contains a number of anti-Arian marginalia, including one in the margin of 1 Jn 5:4: “Et Arrius eum prædicat creaturam.” MSS transcription: pp. 33–56. == Grantley R. McDonald, Raising the Ghost of Arius. Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Religious Difference in Early Modern Europe [Ph.D. dissertation Leiden 2011; impressum: Bruxeliis: Ex officina Antipodea, 2011], 424 pages. <hdl.handle.net/1887/16486
>. RANKE, Ernst Constantin, and Leo ZIEGLER. Italafragmente der Paulinischen Briefe, nebst Bruchstücken einer vorhieronymianischen Übersetzung des ersten Johannesbriefes, aus Pergamentblättern der ehemaligen Freisinger Stiftsbibliothek zum ersten Male veröffentlicht und kritisch beleuchtet von L. Ziegler ... Eingeleitet durch ein Vorwort von Prof. Dr. E. Ranke. Mit einer photolithographischen Tafel. Gr. & Lat. 1876 <www.worldcat.org/oclc/557801220
>. <books.google.je/books?id=wYATAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s>. Leo Ziegler, Italafragmente der Paulinischen Briefe. Marburg 1876, pp. 33–56. ===SOURCE: Marius Victorinus Against Arius 1A [PAGE 108] (15) We hold therefore that Christ has the name of the Father and that he is life and has the power to give "to live." That he himself is life and the Father is life, it was said: "The living Father sent me." (Jn 6:57) And this is the substance of God and of Christ. They are therefore "Ὁμοούσιοι" (consubstantial). Next it was said that Christ is light and God true light; for these terms refer to knowledge. And is the Holy Spirit anything different? Not at all. Well, then, is not light substance? It is. Therefore they are "ὁμοούσια" (consubstantial). And whatever God has, the Son has. Therefore they are "Ὁμοούσια" (consubstantial). They are not therefore "ὁμοιούσιον" (similar in substance) by any means. But of that we shall speak later. (Cf. adv. Ar. I 28, 8 ff.) That he was born: "For this was I born and for this I came into the world," (Jn 18:37) to rule. That the Holy Spirit is from Christ: Christ "breathed on them and said: receive the Holy Spirit." (Jn 20:22) All that is according to the Gospel of John. [PAGE 109] 2. The Synoptics Let us even look also at some text according to Matthew, for I pass over similar ones. That Satan [This argument is found in Hilary, De trinitate 6.49 (PL 10.196B; trans. S. McKenna, FC 25.218-219).] also testifies that Christ is the Son of God; for he says: "If you are the Son of God;" (Mt. 4:3) and he says that three times. But a second time testifying to the Son of God, he tried to discover if the Son of God was this Christ; for he says: "If you are the Son of God, cast yourself down. For it is written: that he will put his angels in charge of you." (Mt 4:6) He testifies, who says: "of you," he testifies that there is a Son of God testifies that this is the Son of God. Next, the demons in their turn testify to him: "The demons also came forth from many, crying out and saying: "You are the Son of God." (Lk 4:41) Listen Arius, listen Eusebius, and all you Arians, listen, especially you who say that Christ is from "to be," but according to the serpent's understanding: saying that since the Father, who made Christ, is the "ὂν" (existent), the Son is also from "to be." Listen therefore. Satan calls Son of God the one to whom he promised the kingdom of the world; and he knows all that which is on high; for he is from there. What then? After the third temptation because the devil withdrew, he testified that Christ is the Son of God. That the demons also have said that he is the Son of God; "What have we to do with you, Son of God? You have come..." (Mt 8:29) [PAGE 110] That we should not doubt Christ: "blessed is he who is not scandalized in me." (Mt 11:6) That the Son has everything the Father has: "All things have been given to me by the Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and him to whom the Son chooses to reveal him." (Mt 11:27) What is the reason that only the Son knows the Father and only the Father knows the Son except that no one has his substance? For all who know the Father in his glory and his divinity, in his power, in his very act, also adore him. But since to know this is to know the very "to be" of God himself, that is, his substance, for that reason no one knows God except the Son having the same substance and having it from God for no one can see in any other way God's "to be," as it is said: "The only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, has declared" (Jn 1:18) what is God's "to be." For he is in the bosom and in the "μήτρᾳ" (matrix) of substance. Each one of the two is "Ὁμοούσιος οὖν" (consubstantial therefore), each one being, both by substance and by divinity, in the other, and each one knowing each other. == Victorinus, Marius, and Mary T. Clark. Theological Treatises on the Trinity. Washington, D.C.
: Catholic University of America Press, 2001. <www.worldcat.org/oclc/56828906
===SOURCE: Marii Victorini Afri Adversus Arium Liber 1 XV. Habemus ergo, quod Christus habet nomen patris et quod vita est et habet potestatem dare vivere. Quod ipse vita est et pater vita, dictrum est: misit me pater vivens. Et haec est substantia dei et Christi Ὁμοούσιοι ergo. Deinde dictrum est lumen Christus et deus verum lumen; ista enim ad intellegentiam. Num aliud est sanctus spiritus? Nihil. Quid deinde? Lumen non substantia? Sic. Ergo ὁμοούσια Et omnia quae habet deus, habet filius. Ὁμοούσια ergo. Non igitur omnino ὁμοιούσιον. Sed de isto posterius. Quod naturs est: in istud natus sum et in istud veni in mundum, ut regnem. Quod a Christo spiritus sanctus: insufflavit Christus et Dixit: accipite spiritum sanctum. Ista omnia secundum evangelium Iohannis. Videamus etiam et secundum Matthaeum pauca; similia enim praetereo. Quod et satanas fatetur Christum dei esse filium; dicit enim: si tu es filius dei. Et istud ter dicit. Sed in secundo confitens de filio dei temptavit, si ipse esset iste Christus; dicit enim: si filius es tu dei, mitte te deorsum. Scriptum est enim: quod angelis suis praecipiet de te. Confitetur, qui dicit: de te, esse dei filium confitetur et hunc confitetur. Deinde confitentur rursus daemones: exiebant etiam daemonia a multis exclamantia et dicentia: tu es filius dei. Audi, Arrie, audi, Eusebie, et omnes audite, Arriani, et maxime, qui dicitis ab eo quod est esse, Christum, sed secundum serpentis intellectum, quoniam pater ὂν est, qui fecit Christum, ideo ex eo quod est esse filium dicentes, audite ergo: filium dicit dei satanas, cui promisit regnum mundi; et scit omnia quae in supernis; inde ineim est. Quid autem? Post tertiam temptationem quod diabolus abscessit, confessus est filium esse dei. Quod et daemones dixerunt filium esse dei: quid nobis et tibi, fili dei? venisti. Quod non oportet dubitare de Christo: beatus est, qui non scandalizatur in me. Quod monia patris filius habet: omnia mihi tradita sunt a patre et nullus cognoscit filium nisi pater nec patrem nisi cognoscit et cui vult filius revelare. Quae causa solum filium scire patrem aut patrem, ut cognoscat filium, nisi quod nullus habet substantiam eius? Omnia enim quae in claritudine et in divinitaqte in potentia, iin ipsa actione et cognoscunt patrem et colunt. Sed quoniam cognoscere hoc est scire ipsius dei ipsum quod est ei esse, hoc est substantiam eisu, idcirco nullus cognoscit deum, nisi substantiam eandem habens filius et habens ab ipso. Alio enim modo nullus potuit videre, sicuti dictum est: unigenitus filius, qui est in gremio patris, ille enarravit, quid est esse deum. In germio enim est et in μήτρᾳ substantiae. Ὁμοούσιος οὖν uterque, et substantia et divinitate consistens uterque in utroque, et cognoscit uterque utrumque. == Marii Victorini Afri Adversus Arium Liber 1 Migne Latina, PL 8 1049-1050 <books.google.com/books?id=8mRJAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA1049&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false
> ===SOURCE: NOTE: Clear text easy to read with markers for Migne Latina edition. == Victorinus, Marius, et al. Marii Victorini Opera. Vindobonae [Vienna, Austria]: Hoelder-Pichler-Tempsky, 1971. vol 1, p. 75-77. <books.google.com/books?id=uDIjAQAAMAAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s
Another interesting point
So, if the verses are there, why is Jerome's Prologue included? You see how the critics reasoning is refuted by the facts. The idea that the one is somehow dependent on the other and vise a versa is completely false and ad hoc.
They are seen as 2 independent evidences in the manuscripts. One is not dependent on the other in the least.
And the marginalia, is very close to the statements in Fulgentius and in Marcius c
oncerning Arius. Which is a good indication of the importance and age of the Uncial exemplar. It is possible that Fulgentius got his statement from the same source as Marcius, just the tribal knowledge that is being used against the Arians among Christians.