Venerable Bede - MS Balliol 177 per Jenkins and Laistner - Haymo

Steven Avery

Administrator
There appear to be multiple evidences that Bede had the heavenly witnesses verse.

First Grantley takes the negative approach:


RGA - p. 43
The commentary on the Catholic Epistles by Bede (672/3-735) shows no trace of the comma, and only the faintest hint of a Trinitarian interpretation of verse 8. Interestingly, it seems that Bede was aware of the textual variant in nobis hcec unum sunt in verse 8, which he explains by means of a citation from Ambrose’s De Spiritu sancto. 58 In his homily on the Epistle for the first Sunday after Easter (1 Jn 5:4-12), Hrabanus Maurus (c. 780-856), archbishop of Mainz, likewise moves systematically through the passage in question but does not include the comma, a circumstance that suggests strongly that it was not in his lectionary. Like Bede (one of his principal sources), Hrabanus only hints at a Trinitarian reading of verse 8.59 The immediate context of the passage in 1 Jn is cited no less than four times by another Frankish bishop, Hincmar of Reims (806-882), who likewise fails to include the comma in every instance, even in the midst of his vigorous defence of the Trinity against the propositions of Gottschalk.60 More definite traces of the allegorical interpretation are to be found in a sermon on the same lectionary reading by Hrabanus’ contemporary Haymo, bishop of Halberstadt († 853). Although the comma was apparently absent from the lectionary Haymo was using, he does imply that the three persons of the Trinity are "signified mystically” by the Scriptural verse, a conclusion he apparently reached through his reading of Eucherius. Interestingly, Haymo also says that the water, blood and spirit testify on earth, thus providing evidence of the uneven entry of the markers in calo-in terra used to distinguish the heavenly and earthly witnesses.61

58 Bede, Super epistolas catholicas expositio, ad 1 Jn 5:7-8, CCSL 121:321-322, ll. 84-111 (cf. PL 93:114):

“Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, spiritus et aqua et sanguis. Spiritus dedit
testimonium quoniam Iesus est ueritas quando super baptizatum descendit [Mt 3:16]. Si enim
uerus Dei filius non esset, nequaquam in eum tanta manifestatione spiritus sanctus ueniret.
Aqua etiam et sanguis dedere testimonium quoniam Iesus est ueritas quando de latere eius in
cruce mortui manarunt [Jn 19:34], quod nullatenus fieri posset, si ueram carnis naturam non
haberet. Sed et hoc quod ante passionem cum oraret factus est sudor eius sicut guttæ sanguinis
decurrentis in terram [Lk 22:44] ueritati carnis assumptæ testimonium dat. Nec reticendum
quod in hoc quoque sanguis et aqua testimonium illi dederunt quod de latere mortui uiuaciter
effluxerunt, quod erat contra naturam corporum atque ob id mysteriis aptum et testimonio
ueritatis fuit congruum uidelicet insinuans quia et ipsum domini corpus melius post mortem
esset uicturum resuscitatum in gloria et ipsa mors illius nobis uitam donaret. Hoc quoque quod
sudor eius instar guttarum sanguinis decurrebat in terram testimonium perhibebat illi
sacrosancto mysterio quod ecclesiam totum per orbem suo sanguine lauaret. Tres sunt ergo qui
testimonium perhibent ueritati, et tres, inquit, unum sunt. Indiuidua namque hæc manent
nihilque eorum a sui conexione seiungitur, quia nec sine uera diuinitate humanitas nec sine
uera credenda est humanitate diuinitas. Sed et in nobis hæc unum sunt non naturæ eiusdem
substantia sed eiusdem operatione [322] mysterii. Nam, sicut beatus Ambrosius ait: Spiritus
mentem renouat, aqua proficit ad lauacrum, sanguis spectat ad pretium. Spiritus enim nos per
adoptionem filios Dei fecit, sacri fontis unda nos abluit, sanguis domini nos redemit. Alterum igitur
inuisibile, alterum uisibile testimonium sacramento consequitur spiritali [Ambrose, De Spiritu
sancto; CSEL 79:179].”

Jenkins, 1942, pointed out that the following manuscripts of Bede’s commentary give the reading Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant: spiritus et aqua et sanguis:

Oxford, Bodleian ms 849 (dated 818);
Oxford, Bodleian ms Laud misc. 442 (ninth century);
Oxford, Oriel College ms 34 (tenth century);
Oxford, Jesus College ms 69 (eleventh century);
Oxford, Jesus College ms 70 (twelfth century).

Two slightly later manuscripts show traces that the comma is starting to circulate (although they do not quote verse 7), since they give the
reading “[…] dant in terra: spiritus […]”:

Oxford, Bodleian ms Laud misc. 78 (twelfth century);
Oxford, Lincoln College ms D. Lat. 31 (twelfth or thirteenth century).

Jenkins next draws attention to the relevant passage as it appears in Oxford, Balliol College ms 177 (dated tentatively to the end of the twelfth century), 83r:

“[…] qui eum uel deum uel hominem esse uerum denegant. Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in celo pater uerbum et spiritus sanctus. Et hii tres sunt [sic]. Pater dedit testimonium deitatis quando dixit Hic est filius meus dilectus [Mt 3:17]. Ipse filius dedit testimonium qui in monte transfiguratus potentiam diuinitatis et speciem eterne beatitudinis ostendit [Mt 17:2]. Spiritus sanctus dedit qui [quando?] super baptizatum in specie columbe requieuit [Lk 3:22] uel quando ad inuocacionem nominis xpi corda credencium impleuit. Et hii tres unum sunt una uidelicet substantia et unius deitatis essencia. Et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra spiritus aqua et sanguis. Spiritus dedit testimonium quoniam ihs est ueritas quando super baptizatum descendit. Si enim non uerus […].”

Jenkins’ comments were followed up by Laistner, 1942, who noted that this reading does not occur in two further manuscripts of Bede (Karlsruhe, mss Aug. xliii and cliii, both ninth century), and that both these manuscripts also lack the words in terra. Jenkins and Laistner were apparently unaware that the words “pater dedit…impleuit” in the Balliol manuscript are interpolated from the Glossa ordinaria, 1603, VI:1414, perhaps by way of the Speculum speculationum of Alexander Neckam, who attributed this part of the Glossa to Bede. The words “Spiritus…descendit” are perhaps based on Neckam’s explication: “Spiritus ergo Sanctus in terra dedit testimonium Christo super humanitate, et in conceptione quia de ipso conceptus est, et in descensu super ipsum quando baptizatus est, et tercio quando ab ipso ductus est in desertum.” See Neckam, 1988, 73, 78.

59 Hrabanus Maurus, Homilia XVII, PL 110:174-175.

60 Hincmar, De prædestinatione Dei XXXV, PL 125:376; De una et non trina deitate X, PL 125:555; Explanatio in ferculum Salomonis, PL 125:821; Epist. X, PL 126:75

61 Haymo of Halberstadt, Homilia LXXX, PL 118:488: “Spiritus est qui testificatur, quoniam
Christus est veritas. Spiritus enim sanctus, per quem nobis in baptismo omnium datur remissio
peccatorum, nos per adoptionem filios Dei facit: quos ipse Dominus in morte crucis et suo
sanguine redemit, et per gratiam ejusdem sancti Spiritus, quem in baptismo suscepimus, verae
fidei lumen et agnitionis Dei recepimus, unde salutem consequi debemus aeternam. Quoniam
tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, aqua, et sanguis, et spiritus. Quidam hic sanctam
Trinitatem mystice significatam intelligunt, quae Christo testimonium perhibuit. In aqua
Patrem significari intelligunt, quia ipse de se dicit: Me dereliquerunt fontem aquæ vivæ [Jer
2:13]. In sanguine, ipsum Christum, qui pro salute mundi suum sanguinem fudit. In spiritu,
eumdem Spiritum sanctum. Hæc sancta Trinitas Christo testimonium ita perhibet, ipso per
Evangelium loquente: Ego sum qui testimonium perhibeo de meipso, et testimonium perhibet de
me, qui misit me Pater. Et cum venerit paracletus, quem ego mittam vobis a Patre meo, Spiritum
veritatis, ille testimonium perhibebit de me [Jn 8:15]. Et hi tres unum sunt, id est Pater et Filius et
Spiritus sanctus. Unum in natura, unum in divina substantia, coæquales in omnibus, et
coæternales per omnia, in nullo dissimiles.” It is possible that the phrase in terra was later
introduced into Haymo’s text in the process of transmission, as was the case with Eucherius’
text, but in the absence of a critical edition of Haymo’s works it is difficult to be sure.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
NEW - From "The Witness of God is Greater"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YxGsgMJVzjWcabaS8QDRl-Gnia4EwseL/view

p. 452
Bede

Glossa Ordinaria
[1 John 5:7] "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. For there be three." Through this it is apparent that Jesus is truth, true God and true man. And concerning both we have a sure testimony: concerning his divinity we have testimony through the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; concerning his humanity, through the Spirit, water, and blood. The Father gave testimony of his divinity when he said, "This is my beloved Son" (Matt. 3:17). The Son himself gave testimony when he was transfigured on the mount, and showed the power of divinity and the hope of eternal happiness. The Holy Spirit gave testimony when he rested above Jesus at his baptism in the form of a dove, or when he filled the hearts of believers for the calling of the name of Christ.


(Bede Expo. On 1 John)
Sarah Van Der Pas, The Glossa Ordinaria: Epistles of St. John
, 2014, p. 49-51.
TWOGIG p. 451-452

p. 452 of April 2023 of TWOGIG is the
Glossa Ordinaria
1733258931874.png


Then p. 456
MS. Balliol 177
Bede, the Venerable
1733259122797.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
MS Balliol 177 (12th century)
[Jenkins] In a codex given to Balliol College, Oxford, c. 1477, by a former alumnus the generous prelate William Grey Bishop of Ely (d. 1478). MS. Balliol 177 is assigned to the end of saec. xii (12th century), and this date may be accepted, if with a little hesitation. Its text in cases where the manuscripts are divided will perhaps usually be found in association with that of manuscripts like Jesus College MS. 69 and Jesus College MS. 70 and Linc. D. Lat 31 [Oxford, Lincoln College lat. 31], though it occasionally lends support to readings demonstrably ancient represented in e.g. Bodl. 849 (818 AD). (Jenkins, "A Newly Discovered Reference to the 'Heavenly Witnesses' 1 John v. 7, 8 in a Manuscript of Bede", 1942, p. 43)

Claude Jenkins and Laistner are in RGA by Grantley.
Witness of God gives more details.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator







Steven Avery the CJ was not in Bede’s Bible and his commentary shows no awareness of the heavenly witnesses in this passage. And this is very significant because Bede was a follower of Jerome:

Here’s the quote in full so you can see it for yourself:

5:7–8 Because there are three who bear witness, the Spirit and the water and the blood. The Spirit bore witness that Jesus is the truth when it came down upon him as he was baptized. For if he were not the true Son of God, the Holy Spirit would never have come upon him so manifestly. The water and the blood also bore witness that Jesus is the truth when they issued from his side as he was dead upon the cross. This would never have been possible if he had not had the true nature of flesh. But also the fact that when he was praying before his passion his sweat became like drops of blood running down on the ground bears witness to the truth of the flesh he had taken on. Nor must we remain silent about the water and the blood also having borne witness to him when they poured out of his side in so lifelike a manner when he was dead. This was contrary to the nature of bodies and on that account appropriate to the mysteries and apt for the witness of the truth, implying namely both that the very body of the Lord would be better [able to be] victorious after death, when he was raised in glory, and that his very death would give us life. That his blood also ran down on the ground like drops of blood by a holiest mystery bore witness to him that he cleansed the Church throughout the whole world by his blood. Therefore, There are three who give witness to the truth, and the three, he says, are one. These remain distinct, then, and none of them is severed from its connection with the other, because it must not be believed that his humanity existed without his true divinity or his divinity without his true humanity. But these are also one in us, not by the substance of the same nature but by the operation of the same mystery. Now, as blessed Ambrose, says, The Spirit renews the mind, the water is of avail for [baptismal] cleansing, the blood points to the cost. For the Spirit made us children of God by adoption, the water of the sacred font washed us, the blood of the Lord redeemed us. The one an invisible witness, therefore, the other a visible, results from the spiritual sacrament.

Venerable, Saint Bede the. 1985. The Commentary on the Seven Catholic Epistles of Bede the Venerable. Translated by David Hurst. Vol. No. 82. Cistercian Studies Series. Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian Publications.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
● The Venerable Bede (active 690-735, wrote in Latin) died before most of those manuscripts were made. In his Commentary on Acts, Bede used a Latin text that did not include verse 37, but as he began his exposition on verse 36-38, he wrote:

Hic alia translatio juxta Graecum exemplar aliquot versus plus habet,

ubi scriptum est, Ecce aqua, quis prohibit me baptizari?

Dixit autem ei Philippus, Si credis ex toto corde tuo, salvus eris.

Respondens autem dixit, Credo in Christum Filium Dei.

Et jussit stare currum, et caetera.45

That is: “At this point, there is another rendering, and the Greek exemplar has some more verses, where it is written, “Behold, water, who will forbid me to be baptized?”: Philip said to him, “If you believe with all your heart, you shall be saved.” He answered and said, “I believe in Christ, the Son of God.” And he commanded the chariot to stop,” and so forth.”

The probability is extremely high that Bede used Codex Laudianus.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bede was in a corner of the textual world, if Acts 8:37 wad missing from his Latin text that indicates severe corruption
 

Johannes

New member
I wanted to add that Cod. Sang. 252 (early 9th century) which reads Bede's exposition on the 7th Catholic Epistles without the Comma, nor "in earth", but I don't think Bede's omission is great weight (even if Erasmus gave it, iirc), since later on the same ms. reads "SPS dedit? testimonium quo "IHR" (I suppose it is Iesus Hristos?) est veritas" (Line 11-12 Jn. 5:7-8 and 13 v. 6), which is a Vulgate reading. The problem with Vulgate omissions being given so much weight is that we don't account for Nicetas' quotation of v. 7-9 as "It is better to receive the Heavenly witnesses than human fictions" (not verbatim but you get the point). Nicetas works as a double-pronged fork, since if it is Old Latin, its great evidence that it was present in Serbia-Dacia (with Cassian's quotation) before the Vulgate. If it is Vulgate, Jerome originally included the verse, forwarded by the Prologue, and the omission can be traced back to Amiatinus and Fuldensis. This should be considered as an argument against Jerome's omission, + Bede's omission.

I attached the image of the Codex for revision, it's available at: https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/doubleview/csg/0252/176/ (p. 176, or first one)
 

Attachments

  • 1733720983482.png
    1733720983482.png
    934.4 KB · Views: 26

Johannes

New member
I also suppose Cod. Sang. 261 should be interesting to take a look over since it includes Bede on the Catholic Epistles, I identified Jude.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
, since if it is Old Latin, its great evidence that it was present in Serbia-Dacia (with Cassian's quotation) before the Vulgate.

Hi Johannes,

Cassian was put in a CT apparatus as favorable to the verse, in parenrgesis. Maybe UBS-2 or UBS-3.

Any idea why? Or quotes of interest?

Thanks!

Steven
 

Johannes

New member
Cassian was put in a CT apparatus as favorable to the verse, in parenthesis. It could be UBS-2 or UBS-3.
Hello Avery!

Yeah, I think You already identified this in https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/john-cassian.1946/. (if that's what you mean) That's basically why I think Cassian's quote is valid, It could be a reference for John 3, but I don't believe this matching of Earthly - Heavenly witnesses (usually a more Vulgate reading) would be taken from any verse but 1 John 5:7-8.

Nicetas is in TWOGIG as you abbreviate, pages 188-190. His quote is following v. 9.
The quote reads: One should believe heavenly witnesses [PAGE 30] rather than human fictions. My only point in this is to draw attention to the undoubted tradition of the Lord. If it is not enough to be baptized in the name of the Father and the Son, without the Holy Spirit, neither are we made holy and started on the way to eternal life without the Holy Spirit. My purpose is to show that it is not only in baptism, but in other things, that the Holy Spirit has worked and will ever work with the Father and the Son. (Nicetas de Remesiana, Writings. Translated by G. Walsh, B. Peebles, R.E. Morris, and J.R. O'Donnell, 1949, p. 29-30)

If he has the Comma he exegeted v. 7-9 as v. 7 referring to the witness of God in v. 9, rather than the testimony of men. And afterward, he presents the baptism of Matt. 28 which is paired with the point of 1 Jn. 5:7-9.

I hope you have a nice day and that this answers.
 
Top