Comma Johanneum/Changing of the Bible.

[By Grace]

Re: how the Reformation Bible editions improved on the extant Greek and Latin texts

Hi, Every individual source manuscript is subject to at least two deficiencies.1) hand copying errors These are eliminated in a careful collation to a printed edition, with proof-reading, a second and third edition, etc. 2) a singular language line

I do not believe that "refinement" as it seems that you are applying it to God's word is accurate. the refinement process takes place when something not useful in its present state goes through several stages to become better and manageable. The refinement of crude oil into gasoline, or oil based products is a well-known example of refinement. Refinement means that something else, an outside force, other than the original forces making the product needed to work on it. To apply that to God's word means that the Bible is dependent upon human efforts to make it better.

It is a matter of fact that Erasmus did not have as many and as reliable sources for the Bible as is known today. Therefore, by the force of sheer numbers, and despite his great academic prowess, having (as an example) only 100 sources at his disposal, he would have a greater possibility for error making than we would have today because there are now over 6000 sources from which we can look to determine the accuracy of a text. Due to such a great number of available resources, scholars are able to pinpoint exactly where a gloss was made, and then copied in subsequent copies.

Using numbers again, due to the large amount of available resources, scholars are able to reconstruct the original words (as opposed to refine) what the original texts, as written by the original authors with an accuracy of 99.95% If you have studied statistics, you can see this as an astonishing degree of certainty. If you have not studied stats, the figure is almost meaningless.

How does this apply to the topic of the thread? Erasmus is on record as saying that he found no example of the comma in any Latin manuscripts prior to 800. So we need to look at a more contemporary evaluation of the situation, and ;ook at the excellent translation called Net Bible. Here is a snippet from the notes for that Bible. It was published 1997-2005, and has 60,932 notes to go study.

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared, there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek MSS that included it.
​

Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (1 Jn 5:7). Biblical Studies Press.

Here is how to get your copy:

From our website at www.netbible.com, you may download the NET Bible and print it for others as long as you give it away and do not charge for it. In this case, free means free. It cannot be bundled with anything sold, nor can you charge for shipping, handling, or anything. It is provided for personal study or for use in preparation of sermons, Sunday school classes, or other noncommercial study. This release is also available to organizations like the Gideons, who may distribute millions of copies of the NET Bible text without royalty
​

Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press.

Back to the Comma.

We know that one man, Erasmus was not perfect, anddue to his limited number of resources, he made a statement about the earliest Greek source of the comma being about 800. Unfortunately he did not have the great numbers of resources aa are available today, and his dating methods were imprecise. If you remember your history, you also remember the difficulties surrounding the common usage of the Gregorian calendar in 1582, which succeeded the previous Julian calendar so if Erasmus erred in the dating, so what?

Another conservative and recent resource states this about the Comma:

They [the words in the comma] occur in Latin MSS from about AD 800 onwards and so became established in the official Latin text of the Bible, but they are found in no Greek MS before the 12th cent., are certainly not part of the original Epistle, and are omitted from the RV and other scholarly modern translations. The origin of the interpolation is obscure.
​

Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.) (885). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

But Erasmus really did not err, did he?

Thus a solidly collated text that looks at both the Greek and Latin manuscripts can produce a new printed edition that is superior to any manuscript. And superior even to any collation that is based on one language line.

In fact, when Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza were producing their manuscripts, they produced superior Greek and Latin editions, that were far superior to any extant Greek or Latin manuscripts in their day.

Not only did they directly work with the Greek and Latin variants, they utilized the ECW and internal evidences, faith-consistent, to help make sure that the resultant text was pure. ie. That they made the right decisions where the Latin and Greek lines were at variance, or when there were internal significant splits within the lines.

Beyond that they put out multiple editions, and ,generally, Stephanus refined the Erasmus editions and Beza refined the Stephanus decisions. And then the final refination came from the learned men of the AV, who had the tools and the wisdom when working with the wide variety of excellent editions (including the Complutensian Polyglot, so they could have both printed editions and individual manuscripts in Latin and Greek. Their central focus was the Stephanus and Beza editions.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

I have no problem with what you posted above, excepting for this fact: Due to the work of more modern scholars, the UBS Third Edition with the Critical Apparatus which is on my desk in front of the keyboard is far superior to that which Erasmus, Stephanus et. al could produce. And the latest version, in a blue cover (UBS 29) is far superior to my edition. Through the dating of those resources using modern tools and using both computers and many good scholars the great work of Erasmus has been eclipsed.

And while the Comma is true, because it does not contradict any Scripture, we must let history and the scholarship of others far superior to us prevail. It is REALLY not a big issue.

 

[Steven Avery]

Re: how the Reformation Bible editions improved on the extant Greek and Latin texts

Hi,

Rather than jump around, 3 questions:

Have you found out yet about the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and how this is a part of the discussion of the heavenly witnesses ?

Will you acknowledge the Fuldensis correction ?

Do you still contend that early church writer references are not significant evidences ?

Thanks.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[By Grace]

Re: how the Reformation Bible editions improved on the extant Greek and Latin texts

Hi,
Rather than jump around, 3 questions:

Have you found out yet about the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and how this is a part of the discussion of the heavenly witnesses ?

The decree of Carthage is NOT Scripture, and the subject of the OP is the inclusion of it in Scripture Therefore I believe it is irrelevant.

Will you acknowledge the Fuldensis correction ?

Because F is based on the Vulgate, and is in Latin, it is therefore NOT based on any Greek manuscripts. The issue is the inclusion of the comma in the GREEK manuscripts. Besides that, the Greek mss are COPIES, while the Vulgate, and every other Latin mss is a TRANSLATION, and a redaction of the Latin, which is not the original language of the NT

Do you still contend that early church writer references are not significant evidences ?

Thanks. Shalom, Steven Avery

"Significance" is a loaded word in that it can have greater importance for one person than for another.

Wiki has an interesting statement about this,and it is very carefully parsed:

The 1 John text section omits the Comma Johanneum. However, 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. The Prologue from about 1700 on had often been attacked as a late forgery, not really by Jerome, at the time the earliest known extant Vulgate with the Prologue was about 800 AD. The Prologue was noted to be in the Codex Fuldensis in the mid-to-late 1800s.
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Fuldensis
​

So the fact is that it is NOT in the Vulgate text itself, and is in the ancillary prologue NOR in (F) NOR is it in Greek copy. Evidence rules, Steve. Since this Comma is NOT a requirement for salvation, it is an unimportant area. However we must be led by what the evidence shows, and not what our emotions may tell us. This is not a case of the absence of evidence, but it is the evidence of historical documents which are easily touched, and researched. Christianity is not like Mormonism, but that is quite another and different issue.

I sincerely hope this helps

 

[farouk]

Steven: I'm interested in the extent to which your views repose on the idea of 'church authority' (as opposed to referring to the existence of early, independent textual witnesses).

To some extent this seems to be By Grace's point.

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Steven: I'm interested in the extent to which your views repose on the idea of 'church authority' (as opposed to referring to the existence of early, independent textual witnesses). To some extent this seems to be By Grace's point.

Did I use the phrase church authority ? You would have to be specific as to your question.

To help you out, the importance of the Council of Carthage is what it showed about the text of the Bibles used by hundreds of bishops in the 400s. From a wide geographical area. And by logical extension, the text of the Vandals who were the 'hosts' of the Conference. Do you think that can be a salient piece of information when searching out the history of a Bible text variant ?

What better "early, independent textual witnesses" are there than the Bibles being used ? It might help also for any researcher to know the circumstances of the Council.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Hi,

Did I use the phrase church authority ? You would have to be specific as to your question.

To help you out, the importance of the Council of Carthage is what it showed about the text of the Bibles used by hundreds of bishops in the 400s. From a wide geographical area. Do you think that can be a salient piece of information when searching out the history of a Bible text variant ?

Shalom,
Steven

Steven:

Yes, what you phrase as questions, was what I was getting at, really.

I suppose it's as early, independent textual witnesses that you see the value of the citations, rather than as a matter of an 'ecclesiastical text', or whatever.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

it's as early, independent textual witnesses that you see the value of the citations, rather than as a matter of an 'ecclesiastical text',

Amen.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Hi,

Amen.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven:

So you see, this is also why I struggle a bit with a notion of an 'ecclesiastical text' derived from historical notions citing the 16th and 17th centuries (times of blessings though they were, also).

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

this is also why I struggle a bit with a notion of an 'ecclesiastical text' derived from historical notions citing the 16th and 17th centuries.

This contradicts your own words, in the context of the hundreds of bishops at the Council of Carthage, and their opposition :

> independent textual witnesses that you see the value of the citations, rather than as a matter of an 'ecclesiastical text',

Maybe you switched the topic around, but here we are agreeing on the emphasis on , independent textual witnesses, and the lack of emphasis on an 'ecclesiastical text'.

Even the Reformation Bible work of the 1600s was trans-ecclesiastical, starting with the catholics with the Complutensian Polyglot, their support and then opposition to Erasmus, and the newly evolving and very diffuse Reformation movements. The pure Bible was properly accepted by all elements (except the RCC, which went reactionary at Trent) e.g. the Anabaptists, with very different church organization, accepted the pure Bible.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[farouk]

Hi Folks,

This contradicts your own words, in the context of the hundreds of bishops at the Council of Carthage, and their opposition :

> independent textual witnesses that you see the value of the citations, rather than as a matter of an 'ecclesiastical text',

Maybe you switched the topic around, but here we are agreeing on the emphasis on , independent textual witnesses, and the lack of emphasis on an 'ecclesiastical text'.

Even the Reformation Bible work of the 1600s was trans-ecclesiastical, starting with the catholics with the Complutensian Polyglot, their support and then opposition to Erasmus, and the newly evolving and very diffuse Reformation movements. The pure Bible was properly accepted by all elements (except the RCC, which went reactionary at Trent) e.g. the Anabaptists, with very different church organization, accepted the pure Bible.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven: Really? Maybe you could explain a little more, please. Not sure I follow.

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Steven: Really? Maybe you could explain a little more, please. Not sure I follow.

There has been a certain circular element to your approach, continually going back to a notion of yours about ecclesiastical text, expressed in a variety of phrases.

There are ecclesiastical texts, examples are the Syriac of the various Syriac churches, which was modified a bit to receive Reformation Bible improvements. The Greek Byzantine of the Orthodox, which also was properly modified starting around 1600 to receive Reformation Bible improvements (examples, the heavenly witness and Acts 8:37). And the Clementine Vulgate of 1592, which was accepted for a few hundred years by the RCC until they started to embrace the Westcott-Hort text as well..

Those qualify to some extent as ecclesiastical texts.

The term does not apply well to the Reformation Bible, from the Received text. Except very lightly in the general sense that churches, scholars and individuals all accepted this text. Until the small bump in the road of the Hortian textual apostasy, when some got confused.

Removed by staff

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[farouk]

Hi,

There has been a certain circular element to your approach, continually going back to a notion of yours about ecclesiastical text, expressed in a variety of phrases.

There are ecclesiastical texts, examples are the Syriac of the various Syriac churches, which was modified a bit to receive Reformation Bible improvements. The Greek Byzantine of the Orthodox, which also was properly modified starting around 1600 to receive Reformation Bible improvements (examples, the heavenly witness and Acts 8:37). And the Clementine Vulgate of 1592, which was accepted for a few hundred years by the RCC until they started to embrace the Westcott-Hort text as well..

Those qualify to some extent as ecclesiastical texts.

The term does not apply well to the Reformation Bible, from the Received text. Except very lightly in the general sense that churches, scholars and individuals all accepted this text. Until the small bump in the road of the Hortian textual apostasy, when some got confused.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven:

Oh okay. Thanks for your attempts at explanation.

What I was thinking of was something along the lines of: since you don't particularly accept textual witnesses from the point of view of ecclesiastical authority, when it comes to the Council of Carthage, then I don't quite see why what certain men did in the 16th century should be regarded as having an ecclesiastical aura, such as precludes continuing assessment of the New Testament's text according to sources.

Blessings.

 

[By Grace]

Hi,

Did I use the phrase church authority ? You would have to be specific as to your question.

To help you out, the importance of the Council of Carthage is what it showed about the text of the Bibles used by hundreds of bishops in the 400s. From a wide geographical area. And by logical extension, the text of the Vandals who were the 'hosts' of the Conference. Do you think that can be a salient piece of information when searching out the history of a Bible text variant ?

I think that you are essentially saying that the edicts (or more properly the canons), written in both Greek and Latin are essentially Scripture. Perhaps it may be helpful to present a canon, translated into English:

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
The New Testament.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm (red emphasis added)
​

I made the New Testament in bold red to emphasize that there was specific mention of the Comma in this cannon. In fact there is only ONE of the canons that mentioned 1 John:

Canon 114. (Greek cxv.)

That not only humble but also true is that voice of the Saints: "If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves."

It also seemed good that as St. John the Apostle says, "If we shall say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us," whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean that out of humility, we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so, let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity," where it is sufficiently clear that this is said not only of humility but also truly. For the Apostle might have said, "If we shall say we have no sins we shall extoll ourselves, and humility shall have no place in us;" but when he says, "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin would speak not that which is true but that which is false.
(ibid)


​

The only conclusion I can logically come to is that there is an absence of any mention of the Comma Johanneum in the edicts (canons) of the council. I footnoted it so that you can research it yourself.

What better "

early, independent textual witnesses" are there than the Bibles being used ? It might help also for any researcher to know the circumstances of the Council.

Shalom, Steven

Quite respectfully, I submit that the history of the Council is evidenced by the canons it produced. In other words, if something was not mentioned anywhere by the Council, it was either an insignificant item, or else it was not mentioned. The absence of anything regarding the Comma means that the issue was not extant at the time, or else it was deemed insignificant. Silence is significant in this case.

I welcome your input.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I think that you are essentially saying that the edicts (or more properly the canons), written in both Greek and Latin are essentially Scripture. Perhaps it may be helpful to present a canon, translated into English:

Note that all that is 419 AD. And the date I mentioned is 484 AD.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

What I was thinking of was something along the lines of: since you don't particularly accept textual witnesses from the point of view of ecclesiastical authority, when it comes to the Council of Carthage, then I don't quite see why what certain men did in the 16th century should be regarded as having an ecclesiastical aura, such as precludes continuing assessment of the New Testament's text according to sources.

Is an ecclesiastical aura something you want to have, or avoid ?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[By Grace]

Hi, Note that all that is 419 AD. And the date I mentioned is 484 AD.
Shalom, Steven

You ALSO mentioned the entire century:

Originally Posted by Steven Avery
<SNIP>
To help you out, the importance of the Council of Carthage is what it showed about the text of the Bibles used by hundreds of bishops in the 400s.

I am more interested on the event itself, and the resulting canons. Therefore the dates are irrelevant, especially since the canons did not mention the Comma Johanneum at all.

From the title of your post, it seems as if you believe someone CHANGED the Bible at Carthage. That surely is not the case. I refer you back to Canon 24 below.

Canon 24. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
The New Testament.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

from http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm (red emphasis added)
​

I made the New Testament in bold red to emphasize that there was specific mention of the Comma in this cannon.

As a result, of Canon 24, Carthage does two important things:
1) It confirms (it did not establish) which books are considered canon
2) It states that nothing except Canon is to be read in church.

So please explain why the dates are so vital, and then please whatever it is when you use the word "ecclesiastical whatever" Farok asked several times, and we are both attempting to communicate.

You also asked a question that I did not answer:

Do you think that can be a salient piece of information when searching out the history of a Bible text variant ?[/QUOTE]
By salient, I presume that you mean "conspicuous or important"
By "searching put the history..." I assume that you asking if the edicts are history lessons

By your usage of the term "Bible text vatiant" Iam assuming that you believe that there is a discullion og the comma johammem in the 150 or so canons that were written.

Here is my three part answer:
The prominence of Carthage is in the eyes of its beholder. If one is a bishop, it sets the limits of the authorities of the Bishop. It also goes and states things about heresies, such as the Donatists, Pelagius and Celestius. all these things and the similar things found in Carthage are mostly issues of church polity. But Carthage does not make major pronouncements such as on the deity of Jesus Christ, (as an example), therefore I have to vote "no" in that regard.


The Canons were not "history books, per se. They were pronouncements on several issues of the day, including married clergy. They constitute edicts of what was going on during the times surrounding the Council. (the present) They were not an explanation of Augustine's theology of grace, nor was it a detailed explanation of the church under Constantine. The first discussion would make Carthage a systematic theology, and the second would make Carthage a history book. Therefore my answer to that part is also "no".

But the issue at hand, and that relates to the Comma is Does Carthage have any canon that deals with text variants?" The ONLY text that Carthage deals with is 1 John 1:9-10 If we say we have no sin..." Here it is:

Canon 114. (Greek cxv.)

That not only humble but also true is that voice of the Saints: "If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves."

It also seemed good that as St. John the Apostle says, "If we shall say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us," whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean that out of humility, we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so, let him be anathema.

For the Apostle goes on to add, "But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity," where it is sufficiently clear that this is said not only of humility but also truly. For the Apostle might have said, "If we shall say we have no sins we shall extoll ourselves, and humility shall have no place in us;" but when he says, "we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us" he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin would speak not that which is true but that which is false.​

You should notice that there is not a mention of Greek in that text, but it only
mentions how we should understand that verse. Please note that there is no reference to 1 John 5:7-8 the Comma.

On that basis, I conclude that each part of your question should be answered with a "no".

So what are we to do? From our previous discussions, it is obvious that you believe that it is significant, and that you believe that a textural variant is discussed. What I demonstrated was an absence of evidence that supported your question.

Your position is the positive one. "Carthage deals with the Johannine Comma" So it seems best to me that you to find evidence in the canons of Carthage that support your belief. That is why I cited the source above. Can you find another source that supports your beliefs, Steve?

 

[farouk]

Hi,

Is an ecclesiastical aura something you want to have, or avoid ?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Steven:

I thought you yourself wanted to avoid it, when it came to the Council of Carthage.

Stated differently, weren't the men of the Council of Carthage similar to Messers, Beza, Stephens, and others: i.e., simply men?

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Steven: I thought you yourself wanted to avoid it, when it came to the Council of Carthage. Stated differently, weren't the men of the Council of Carthage similar to Messers, Beza, Stephens, and others: i.e., simply men? .

They were hundreds of men, respresenting hundreds of churches, whose Bibles included the heavenly witnesses. This tells us a lot about the historic transmission of the verse (and is information hidden by many of the verse opponents).

I've never seen an ecclesiastical aura, so we can let it go by in the sky next to the dwarf star. ;) .

Shalom,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Hi Folks,

They were hundreds of men, respresenting hundreds of churches, whose Bibles included the heavenly witnesses. This tells us a lot about the historic transmission of the verse (and is information hidden by many of the verse opponents).

I've never seen an ecclesiastical aura, so we can let it go by in the sky next to the dwarf star. ;) .

Shalom,
Steven

Steven:

I guess my underlying point is, what is it about men in the 16th and 17th centuries that because of their manuscript collation work, not long after the invention of printing, made further collation supposedly illegitimate?

This is really my underlying question.

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Your position is the positive one. "Carthage deals with the Johannine Comma" So it seems best to me that you to find evidence in the canons of Carthage that support your belief. That is why I cited the source above. Can you find another source that supports your beliefs, Steve?

Why don't you simply search out Council of Carthage, with or without 484 AD, and with either "1 John v:7" or "1 John 5:7" (you can leave off the "1" in the search). or "Johannine Comma" or "Comma Johanneum". At least then you can find out what actually happened around the heavenly witnesses.

Hint: I never mentioned canons, what is involved is a Confession of Faith, the opposition was the Arian hosts, the Vandals under Huneric (also Hunneric), who were a tad hostile to the bishops.

The last I remember, you did not consider such ECW references relevant anyway, only manuscripts.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven