Luther’s Textual Study of the Greek New Testament 55 beneficial to the trinitarian controversies40. Moreover, Erasmus reminded that where 1 John 5,7-8 is cited verbatim by the church fathers, it occurs without the Comma. He contended that the ancient biblical translations were silent about this spurious text41 and noticed that the Latin text of the Comma was uniform, whereas the Polyglot and Codex Montfortianus presented two different (yet equally inept) attempts at translating the Latin Comma into Greek. Erasmus emended the Comma from Codex Montfortianus by making πατήρ, λόγος, Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον articular (ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, τὸ Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον) in line with the Polyglot because the absence of the article would be unusual considering the context. Besides, the said codex made τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα anarthrous (πνεῦμα, ὕδωρ, καὶ αἷμα) contrary to the use of the Greek article. This shows a grammatical incompetence of a forger. It happened that Erasmus verbatim quoted the Comma from Codex Montfortianus42. A difference between the Polyglot and Codex Montfortianus as well as a linguistic ineptitude of the Greek Comma was highlighted by the Dutch Humanist against the authenticity thereof. Translating the Greek Comma as recorded in Codex Montfortianus into Latin, Erasmus interpreted λόγος as sermo following Tertullian’s insight43. The Polyglot translated Latin “hi tres [i. e. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus sanctus] unum sunt” into Greek “οἱ τρεῖς [i. e. ὁ πατήρ καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα] εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι” imitating 1 John 5,8 (τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα. καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν). This would imply that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit amount to the one (εἰσιν εἰς τὸ ἕν). From the perspective of the patristic doctrine of the Trinity such a statement sounds as if the divine substance was partitioned and if the Trinity was an aggregate of three persons. According to the mature patristic theology three persons do not amount to the one but are in the full sense of the word one in terms of the undividedness of the divine substance (ἕν [neuter]). The Polyglot provided an editorial note to 1 John 5 with the trinitarian doctrine brought forward by Thomas Aquinas against Joachim of 40 Erasmus Roterodamus, In Novum Testamentum annotationes (Basel: Froben, 1540), 768-772 [1 John 5,7-8]. 41 Bruce Manning Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2000), 647-649 [1 John 5,7-8]. 42 Erasmus Roterodamus, “Apologia respondens ad ea quae in Novo Testamento taxaverat Jacobus Lopis Stunica,” in Opera omnia emendatiora et auctiora, vol. 9, ed. Jean Le Clerc (Leiden: Vander Aa, 1706), 353 [Ex Cap. V, Annot. I; 1 John 5]. Idem, In Novum Testamentum annotationes (Basel: Froben, 1540), 770 [1 John 5,7-8]. 43 Tertullianus, “Adversus Praxean,” in Opera, vol. IV/2, ed. Ernst Friedrich Leopold (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 1841), 252-253 [5].