1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - Clement of Alexandria, Eclogae Propheticae 13.1

TwoNoteableCorruptions

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Clement of Alexandria

Eclogae Propheticae 13.1

Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτύρων, ἐπὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ἐφ' ὧν μαρτύρων καὶ βοηθῶν αἱ ἐντολαὶ λεγόμεναι φυλάσσεσθαι ὀφείλουσιν.

"By two and three witnesses every word is established. By Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept." (Translation by Charles Forster, New Plea, Page 74)

"Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses, before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom, as witnesses and helpers, what are called the commandments ought to be kept." (Translation by Ben David, Monthly Review, 1826, Page 277)
​

What verses is Clement of Alexandria referencing in this passage?

How does the surrounding (preceding and following) context of the text above help in answering that question?

What other writings of Clement have a bearing on this?
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Clement of Alexandria

Eclogae Propheticae 13.1

Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτύρων, ἐπὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ἐφ' ὧν μαρτύρων καὶ βοηθῶν αἱ ἐντολαὶ λεγόμεναι φυλάσσεσθαι ὀφείλουσιν.

"By two and three witnesses every word is established. By Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept." (Translation by Charles Forster, New Plea, Page 74)

"Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses, before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom, as witnesses and helpers, what are called the commandments ought to be kept." (Translation by Ben David, Monthly Review, 1826, Page 277)
​

What verses is Clement of Alexandria referencing in this passage?

How does the surrounding (preceding and following) context of the text above help in answering that question?

What other writings of Clement have a bearing on this?
Click to expand...
XIII. "By two and three witnesses every word is established." By Father,
and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed
commandments ought to be kept."

appears as XIII in EXCERPTS OF THEODOTUS or SELECTIONS FROM THE PROPHETIC SCRIPTURES
Theodotus was a Valentian gnostic

www.britannica.com

Theodotus The Gnostic | Early Christian, Gnostic Texts, Valentinianism

Theodotus The Gnostic a principal formulator of Eastern Gnosticism, a system of religious dualism (belief in rival deities of good and evil) with a doctrine of salvation by gnōsis, or esoteric knowledge. From the scant data available, Theodotus is known to have taught Gnosticism in Asia Minor c.
www.britannica.com www.britannica.com
__________________________________________
Theodotus The Gnostic, (flourished 2nd century ad), a principal formulator of Eastern Gnosticism, a system of religious dualism (belief in rival deities of good and evil) with a doctrine of salvation by gnōsis, or esoteric knowledge.
From the scant data available, Theodotus is known to have taught Gnosticism in Asia Minor c. 160–170, elaborating on the principles of the early-2nd-century Gnostic leader Valentinus. Theodotus’ teachings, of primary importance for the study of primitive Gnosticism, survive in Excerpta ex Theodoto (“Extracts from Theodotus”), actually a scrapbook that the 2nd–3rd-century Christian philosophical theologian Clement of Alexandria appended to his Stromata (“Miscellanies”). Certain passages integrate the comments of Clement; thus, the unsystematic arrangement of the material causes problems of interpretation.

Essentially, the Gnosticism of Theodotus affirmed that the world is the product of a process of emanations, or radiations, from an ultimate principle of unconditioned being or eternal ideas. Intermediate beings in this hierarchy of perfection include God the creator of matter and Christ the redeemer, who united himself to the man Jesus at his baptism to bring men gnōsis. Salvation, he concluded, is reserved for Gnostic believers infused with pneuma (“spirit”).

Theodotus further developed the role of the inferior spiritual beings, or angels, and their relation to Christ. He mentions a Eucharist of bread and water and anointing as a means for release from the domination of the evil power.
 
Wouldn't it be something if we could show that 1 John 5:7 had its origin with the Valentinian gnostics?

Irenaeus claims that the Valentinians considered themselves to be the recipients of hidden wisdom and so only revealed their beliefs to insiders (Adv. Haer. 3.15.2)

Valentinus was a second-century teacher and church leader who narrowly lost a contest to become the bishop of Rome.

"Valentinus, the leader of a sect, was the first to devise the notion of three subsistent entities (hypostases), in a work that he entitled On the Three Natures (work does not survive). For, he devised the notion of three subsistent entities and three persons—father, son, and holy spirit."
Bentley Layton in The Gnostic Scriptures (Doubleday 1987), p. 233.

Bentley Layton also notes "A trio of hypostases also figured in Platonist philosophical
speculation starting at least as early as the second century A.D."

+++++++++++

"The text attributed to the second century Gnostic Valentinus called “On the Three Natures,” known to us in a single reference from the fourth century, Marcellus of Ancyra:

"Again those of Simon's school, called 'gnostics', Menander
and Saturninus, Basilides, Marcus and Colorbasus and the rest,
invented newer ideas than each other and passed them on to those
taken in by them. This is why they also called themselves 'gnos-
tics'. The Ophites and Cainites, Sethites and the followers of
Hermes and Seleucus were recipients from them, and so was the
rest of the mob of heretics, who babble out such stuff—for exam-
ple I A 32V Carpocrates and Prodicus and Epiphanes (who also
devised new ideas of their own) from Nicolaus, or Marcion and
Lucian from Cerdo. From these Manichees took their starting
points and transmitted new ideas.
7. Now all these derived the starting points of their impiety
from the philosophers Hermes, Plato and Aristotle.
8. Now with the heresy of the Ariomaniacs, which has
corrupted the Church of God, it is necessary to clarify the matter
in their case as well, that you may be able to know that by deceit-
ful sophistry they have filched the dogmas of the ancients.
9. These then teach three hypostases, just as Valentinus the
heresiarch first invented in the book entitled by him 'On the
Three Natures'. For he was the first to invent three hypostases
and three persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and he is
discovered to have filched this from Hermes and Plato.
10. That is also why they again | M 97 devise a second god
created by the Father before the ages, as their esteemed Asterius
said, instructed by Hermes surnamed | S iO3r Trismegistus (for
this is how he speaks to Asclepius the physician: 'Hear then,
Asclepius. The lord and maker of everything, whom we are accus-
tomed to name God, created the second god visible and percept-
ible as well'). This is also where he acquired his 'only begotten
god' instead of from the divine John saying 'only begotten Son'
(John 1:18; 3:16, 18).
11. Then again Trismegistus says: 'When therefore he fash-
ioned this first and sole and one being, it appeared beautiful to
him and filled with all goods, he was delighted and loved it with
all his heart as his own offspring.'
12. This then was the source from which their notion of a first
and second god originated. It was on account of this too that
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote 'unbegotten'.
13. For Plato speaks as follows to Gorgias: 'Such then being the
necessary nature of all these things, the demiurge of the most
beautiful and the best took them over from among things gener-
ated at the time when he also begets his self-sufficient and most
perfect son {Tim. 68E).' And again he says in the same work:
'This being so, we must agree that the one really exists with a
form after them (?), unbegotten and imperishable, neither receiv-
ing anything from elsewhere into itself nor transforming itself into
other entities, not even perceptible to sight or to any other sense,
of which only the person who thinks has received contemplation.
But there is a second with the same name, like it, but begotten,
perceptible, in motion {Tim. 52A).'
14. I M 98 These have been the causes of error for those who
fell away from the orthodox faith by not pursuing it intently."




(Logan, A. Marcellus of Ancyra (Pseudo-Anthimus), On the Holy Church: Text, Translation and Commentary. Verses 8-9. Journal of Theological Studies, NS, Volume 51, Pt. 1, April 2000, p.95
 
Last edited:
I agree, that it is hard to distinguish in this work what part is Clement speaking and what part are extracts from Theodotus. But that's not my purpose in starting this thread here (i.e. to sort whose who etc). That's outside of the scope of this post.

Let us proceed upon the premise/assumption (whether it's correct or not) that the text in question is from Clement himself.

Clement of Alexandria

Eclogae Propheticae 13.1

Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτύρων, ἐπὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ἐφ' ὧν μαρτύρων καὶ βοηθῶν αἱ ἐντολαὶ λεγόμεναι φυλάσσεσθαι ὀφείλουσιν.

"'By two and three witnesses every word is established.' By Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept." (Translation by Charles Forster, New Plea, Page 74)

"'Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses,' before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom, as witnesses and helpers, what are called the commandments ought to be kept." (Translation by Ben David, Monthly Review, 1826, Page 277)​


First, let's explore the first Scripture reference highlighted in red above. What verse is this? We have several options, but either one of the Deuteronomy verse's is most likely in view.


Eclogae Propheticae 13.1
“Every verbal statement [Or: “matter” “point spoken”] is to be established upon the basis of [Or: “at the evidence of”]
two and three witnesses,”

"Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτύρων",

Deuteronomy 17:6 LXX
“upon two witnesses or upon three witnesses.”

ἐπὶ δυσὶν μάρτυσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθανεῗται ὁ ἀποθνῄσκων οὐκ ἀποθανεῗται ἐφ᾽ ἑνὶ μάρτυρι

Deuteronomy 19:15 LXX
“upon the mouth of two witnesses and upon the mouth of three witnesses every spoken word is established.”

οὐκ ἐμμενεῗ μάρτυς εἷς μαρτυρῆσαι κατὰ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν καὶ κατὰ πᾶν ἁμάρτημα καὶ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἣν ἂν ἁμάρτῃ ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ ἐπὶ στόματος τριῶν μαρτύρων σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα

Matthew 18:16
“upon the mouth of two or three witnesses every spoken word is established.”

ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσῃ, παράλαβε μετὰ σοῦ ἔτι ἕνα ἢ δύο, ἵνα ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων ἢ τριῶν σταθῇ πᾶν ῥῆμα·

2 Corinthians 13:1
“upon the mouth of two and three witnesses every spoken word is established.”

Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ τριῶν σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα.

1 Timothy 5:19
“upon two or three witnesses.”

κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ παραδέχου, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων·

Hebrews 10:28
“upon two or three witnesses.”

ἀθετήσας τις νόμον Μωυσέως χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθνήσκει·​


It appears to me that Clement has most probably paraphrased Deuteronomy 19:15 LXX, inverting the word order.

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Eclogae Propheticae 13.1

Ecl. Pro. 13.1 Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτύρων

Deut. 19.15(B) LXX ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ ἐπὶ στόματος τριῶν μαρτύρων σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Eclogae Propheticae 13.1

Ecl. Pro. 13.1 Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτύρων

Deut. 19.15(B) LXX ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ ἐπὶ στόματος τριῶν μαρτύρων σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα
Click to expand...
What point are you seeking to make? I regard all references to "Three in heaven" as derived from Valentinian gnosticism and a violation of Deut 6:4. Two or three witnesses is acceptable, as these are understood to be witnesses on earth.
 
Mine is textual, not so much theological.

Half of the snippet given by Pro-Comma Advocates, which one of them has said is a "tacit" allusion and/or quotation of/to the Comma (which I'll get into in more detail in later) is simply a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 19:5 (Part-B) LXX about the Biblical the legal principal of two or three witnesses which is founded upon the law of Moses.

Which is the basis upon which the next half of the sentence, concerning the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, is founded.

Note for Avery, "tacit" is the only word with quote marks around it, because I'm going by memory and posting from my phone.
 
Last edited:
A point I want to bring out on this reference.


Clement of Alexandria

Eclogae Propheticae 13.1

Πᾶν ῥῆμα ἵσταται ἐπὶ δύο καὶ τριῶν μαρτύρων, ἐπὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ἐφ' ὧν μαρτύρων καὶ βοηθῶν αἱ ἐντολαὶ λεγόμεναι φυλάσσεσθαι ὀφείλουσιν.

"By two and three witnesses every word is established. By Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept." (Translation by Charles Forster, New Plea, Page 74)

"Every promise is valid before two or three witnesses, before the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; before whom, as witnesses and helpers, what are called the commandments ought to be kept." (Translation by Ben David, Monthly Review, 1826, Page 277)​


  • Πατρὸς genitive case, denoting "of".​
  • Υἱοῦ genitive case, denoting "of".​
  • Ἁγίου Πνεύματος genitive case, denoting "of".​

The translations above don't hold accurately to the Greek, which in English would be lacking the definite articles (i.e. "the") and should reflect the genitive case grammar, something more like: "of a Father and of a Son and of Holy Spirit" perhaps, or "of Father and of Son and of Holy Spirit".

Forster lacks the articles, but doesn't render his English with the genitive case. Ben David adds the definite article "the", but lacks the genitive case construction "of".

My point?

In relation to the Comma?

The lack of the genitive "of" before "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit", (which actually shows more relation to another well known Scripture ;)) and the adding of the definite article "the", gives a misleading impression to the English reader, making it appear to be more like the Comma - when it's not! Whether this was intentional or not, I don't know. But I just wanted to put that caveat emptor out there, and inform the readers.

NOTE: As to the preposition ἐπὶ with the genitive case grammar of Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, I will get to in another post.
 
Last edited:
Typo correction.

Forster correctly lacks the definite articles, but doesn't render his English with the genitive case. Ben David's translation inaccuracy is shown by giving a misleading impression by
adding definite articles and overlooking the genitive case construction.
 
One of the Scriptures that is definitely in view is a paraphrased quote of Deuteronomy 19.15(B) LXX.

Deut. 19.15(B) LXX ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ ἐπὶ στόματος τριῶν μαρτύρων σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα

The writer didn't confine himself to "three witnesses", by qualifying his remarks with the number δύο "two".

Disqualifying the Comma as the Scripture he was pointing to in the first half of the EP 13.1 sentence.
 
Can you prove he's referring to Matthew 28:19, Steven?

Because there is a problem here.

Matthew 28:19
βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος·

Matthew 28:19 has three definite articles τοῦ ... τοῦ ... τοῦ.

Eclogae propheticae 13.1(B) does not have the definite articles τοῦ...τοῦ...τοῦ that Matthew 28:19 has.

ἐπὶ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, ἐφ' ὧν μαρτύρων καὶ βοηθῶν αἱ ἐντολαὶ λεγόμεναι φυλάσσεσθαι ὀφείλουσιν.

So how do you even know the writer definitely has Matthew 28:19 in view? And is not stating his own generic eisegesis instead?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top