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

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Ἐπὶ with gentive in the context of witnesses means "upon/by" cf. Matt 18:16 ἵνα ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων ἢ τριῶν (that upon the testimony of two witnesses or three)

So the Father, Son and Spirit are bearing witness in/on earth, in EP 13.1, i.e. specifically to the commandments and the keeping of them. Actually this is quite obscure (i.e. quite apart from the three-in-heaven scenario): it's not clear whether the Father, Son and Spirit are bearing witness to the commandments or to themselves or to something else.

Sure I agree. The usual meaning is "upon" etc.

But it has many different meanings (semantic domains) depending on it's contextual relations etc.

A. T. Robertson

"A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research"

Logos Bible Software, 1919, Pages 602-604.

"With persons ἐπί and the genitive may yield the resultant meaning of ‘before’ or ‘in the presence of.’ Thus ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνων (Mk. 13:9), κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων (1 Cor. 6:1), ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων (1 Tim. 5:19), ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πειλάτου (1 Tim. 6:13), ἐπὶ σοῦ (Ac. 23:30), ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ (25:9). Blass observes how in Ac. 25:10 ἑστὼς ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος Καίσαρος the meaning is ‘before,’ while in verse 17 the usual idea ‘upon’ is alone present (καθίσας ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος). Cf. ἐπὶ Τίτου in 2 Cor. 7:14."
​

Especially in legal settings or coming "before" an authority, it can have the meaning of being "before" or "in the presence of" a judge etc, or something is said or done "in the presence of" witnesses. (See also Dana Mantley, Page 469).

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The received Latin translation of μαρτυροῦντες is "testimonium dant".

Latin "dant" means "to give" "render" "impart" "offer" "present" etc.

Its an active "bearing witness" to others about their one-ness (one-neuter-thing-ness) in the Comma context.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dant#Latin

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/do#Latin

 

[cjab]

Sure I agree. The usual meaning is "upon" etc.

But it has many different meanings (semantic domains) depending on it's contextual relations etc.

A. T. Robertson

"A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research"

Logos Bible Software, 1919, Pages 602-604.

"With persons ἐπί and the genitive may yield the resultant meaning of ‘before’ or ‘in the presence of.’ Thus ἐπὶ ἡγεμόνων (Mk. 13:9), κρίνεσθαι ἐπὶ τῶν ἀδίκων (1 Cor. 6:1), ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων (1 Tim. 5:19), ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πειλάτου (1 Tim. 6:13), ἐπὶ σοῦ (Ac. 23:30), ἐπʼ ἐμοῦ (25:9). Blass observes how in Ac. 25:10 ἑστὼς ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος Καίσαρος the meaning is ‘before,’ while in verse 17 the usual idea ‘upon’ is alone present (καθίσας ἐπὶ τοῦ βήματος). Cf. ἐπὶ Τίτου in 2 Cor. 7:14."
​

Especially in legal settings or coming "before" an authority, it can have the meaning of being "before" or "in the presence of" a judge etc, or something is said or done "in the presence of" witnesses. (See also Dana Mantley, Page 469).

Yes I agree: our English usage would include "before" in this context. But I still don't see how this helps to explain what the passage is refering to.

“By(before) two and three witnesses every word is established. By(before) Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept."

I (IMO) see the main point of this passage as engineering a synthetic and unnecessary reference to "Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit?" Paul would certainly have used "God" here. As with the Comma itself, what these witnesses are witnessing is most obscure.

In the gospel of John, it is the Father whose witness testifies of Jesus being the Son (by the Holy Spirit), and Jesus whose witness testifies of the Father.

But if instead, you posit Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit as all witnesses together, then what are they witnessing, or to what are they witnesses? What are they testifying? To the commandments or to the need to keep them? That was of course Jesus's role. The lack of clarity here is astonishing: it seems to be all about dressing scripture up in a gnostic guise.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

it seems to be all about dressing scripture up in a gnostic guise.

I agree. Judging by the context this text (EP 13.1) appears to be some sort of Gnostic excerpt.

But EP 13.1 does make far better sense if it is in fact a paraphrased quote of Matthew 28:19 (omitting the definite articles) with it's baptismal context, rather than any reference to the Comma's one thingedness declaration in or from heaven.

Matthew 28:19-20

Πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος· [20] διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν· καὶ ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ μεθ' ὑμῶν εἰμὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ἕως τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος.

"Go, therefore, and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, [20] teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you. And look! I am with you all the days until the conclusion of the age.”​

Matthew 28:19-20 contains the two key elements of EP 13.1.

1. F+S+HS, and
2. commandments (i.e. "teaching them to observe all the things I commanded you").

Of course, the teaching in EP 13.1 is pseudo-Christian quackery, but it's not referencing the Comma.

And the witness aspect is simply derived from the preceding words quoted from Deuteronomy 19.15(B) LXX (inverted word order).

It's simply a Gnostic interpretation (eisegesis Stevie ?) of a mixture of Deuteronomy 19.15 and Matthew 28:19-20.

My point is not to make sense of Gnostic teaching, but to demonstrate to Mr Steven Spencer Avery that his confirmation bias has transgressed it's limits in this text.

 

[Newbirth]

Matthew 3:16-17 (AV)
And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Since Jesus' Father is God and to us, there is only one God, you must agree that suggesting that there are any other Gods is polytheism.

 

[Newbirth]

It was delivered by an agent of God the Father, most likely by an angel (cf. OT).

That is a weak argument since an agent bringing a message does not nullify who the message came from. The evidence shows that one God is the father of Jesus. Since that is the case we cannot have any other Gods. This fact nullifies any argument that three witnesses must each be God.

 

[cjab]

My point is not to make sense of Gnostic teaching, but to demonstrate to Mr Steven Spencer Avery that his confirmation bias has transgressed it's limits in this text.

Good points. I suggest the connection between EP 13.1 and the Comma is oblique, and derives from the idea that it is simply unnecessary to impart what it is that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are bearing witness to.

The Greek word μαρτυρούντες is bear witness: present participle active masc nom voc plural.

As with EP 13.1 the connection between the Comma with the preceding verse, 1 John 5:6 is unfathomable.

So one supposes the "witness" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit could be an allusion to their gnostic doctrines or mysteries.

(1 John 5:6: "This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth".)

 

[cjab]

That is a weak argument since an agent bringing a message does not nullify who the message came from. The evidence shows that one God is the father of Jesus. Since that is the case we cannot have any other Gods. This fact nullifies any argument that three witnesses must each be God.

I'm not clear what you're referring to. I never suggested "any argument that three witnesses must each be God."

 

[Newbirth]

I'm not clear what you're referring to. I never suggested "any argument that three witnesses must each be God."

The weak argument is suggesting that an agent spoke from heaven. I am not saying you suggested that three witnesses must each be God. It is an open statement for anyone who tries to make the claim of God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS, according to the Athanasian creed where each person by himself is God.

 

[cjab]

The weak argument is suggesting that an agent spoke from heaven. I am not saying you suggested that three witnesses must each be God. It is an open statement for anyone who tries to make the claim of God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS, according to the Athanasian creed where each person by himself is God.

I never mentioned the"Athanasian creed where each person by himself is God." I never referred to "God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS."

As for an angel speaking: 'tis true: angels really are the servants of God, and in this case an angel would have uttered the words of the Father in the name of the Father.

 

[Newbirth]

I never mentioned the"Athanasian creed where each person by himself is God." I never referred to "God the Father, God the Son, and God the HS."

I never said you did...Why are you making strawman comments? I mentioned the Athanasian creed, I never said you did.

As for an angel speaking: 'tis true: angels really are the servants of God, and in this case an angel would have uttered the words of the Father in the name of the Father.

Suit yourself...but nowhere does it say in the name of the father, therefore Jesus must be the son of an angel. Clearly, it says "my beloved son"
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Notice the difference when angels are speaking...
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
If you have a passage that shows it was an angel speaking in that particular passage please present it.

Would you say that an angel is speaking in this passage also?
John 12:28
Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

 

[Steven Avery]

It's simply a Gnostic interpretation (eisegesis Stevie ?) of a mixture of Deuteronomy 19.15 and Matthew 28:19-20. My point is not to make sense of Gnostic teaching, but to demonstrate to Mr Steven Spencer Avery that his confirmation bias has transgressed it's limits in this text.

Since I barely said anything about this text, (pointing out your false dichotomy) your obsession in trying to counter me on … something unknown … is rather transparent.

 

[cjab]

I never said you did...Why are you making strawman comments? I mentioned the Athanasian creed, I never said you did.

Suit yourself...but nowhere does it say in the name of the father, therefore Jesus must be the son of an angel. Clearly, it says "my beloved son"
Matthew 3:17
And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Notice the difference when angels are speaking...
Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
If you have a passage that shows it was an angel speaking in that particular passage please present it.

2Ki 19:20 Then Isaiah son of Amoz sent a message to Hezekiah: “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I have heard your prayer concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria.....I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came.’

2Ki 19:35 That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp.

or

Exo 6:28 Now when the LORD spoke to Moses in Egypt,
Gal 3:19 The law was put into effect through angels

We conclude that whenever God appears to do something directly, he employs angels.

Would you say that an angel is speaking in this passage also?
John 12:28
Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.

Yes.

 

[Newbirth]

2Ki 19:20 Then Isaiah son of Amoz sent a message to Hezekiah: “This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: I have heard your prayer concerning Sennacherib king of Assyria.....I will put my hook in your nose and my bit in your mouth, and I will make you return by the way you came.’

Clearly a prophet saying what God told him to say...

2Ki 19:35 That night the angel of the LORD went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp.

Clearly, it says the angel of the Lord

or

Exo 6:28 Now when the LORD spoke to Moses in Egypt,

Exodus 33:11
And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

Gal 3:19 The law was put into effect through angels

How is that an argument? I am not saying God does not use angels, you have to show that God does not speak for himself.

We conclude that whenever God appears to do something directly, he employs angels.

You are funny, but you are yet to show God never appeared or spoke for himself.

Yes.

So you agree that the voice was the voice of God since there is no mediator between Jesus and his father

 

[cjab]

You are funny, but you are yet to show God never appeared or spoke for himself.

And you have yet to show that he did "appear" (Col 1:15). Why do you suppose that God himself would appear if he has millions of angels to do his bidding? I mean, what's the point of having angels if they don't do the work? Do you think they were on strike so that God himself had to appear?

Anyway, the consensus of the NT writers is that the law was put into effect by angels. It seems you can't accept their testimony, so we just have to disagree.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

As with the Comma itself, what these witnesses are witnessing is most obscure.

In the gospel of John, it is the Father whose witness testifies of Jesus being the Son (by the Holy Spirit), and Jesus whose witness testifies of the Father.

But if instead, you posit Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit as all witnesses together, then what are they witnessing, or to what are they witnesses? What are they testifying? To the commandments or to the need to keep them? That was of course Jesus's role. The lack of clarity here is astonishing: it seems to be all about dressing scripture up in a gnostic guise.

It's simple. In this text (a baptismal context IMO), they are witnesses of our confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (in accordance with Matthew 28:19-20), thus they witness the dedication of our lives to God, thus our our baptismal confession (which is also normally done "in the presence of many witnesses," i.e. the congregation cf. 1 Tim. 6:12), and also (from the continuing context of EP 13.1) they are also witnesses of our conduct as we continue to keep or observe the commandments (i.e. Matthew 28:20 "teaching them to observe all the things I commanded you").

Clement of Alexandria

“Selections from Prophetic Writings” (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.

“Every verbal statement [Or: “matter” “point spoken”] is to be established upon the basis of [Or: “at the evidence of”] two and three witnesses,” [Deut. 19:15 (Clause-B, paraphrased) LXX] in the presence "of a Father and of a Son and of Holy Spirit," [Matthew 28:19 (Clause-B, articles omitted)] before whom, as witnesses and as helpers it is our duty to keep what are called 'the commandments'.”​

Compare the IMO dedicational and baptismal context of 1 Timothy 6:12

1 Timothy 6:12

ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, εἰς ἣν ἐκλήθης
καὶ ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρτύρων.

"Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called
and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses."
​

Further proof that it is a paraphrased quotation (omitting the definite articles) from Matthew 28:19, compare also the article-less Greek quotation of Matthew 28:19 in the Excerpta Ex Theodoto:

Clement of Alexandria

“Epitomes from the writings of Theodotus and the so-called Eastern teaching from the time of Valentinus”

Chapter 76:3-4

Καὶ τοῖς Ἀποστόλοις ἐντέλλεται· Περιιόντες κηρύσσετε, καὶ τοὺς πιστεύοντας
βαπτίζετε εἰς ὄνομα Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ [4.] Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, εἰς οὓς ἀναγεννώμεθα

"And he commands the disciples 'When ye go about, preach and them that believe baptize in the name
of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in whom we are born again..."
("Excerpta Ex Theodoto" prepared by Robert Pierce Casey, "The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria"
Studies and Documents 1, London, Christophers, 1934, Pages 40-91)

“And to the apostles he gives the command. Going around preaching ye and baptize those who believe
in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit...” (Conybeare, Page 987)
​

NOTE: These are the only two translations of the text I could find. Casey adds the definite articles in the English which are absent in the Greek. Conybeare rightly omits the articles in English in his translation (I could do my own but I can't be bothered today).

Compare also the article-less Greek quotation of Matthew 28:19 in the Didache:

The Didache

Chapter 7:1-4

Greek Text, from “The Teaching of the Apostles - Newly Edited, with Facsimile Text and a Commentary,
For the John Hopkins University, Baltimore, From the Ms. of the Holy Sepulchre,
(Convent of the Greek Church) Jerusalem,”
By J. Rendel Harris, 1887

Facsimile of manuscript Folio 78a Codex Hierosolymitanus, Page 117 (113)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hnnc3z;view=1up;seq=129

Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε· ταῦτα πάντα πρειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. [2.] ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον· εἰ δ’ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν θερμῷ. [3.] ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος. [4.] πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσμος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύναται· κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.

"Now concerning the baptism, baptize in this way: after saying in advance all these things, baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” [Matt. 28:19] in running water. [2.] But if you do not have access to running water, baptize in another kind of water; and if you are not able to [baptize] with cold water, baptize in hot water. [3.] But if you possess [neither], pour water onto the head three times “in the name of a Father and of a Son and of Holy Spirit” [Matt. 28:19 paraphrased]. [4.] Now, before the baptism, the one baptizing and the one being baptized, and if any others are able, let them fast! Now, you must urge the one being baptized to fast for one or two days before.”
​

The Excerpta Ex Theodoto 7.3-4 quote is literally the book before, and from the exact same manuscript as Eclogae Propheticae 13.1, (the only complete manuscript these works which they are found in - if my memory serves me rightly - but don't quote me on that just in case). In the Didache you also have Matthew 28:19, both with the articles and without the definite articles in the Greek.

The Greek is the exact same article-less construction of Matthew 28:19. There is no mistaking!

EP 13.1 Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος​

ET 7.3-4 Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος​

DD 7.3 Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος​

Conclusion, Eclogae Propheticae 13.1 is definitely an article-less quotation of Matthew 28:19, and not 1 John 5:7 (Clause-C, KJV-numbering), and they are "witnesses" of us, or whoever is meant by those who keep the commandments in EP 13.1 (cf. Matthew 28:20 "teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you"), not (testimonium dant) witnesses to us, of their own one-ness.

To reiterate again, this text (EP 13.1) is pseudo-Christian Gnostic quackery (weird stuff), but it's simply not referencing the Comma.

​

 

[Newbirth]

And you have yet to show that he did "appear" (Col 1:15). Why do you suppose that God himself would appear if he has millions of angels to do his bidding? I mean, what's the point of having angels if they don't do the work? Do you think they were on strike so that God himself had to appear?

Anyway, the consensus of the NT writers is that the law was put into effect by angels. It seems you can't accept their testimony, so we just have to disagree.

Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Ex 33:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

It is clear you misunderstand their testimony. So please explain what "put into effect" means and how it nullifies God appearing and speaking for himself.

 

[Newbirth]

Further proof that it is a paraphrased quotation (omitting the definite articles) from Matthew 28:19, compare also the article-less Greek quotation of Matthew 28:19 in the Excerpta Ex Theodoto:

Matt 28:19 in itself is a problematic verse since there are no records of the apostles using that formula to baptize anyone. From Jesus' ascension to Pentecost is a short time to forget such a command to the point where Peter would get it all wrong...38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[cjab]

Genesis 17:1
And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Ex 33:
22 And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
23 And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen.

It is clear you misunderstand their testimony. So please explain what "put into effect" means and how it nullifies God appearing and speaking for himself.

You just don't understand the principle of divine agency.

Gen 22:15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time,

Exo 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him......
Exo 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I.

 

[cjab]

It's simple. In this text (a baptismal context IMO), they are witnesses of our confession of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (in accordance with Matthew 28:19-20), thus they witness the dedication of our lives to God, thus our our baptismal confession (which is also normally done "in the presence of many witnesses," i.e. the congregation cf. 1 Tim. 6:12), and also (from the continuing context of EP 13.1) they are also witnesses of our conduct as we continue to keep or observe the commandments (i.e. Matthew 28:20 "teaching them to observe all the things I commanded you").

Clement of Alexandria

“Selections from Prophetic Writings” (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.

“Every verbal statement [Or: “matter” “point spoken”] is to be established upon the basis of [Or: “at the evidence of”] two and three witnesses,” [Deut. 19:15 (Clause-B, paraphrased) LXX] in the presence "of a Father and of a Son and of Holy Spirit," [Matthew 28:19 (Clause-B, articles omitted)] before whom, as witnesses and as helpers it is our duty to keep what are called 'the commandments'.”​

Compare the IMO dedicational and baptismal context of 1 Timothy 6:12

1 Timothy 6:12

ἀγωνίζου τὸν καλὸν ἀγῶνα τῆς πίστεως, ἐπιλαβοῦ τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς, εἰς ἣν ἐκλήθης
καὶ ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμολογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρτύρων.

"Fight the good fight of the faith. Take hold of the eternal life to which you were called
and about which you made the good confession in the presence of many witnesses."
​

Further proof that it is a paraphrased quotation (omitting the definite articles) from Matthew 28:19, compare also the article-less Greek quotation of Matthew 28:19 in the Excerpta Ex Theodoto:

Clement of Alexandria

“Epitomes from the writings of Theodotus and the so-called Eastern teaching from the time of Valentinus”

Chapter 76:3-4

Καὶ τοῖς Ἀποστόλοις ἐντέλλεται· Περιιόντες κηρύσσετε, καὶ τοὺς πιστεύοντας
βαπτίζετε εἰς ὄνομα Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ [4.] Ἁγίου Πνεύματος, εἰς οὓς ἀναγεννώμεθα

"And he commands the disciples 'When ye go about, preach and them that believe baptize in the name
of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in whom we are born again..."
("Excerpta Ex Theodoto" prepared by Robert Pierce Casey, "The Excerpta ex Theodoto of Clement of Alexandria"
Studies and Documents 1, London, Christophers, 1934, Pages 40-91)

“And to the apostles he gives the command. Going around preaching ye and baptize those who believe
in the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit...” (Conybeare, Page 987)
​

NOTE: These are the only two translations of the text I could find. Casey adds the definite articles in the English which are absent in the Greek. Conybeare rightly omits the articles in English in his translation (I could do my own but I can't be bothered today).

Compare also the article-less Greek quotation of Matthew 28:19 in the Didache:

The Didache

Chapter 7:1-4

Greek Text, from “The Teaching of the Apostles - Newly Edited, with Facsimile Text and a Commentary,
For the John Hopkins University, Baltimore, From the Ms. of the Holy Sepulchre,
(Convent of the Greek Church) Jerusalem,”
By J. Rendel Harris, 1887

Facsimile of manuscript Folio 78a Codex Hierosolymitanus, Page 117 (113)
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hnnc3z;view=1up;seq=129

Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε· ταῦτα πάντα πρειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. [2.] ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον· εἰ δ’ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν θερμῷ. [3.] ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος. [4.] πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσμος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύναται· κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.

"Now concerning the baptism, baptize in this way: after saying in advance all these things, baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” [Matt. 28:19] in running water. [2.] But if you do not have access to running water, baptize in another kind of water; and if you are not able to [baptize] with cold water, baptize in hot water. [3.] But if you possess [neither], pour water onto the head three times “in the name of a Father and of a Son and of Holy Spirit” [Matt. 28:19 paraphrased]. [4.] Now, before the baptism, the one baptizing and the one being baptized, and if any others are able, let them fast! Now, you must urge the one being baptized to fast for one or two days before.”
​

The Excerpta Ex Theodoto 7.3-4 quote is literally the book before, and from the exact same manuscript as Eclogae Propheticae 13.1, (the only complete manuscript these works which they are found in - if my memory serves me rightly - but don't quote me on that just in case). In the Didache you also have Matthew 28:19, both with the articles and without the definite articles in the Greek.

The Greek is the exact same article-less construction of Matthew 28:19. There is no mistaking!

EP 13.1 Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος​

ET 7.3-4 Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος​

DD 7.3 Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ Ἁγίου Πνεύματος​

Conclusion, Eclogae Propheticae 13.1 is definitely an article-less quotation of Matthew 28:19, and not 1 John 5:7 (Clause-C, KJV-numbering), and they are "witnesses" of us, or whoever is meant by those who keep the commandments in EP 13.1 (cf. Matthew 28:20 "teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you"), not (testimonium dant) witnesses to us, of their own one-ness.

To reiterate again, this text (EP 13.1) is pseudo-Christian Gnostic quackery (weird stuff), but it's simply not referencing the Comma.

​

Yes, it seems the correct translation of ".....ἐφ' ὧν μαρτύρων καὶ βοηθῶν αἱ ἐντολαὶ λεγόμεναι φυλάσσεσθαι ὀφείλουσιν" is rather elusive to some translators out there.

As found on this WWW site, viz. "by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept," the translation is not accurate.

ἐφ' - By/before (Apocopic form of ἐπί)
ὧν - Which (genitive plural)
μαρτύρων - witnesses (genitive plural of μάρτυρας - witnesses - the persons)
καὶ - and
βοηθῶν - assistants (genitive plural of βοηθός)
αἱ ἐντολαὶ - the commandments (nom plural neuter)
λεγόμεναι - called/named (nom plural fem present mediopassive participle of λέγω)
φυλάσσεσθαι - to be under guard (Present Middle Infinitive)
ὀφείλουσιν - [they] are indebted (V-PAI-3rd Person Plural)

i.e. "....before which witnesses and assistants the called/named commandments are indebted to be under guard (i.e. to be kept).

Still have the problem of the use of the plural in EP 13.1, whereas there is but one name in the Matt 28:19, undoubtedly reflecting the growing influence of Trinitarianism: the polytheistic idea of God being also transferred into the Comma with the use of plurals (as constrasted with the singular in Matt 28:19).