1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - Tertullian Adversus Praxeas 25.1

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Why did Tertullian only make a quotation of 1 John 5:7 Clause-D (if it is a quotation at all), and not the entire Comma Johanneum, if he had it in his Latin NT manuscript?

Did Tertullian simply make an eis-egetical and/or theological statement that was built out of (or upon) the core one-ness concept of John 10:30,?

Have later Pro-Comma Advocates (from the last 500 or so years) anachronistically and retrospectively misinterpreted his Latin words "qui tres unum sunt"?

Is this all a kind of modern Pro-Comma amphibole fallacy of the words "tres unum sunt", thinking it's verse 7 KJV-numbering, when there's the equal possibility that Tertullian could very well be reading a Trinitarian interpretation into the identical wording of "tres unum sunt" from verse 8, Clause-D found in the majority of Latin NT manuscripts?

Are they reading more into Tertullian's words "qui" (note this is not "et" or "et hi") "tres unum sunt" than is really justified (when taken in context both immediate and wider), because of their own theological motivations and preconceived ideas, and/or peculiar personal bias'?

1 John 5:7 Latin Vulgate
(KJV1611-numbering)


[Clause-A] "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in cælo : [Clause-C] Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus :
[Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."

1 John 5:8 Latin Vulgate
(KJV1611-numbering)


[Clause-A] "Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis :
[Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."

John 10:30 Vulgate

"ego et Pater, unum sumus"

"I and the Father, we are one."

John 17:11 Vulgate

"et iam non sum in mundo, et hii in mundo sunt, et ego ad te venio, Pater sancte, serva eos in nomine tuo quos dedisti mihi, ut sint unum sicut et nos."

“I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your own name, which you have given me, so that they may be one just as we are one.”

John 17:21 Vulgate

"ut omnes unum sint, sicut tu Pater in me et ego in te ut et ipsi in nobis unum sint ut mundus credat quia tu me misisti."

"so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me and I am in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me”.
Compare:

Tertullian of Carthage (circa. A.D./C.E.)

"Adversus Praxean"

Latin text by Ernest Evans, 1948

(Emphasis, capitals, and variant added by me)

Page 121

Chapter 25.1


“Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto tres efficit cohaerentes alterum ex altero. Qui tres unum sunt [Var. “sint” in some other printed texts], non unus, quomodo dictum est, 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' ad substantiae unitatem non ad numeri singularitatem.”

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, thereby proving that these three masculine identities are connected together, with each one originating from out of the other. How [Or: "That" "In what way"] these three are one neuter thing [Var. "How these three might be one neuter thing"], not a single [Or: "one"] masculine identity, is simply as it says "I and the Father, we are one," by the uniting of the substances, not by a singularity of numbers [Or: "not by the singularity of the numbers"]."​
 
Last edited:
the words "tres unum sunt", thinking it's verse 7 KJV-numbering, when there's the equal possibility that Tertullian could very well be reading a Trinitarian interpretation into the identical wording of "tres unum sunt" from verse 8

These are the two possibilities

1) direct reference of the heavenly witnesses.

2) invisible allegory of spirit, water and blood.

Are Ockham strongly says (1), supported by logic and common sense.
 
It's safe to say you are a KJVO believer and advocate Steven.

In my opinion KJVO logic is neither common, nor objective.

Note the objectivity restricting/destroying "only" part in KJVO "King James Version Only".

Ockam is misapplied in your case.

Your motivation is to prove that the KJV1611 (and your favorite verse 1 John 5:7 and it's Johannine Comma) is/are the "Pure Bible" and by implication all others that don't fit your self imposed parameters, are therefore impure corruptions of the "Pure" word of God.
 
Last edited:
Remember I showed you how the Tertullian and two Cyprian references are all connected, :)

Sometimes the truth is quite simple and clear,

You got it right above ... except for “equal possibility”!
 
These are the two possibilities

1) direct reference of the heavenly witnesses.

2) invisible allegory of spirit, water and blood.

Are Ockham strongly says (1), supported by logic and common sense.
This is a poor synopsis. The reason that Tertullian didn't quote 1 John 5 is likely because he was fluent in Greek and likely knew the Greek scriptures in 1 John 5 didn't make the point he wanted to make .

Whereas Cyprian was likely more dependent on the Latin, and so made the link between Tertullian's tres unum sunt re the Trinity, and 1 John 5:8 in Latin, which he pretended was scriptural, but was really eisegesis, or mystical, on his part.
 
Remember I showed you how the Tertullian and two Cyprian references are all connected, :)

Sometimes the truth is quite simple and clear,

You got it right above ... except for “equal possibility”!

Before "Qui tres unum sunt" Tertullian doesn't introduce or predicate the phrase as a quotation of Scripture.

After "Qui tres unum sunt" Tertullian writes "quomodo dictum est" "just as it says..."

Does Tertullian point to the Comma or John's First Catholic Epistle? = No!

Tertullian pinpoints for us exactly what Scripture (contrary to what you say) and verse and Bible Book, John 10:30, which is the verse he says he built his one-ness concept on.

This simple point is obscured by your counterfeit connection to John's Catholic Epistle.

You contradict what Tertullian actually says.
 
The reason that Tertullian didn't quote 1 John 5

Whereas Cyprian was likely more dependent on the Latin, and so made the link between Tertullian's tres unum sunt re the Trinity, and 1 John 5:8 in Latin, which he pretended was scriptural, but was really eisegesis, or mystical, on his part.

Tertullian did quote from 1 John 5.

Cyprian did the same, twice, and there was no pretending of scripture, that is an absurd claim.
 
Brought to this thread, word-order improved.

Here, it is easy to see that the three references are conjoined, in that they received their basic truth from the same Bible verse.

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

==========================

Tertullian

Against Praxeas 25

Thus the connexion of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, makes three coherent ones from one another, which
three are one (unum, not unus, i.e. one substance, not one person) as it is said, “I and my Father are one,” denoting the unity of substance, not the singularity of number. -
(Samuel Davidson, Lectures on Biblical Criticism, p. 135, 1835)

Cyprian of Carthage

● On the Unity of the Church:

He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, "I and the Father are one;" and again of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is written "And these three are one."


Epistle 73 to Jubianum:
If any one could be baptized by a heretic, and could obtain remission of sins, - if he has obtained remission of sins, and is sanctified, and become the temple of God? I ask, of what God? If of the Creator, he cannot be His temple, who has not believed in Him ; if of Christ, neither can he who denies Him to be God, be His temple ; if of the Holy Spirit, since the three are one, how can the Holy Spirit be reconciled to him, who is an enemy, either of the Father or of the Son?"

All three quotes use the same verse from 1 John 5, and that verse is the heavenly witnesses.
 
Who are these “impartial commentators”?

How do you determine “impartial”?

Does “impartial” mean “uninformed”?
Or Hortian dupe?
Wiki says that many do not see Tertullian as alluding to the Comma. Anyway, for a natural Greek speaker, tres unum sunt isn't seen as an allusion to the Comma, as no Greek codex contains or did contain those words.
 
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν === LATIN ====> et haec tria in uno sunt

and these three in the one are

Tertullian would have seen that haec tria in uno sunt bore a different meaning to tres unum sunt.

For Cyprian, it could be glossed over as a mystery.
 
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν === LATIN ====> et haec tria in uno sunt

and these three in the one are

Tertullian would have seen that haec tria in uno sunt bore a different meaning to tres unum sunt.

For Cyprian, it could be glossed over as a mystery.
Ok for Tertullian but
to be a bit of a precision ... It is not true that all manuscripts have oι τρεισ εισ το εν εισιν
At least a dozen perhaps slightly lighter οι τρεισ το εν εισιν and even less οι τρεισ εν εισιν
 
Tertullian did quote from 1 John 5.

Cyprian did the same, twice, and there was no pretending of scripture, that is an absurd claim.

Does Tertullian make it clear immediately after the words "tres unum sunt" that he truly quoted these specific words as a Scripture quotation from John's First Catholic Epistle (in Adversus Praxeas Chapter 25.1)?

No. He doesn't.
 
Where does Tertullian introduce "tres unum sunt" as being a Scripture quotation from John's First Catholic Epistle in Adversus Praxeas Chapter 25.1?
He doesn't.

If you were involved with textual analysis, you would know that a large percent of quotes do not have a specific reference on the source.

This is also why the three similar quotes from Tertullian and Cyprian are so helpful in understanding the source of the quotes.
 
If you were involved with textual analysis, you would know that a large percent of quotes do not have a specific reference on the source.

This is also why the three similar quotes from Tertullian and Cyprian are so helpful in understanding the source of the quotes.
Tertullian tells us his source: John 10:30. How can anyone mistake it? He actually EXPLAINS where he is getting it from, so as to leave no room for doubt. You had been blinded to the truth ( I fear).

__________________

p.98 Souter's TERTULLIAN AGAINST PRAXEAS [Cap. 25]

2. After dealing with l Philip and the whole
compass of this enquiry which continues till the
end of the Gospel, in the same tenor of con-
versation, in which Father and Son are each
distinguished in His special quality, lie promises
that "He will ask a Paraclete also from the
Father," after He has ascended "to the Father," and
that He will send Him, and indeed "another Paraclete."

But we have already explained how it is,
He is "another." Further He says: "He will
take from mine," even as He Himself "took from"
the Father's. Thus the link with the Father in
the Son and of the Son in the Paraclete makes
three cleaving together, each to his neighbour.

'These three are one thing," not one person, as it
is put : " I and the Father are one thing," (John x. 30) in

respect to unity of nature, not as regards the singular number."
 
καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν === LATIN ====> et haec tria in uno sunt
and these three in the one are
Tertullian would have seen that haec tria in uno sunt bore a different meaning to tres unum sunt.

We have a few Old Latin manuscripts and writings we can check.

The simplest is the Freisinger fragment:

”Quoniam tres sunt qui testificantur in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres sunt qui testificantur in coelo, pater et verbum et spiritus sanctus et hi tres unum sunt.”

And this shows the tres unum sunt that you feel should not be there.
 
Back
Top