ECFs and the Trinity

I mean, I don't mind you guys exploring this avenue. Suggestion! Maybe start another thread dedicated to this particular topic/angle you guys are discussing?
 
Last edited:
yw.
The best of about five helpful ones. Some of the Roger Pearse stuff was in Google Groups. The John Bale primary source I gave you. etc.
Actually, your link wasn't as good as it looked. The usage of this quotation by skeptics is irrelevant to its veracity, which I myself have no problems in crediting, given that it is entirely in accord with what we know of Leo X's exceedingly dubious and wordly character. Don't think there's anything more to say on this topic right now, so I will oblige TNC in signing off it.

As for the Complutensian Polyglot, Leo X's main concern seems to have been with making money from publishing it (I think). Grantley (p.89ff.) has an interesting piece that Erasmus accused the translators of merely reverse translating the Latin into Greek, and not using the manuscripts Leo had provided, and that the"Rhodian manuscript in the library at Alcalá" was fictitious :

"On the matter of the comma, the editors of the Complutensian
bible claimed to have taken their reading of the Greek text of verses 7 and 8 from
a Rhodian manuscript in the library at Alcalá, but the reading in the
Complutensian bible is quite different from that in the only two extant
manuscripts that contain the comma in Greek (Montfortianus and GA 629),
which thus cannot be the Rhodian manuscript. Erasmus suspected that the
Rhodian manuscript was a fiction, implying that the reading of the comma in the
Complutensian text had simply been translated into Greek from the Latin
Vulgate. Erasmus begins his critique of Stunica’s annotations on 1 Jn 5:7-8 with a
taunt: “Where is that Rhodian codex of yours slumbering all this time?”
.
.
In August 1521 Erasmus was in the emperor’s retinue when it
stopped near Bruges. Erasmus took the opportunity to inspect two very old
manuscripts in the monastery library of St Donatian, and found that both lacked
the comma, information that he duly reports here. In June 1521, Paolo Bombace
had also confirmed to him in a letter that the comma was lacking from “an
extremely old codex in the Vatican library” (BAV ms Vat. gr. 1209 = GA ms B),
as Erasmus likewise reports. Against all this evidence, Erasmus openly doubted
the value of the evidence supplied by ps.-Jerome’s prologue.

Erasmus then disposes with Stunica’s objection that the comma is a
weapon against the Arians by summarising the arguments he had previously
marshalled against Lee. Nevertheless, mere reliance on biblical proof texts would
not prove anything: “I for one do not see how the view rejected by the Arians can
be upheld except with the help of speculative reasoning. But finally, since this
entire passage is obscure, it does not have much power to refute heretics.” In his
concluding remarks, Erasmus returns to the Rhodian codex: “Though my dear
Stunica so often boasts of his Rhodian codex, to which he attributes such
authority, he has strangely not adduced it as an oracle here, especially since it
almost agrees with our [Latin] codices so well that it might seem to be
[evidence made to fit the occasion].”
 
Last edited:
Against all this evidence, Erasmus openly doubted the value of the evidence supplied by ps.-Jerome’s prologue. ... Erasmus suspected that the Rhodian manuscript was a fiction - Raising the Ghost of Arius p. 90-91

Grantley wrote anachronistically here, and super-imposed his view of the Prologue upon Erasmus. Erasmus accepted the Prologue as Jerome's writing.

Notes on Erasmus and the heavenly witnesses.

1) Very curious is the omission of Cyprian in the Erasmus studies of the heavenly witnesses.

2) The Council of Carthage with 400+ orthodox affirming the verse from John was not yet published.

3) Erasmus did a little dance to try to get around the solecism.

4) Old Latin sources including the Freisinger Fragment and the Speculum were not yet discovered. These match up with the Tertullian and Cyprian references.

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

As far as I can tell, the Rhodian ms. was not a fiction.

Henk de Jonge in Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum (1980) identifies it as:

Codex Rhodiensis (mmuscule Wettstein Paul 50 = Apostolos 52)

Which is identified, but not extant.

The Rhodian ms. has been thought to have been lost or accidentally destroyed, but I have never heard of a fiction claim until RGA from Grantley, where he incorrectly put it in the mouth of Erasmus. .

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

We have some questionable claims from Grantley on this topic in Raising the Ghost of Arius.

1. There is no specific Stunica claim relating the Rhodian ms. to the heavenly witnesses verse.

2. There is no quote from Erasmus that saw the Rhodian ms. as a "fiction".

Both of these appear to be Grantley's very dubious extrapolations.

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

In fact, Joseph M. Levine states very clearly that Stunica did not claim the heavenly witnesses verse in the Rhodian ms.

Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma
Joseph M. Levine
Journal of the History of Ideas
Vol. 58, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 573-596 (24 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/365396...c4376e7bdb5c89c&seq=21#page_scan_tab_contents

Inevitably, Stunica objected to the absence of the comma. It is well known, he says, that the Greek manuscripts were often corrupt. And in this case, Jerome’s preface to the Canonical Epistles makes it clear that the comma was in the original. The old Latin manuscripts also confirm the passage, and there is no ambiguity or inconsistency between the comma and the rest of John’s epistle, which corroborates the true catholic faith in the Trinity. Stunica had employed an ancient Rhodian manuscript throughout his work to rebut Erasmus. His opponent naturally suspected that it had been revised to accord with the Vulgate. But now Erasmus saw a better chance, for Stunica had failed to cite it—or any other Greek manuscript—as evidence for the comma.

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

Grantley is stronger in the later Biblical Criticism in Early Modern England, p. 25-26:

At five places, Stunica gave readings from a manuscript Apostolos from Rhodes, then housed in the university library at Alcalá, which he believed was more authoritative than Erasmus manuscript sources. Two of Stunica’s four annotations on 1 Jn record variants from the Rhodian codex, but on the comma this codex was clearly silent.37 ‘

37 Stunica 1520, gives five readings from the Codex Rhodiensis (Wettstein Paul 50 = Apostolos 52), at Jn 3:16, 2 Cor 2:3, Jas 1:22, 2 Pt 2:2, and 1 Jn 5:20. On the basis of these readings, Rhodiensis cannot be identified with any extant manuscript. Erasmus later cited the reading from Rhodiensis in his Annotations on 2 Cor 2:3, not mentioning Stunica by name but heaping Ximénez with exaggerated praises. Here Erasmus also suggests that readings in Rhodiensis were altered to make them conform more closely to the readings of the Latin Vulgate. Further, see ASD VI-8:342–345; Delitzsch 1871, 30–32.
 
Last edited:
This is the Stunica 1520 referenced above that gives the verses used from the Rhodian ms. Grantley may be supplying this information from his own checking, or perhaps the other ASD (likely Andrew J. Brown) or Delitzsch reference.

Stunica, Jacobus Lopis [Diego Lopez de Zúñiga]. Annotationes Iacobi Lopidis Stunicae contra Erasmum Roterodamum in defensionem tralationis novi testamenti. Alcalá: Arnald Guillén de Brocar, 1520.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q...frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false

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

BCEME has more on Stunica, some helpful, some errant, the key spot is:

Stunica had not cited any manuscript evidence for the comma against Erasmus, but only the purported evidence of the fathers. Moreover, ‘an unprejudiced Reader would presently guess from the marginal Note in the very Complutensian Edition itself, that the Editors put in this Text upon the Authority of St Thomas Aquinas, who knew no Greek; and not from their Vatican Manuscripts.’320 Clarke also cited Mill to support his statement that the comma was not present in the Scriptural text known to Tertullian and Cyprian.321

320 S. Clarke 1714b, 209.
321 S. Clarke 1714b, 210–212.

A Reply to the Objections of Robert Nelson, Esq; and of an anonymous Author, against Dr Clarke’s Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity. London: Knapton, 1714b.
Samuel Clarke
http://books.google.com/books?id=BhstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA209

We have the proper acknowledgement that Stunica had not cited any manuscript, correcting RGA.

The theory stated from Samuel Clarke that the Complutensian was including the verse on the authority of Aquinas is totally wrong, since the Aquinas input related to not including "the three are one" in the earthly witnesses. Grantley should have noted the correction to Clarke. However, this Aquinas issue comes up a few times in RGA and BCEME.

Similarly Grantley has gotten the situation jumbled up on how Clarke references Mill in the context of Cyprian.
(This is similar to an error in RGA on Mill.)
https://books.google.com/books?id=BhstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA210

Mill was in favor of the Tertullian and Cyprian references and said they corrected their copies from Greek originals, as noted by Armfield.

==============================
 
Last edited:
Your one is very different to the one you quote above. ...
  • It is written "and the three are one", referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Steven Spenser Avery translation)

This is what I have when I place the verse online.:

● 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 it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one."
(Cyprian. Treatise. On the Unity of the Church. Book 1.6, ANF, 1995, vol. 5, p. 423)

Here is what you mangled, not a translation, but an ad hoc alternate word order.

And nobody I know ever said that "of the Father, and of The Son, and of the Holy Spirit" was a direct QUOTE of the Bible text from Cyprian.
You are deceiving yourself that I ever made that claim.
It is a subordinate clause saying what was the referent of "and the three are one".
That is why translators do NOT put that subordinate clause in quotation marks.

e.g. in English you could use this alternate word order:
It is written (Scripture) "and the three are one", referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

The heavenly witnesses verse.

Latin:
Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversus Christum facit. Qui alibi praeter Ecclesiam colligit Christi Ecclesiam spargit. Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: ”Et tres unum sunt.”
(Cyprian. De unitate ecclesiae. Lib. 1.6; Migne Latina, PL 4 504A-B).

And the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in between
"and again" - another scripture verse
"scriptum est" - it is written in scripture

So an alternate English translation that keeps the rhythm would be:

"and again of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, it is written"

This makes the argument given by Franz Pieper clearer.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/jer...lgate-new-testament.10317/page-17#post-806229

The English may be a bit less our normal order, but it is perfectly understandable.

So I am switching my "shorter summary" to match the Greek word order (and the argument given by Pieper).

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."
 
Last edited:
Grantley wrote anachronistically here, and super-imposed his view of the Prologue upon Erasmus. Erasmus accepted the Prologue as Jerome's writing.
Where is your evidence for this?

Even if he did, Erasmus despised those who asserted the authority of the Latin over the Greek:

"I think no one is so cruel as not to pity,
or so grave as not to laugh at that silly gloss of some one
who dreamed that Jerome had asserted in his Epistle to
Desiderius, that the Latin copies are more correct than the
Greek, and the Greek than the Hebrew...." Epistles of Erasmus Ep. 182, (p. 384 of THE EPISTLES OF ERASMUS FROM HIS EARLIEST LETTERS TO HIS FIFTY-FIRST YEAR ARRANGED IN ORDER OF TIME).


Notes on Erasmus and the heavenly witnesses.

1) Very curious is the omission of Cyprian in the Erasmus studies of the heavenly witnesses.

2) The Council of Carthage with 400+ orthodox affirming the verse from John was not yet published.

3) Erasmus did a little dance to try to get around the solecism.

4) Old Latin sources including the Freisinger Fragment and the Speculum were not yet discovered. These match up with the Tertullian and Cyprian references.
What are your sources for all the above.

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

As far as I can tell, the Rhodian ms. was not a fiction.

Henk de Jonge in Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum (1980) identifies it as:



Which is identified, but not extant.

The Rhodian ms. has been thought to have been lost or accidentally destroyed, but I have never heard of a fiction claim until RGA from Grantley, where he incorrectly put it in the mouth of Erasmus. .

===========================
"Erasmus is not thinking of the possibility that he would have to insert the Comma Johanneum, for he regarded it as completely out of the question that the Comma should turn up in any Greek manuscript " p.386 "Henk de Jonge in Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum," (1980).

"After declaring that now that the Comma Johanneum had been brought to his attention, in Greek, in a Codex Britannicus, he would include it on the basis of that manuscript, [Erasmus] wrote "Quamquam et hunc
(sc codicem) suspicor ad Latmorum Codices fuisse castigatum" : "Although I suspect this manuscript, too, to have been revised after the manuscripts of the Latin world." ibid. p.387

Rhodian MS: ibid. p.388 Footnote 42. "See on this codex, which seems to be lost, TRFGELLES, An Account, pp 5 6,
11-18, DELITZSCH, Entstehungsgeschichte, pp 3032 39-41, J H BENTLEY Nen Light on the Editing of the Complutensian New Testament in Bibliotheque d'humanisme 11
Renaissance 42 (1980), pp 145 156, esp 146"

OPERA OMNIADESIDERII ERASMIROTERODAMI
APOLOGIA RESPONDENS AD EA QV AE
IACOBVS LOPIS STVNICA TAXAVERAT
IN PRIMA DVNTAXAT NOVI
TESTAMENTI AEDITIONE
(Apology in answer to Stunica respecting first edition of New Testament)
ed. H. J. de Jonge

1983

Footnote [723] "Rhodiensis A Greek ms. containing the
Pauline and Catholic Epistles, sent to
Ximenez from Rhodes and deposited by
him in the University Library of Alcala.
Stun. repeatedly quoted readings from this
ms. in criticizing readings and annotations
in Er.' Nov. lnstr. The ms. (min. Wettstein
PauL 50 = Apostalos 51) seems to be lost.
Since Stun. himself declared (ad 2 Cor. 2,3)
that its contents were "apostolicae episto-
lae", the present reference to it by Er. is out
of place."

EODEM II.
Ioseph autem, qui cognominatus est Barnabas. Hic mihi postulabo rursum
illud iuds, vt tametsi Hieronymus alicubi distinguit linguam Hebraicam a
Chaldaica, tamen dilatato nonnunquam vsu vocabuli liceat linguam Hebraicae
finitimam et cognatam He braeam vocare, qua vulgo Hebraeos vsos fatetur et
Stunica. Admonebam Barnabas sonare Hebraeis filium consolationis atgue ita
interpretatur ipse Lucas hoc in loco, consentiunt in voce codices omnes tum
Graeci, tum Latini, atque etiam, opinor, mirabilis ille Rhodiensis, hoc nomine
felix quod toties citetur a Stuniea. [723] Sic interpretatur Liber Hebraicorum
nom inurn interpres, sic et Hieronymus in libello in quo exponit voces
Hebraeas ex Actis collectas. Barnabas, inquit, filius prophetae, vel filius venientis,
aut vt plerique putant: filius consolationis. Stunica negat Ba rna ba s quicquam
huiusmodi significare quale Lucas interpretatur et coniectat omnes Graecorum
codices esse deprauatos atque a Luca scriptum fuisse Barnahum. An recte
diuinet Stunica, viderint alii, mihi non debet impingere errorem, qui Lucam et
Hieronymum sequutus sum autores.

We have some questionable claims from Grantley on this topic in Raising the Ghost of Arius.

1. There is no specific Stunica claim relating the Rhodian ms. to the heavenly witnesses verse.

2. There is no quote from Erasmus that saw the Rhodian ms. as a "fiction".

Both of these appear to be Grantley's very dubious extrapolations.

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

In fact, Joseph M. Levine states very clearly that Stunica did not claim the heavenly witnesses verse in the Rhodian ms.

Erasmus and the Problem of the Johannine Comma
Joseph M. Levine
Journal of the History of Ideas
Vol. 58, No. 4 (Oct., 1997), pp. 573-596 (24 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/365396...c4376e7bdb5c89c&seq=21#page_scan_tab_contents



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

Grantley is stronger in the later Biblical Criticism in Early Modern England, p. 25-26:
 
"Erasmus is not thinking of the possibility that he would have to insert the Comma Johanneum, for he regarded it as completely out of the question that the Comma should turn up in any Greek manuscript " p.386 "Henk de Jonge in Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum," (1980).

"After declaring that now that the Comma Johanneum had been brought to his attention, in Greek, in a Codex Britannicus, he would include it on the basis of that manuscript, [Erasmus] wrote "Quamquam et hunc
(sc codicem) suspicor ad Latmorum Codices fuisse castigatum" : "Although I suspect this manuscript, too, to have been revised after the manuscripts of the Latin world." ibid. p.387

Rhodian MS: ibid. p.388 Footnote 42. "See on this codex, which seems to be lost, TRFGELLES, An Account, pp 5 6,
11-18, DELITZSCH, Entstehungsgeschichte, pp 3032 39-41, J H BENTLEY Nen Light on the Editing of the Complutensian New Testament in Bibliotheque d'humanisme 11
Renaissance 42 (1980), pp 145 156, esp 146"

OPERA OMNIADESIDERII ERASMIROTERODAMI
APOLOGIA RESPONDENS AD EA QV AE
IACOBVS LOPIS STVNICA TAXAVERAT
IN PRIMA DVNTAXAT NOVI
TESTAMENTI AEDITIONE
(Apology in answer to Stunica respecting first edition of New Testament)
ed. H. J. de Jonge

1983

Footnote [723] "Rhodiensis A Greek ms. containing the
Pauline and Catholic Epistles, sent to
Ximenez from Rhodes and deposited by
him in the University Library of Alcala.
Stun. repeatedly quoted readings from this
ms. in criticizing readings and annotations
in Er.' Nov. lnstr. The ms. (min. Wettstein
PauL 50 = Apostalos 51) seems to be lost.
Since Stun. himself declared (ad 2 Cor. 2,3)
that its contents were "apostolicae episto-
lae", the present reference to it by Er. is out
of place."

EODEM II.
Ioseph autem, qui cognominatus est Barnabas. Hic mihi postulabo rursum
illud iuds, vt tametsi Hieronymus alicubi distinguit linguam Hebraicam a
Chaldaica, tamen dilatato nonnunquam vsu vocabuli liceat linguam Hebraicae
finitimam et cognatam He braeam vocare, qua vulgo Hebraeos vsos fatetur et
Stunica. Admonebam Barnabas sonare Hebraeis filium consolationis atgue ita
interpretatur ipse Lucas hoc in loco, consentiunt in voce codices omnes tum
Graeci, tum Latini, atque etiam, opinor, mirabilis ille Rhodiensis, hoc nomine
felix quod toties citetur a Stuniea. [723] Sic interpretatur Liber Hebraicorum
nom inurn interpres, sic et Hieronymus in libello in quo exponit voces
Hebraeas ex Actis collectas. Barnabas, inquit, filius prophetae, vel filius venientis,
aut vt plerique putant: filius consolationis. Stunica negat Ba rna ba s quicquam
huiusmodi significare quale Lucas interpretatur et coniectat omnes Graecorum
codices esse deprauatos atque a Luca scriptum fuisse Barnahum. An recte
diuinet Stunica, viderint alii, mihi non debet impingere errorem, qui Lucam et
Hieronymum sequutus sum autores.

Is there anything significant in this section?

Is there anything that affects the two basic facts?

1) Stunica did not claim the Rhodian ms. for the heavenly witnesses.

2) Erasmus did not call the ms. a fiction.
 
Even if he did, Erasmus despised those who asserted the authority of the Latin over the Greek:

"I think no one is so cruel as not to pity, or so grave as not to laugh at that silly gloss of some on who dreamed that Jerome had asserted in his Epistle to
Desiderius, that the Latin copies are more correct than the Greek, and the Greek than the Hebrew...." Epistles of Erasmus Ep. 182, (p. 384 of THE EPISTLES OF ERASMUS FROM HIS EARLIEST LETTERS TO HIS FIFTY-FIRST YEAR ARRANGED IN ORDER OF TIME).

Erasmus is simply correcting a false assertion nade about the views of Jerome.
Your explanation is all wrong.

Erasmus has various quotes that affirm both the Greek and Latin.

One example: see p. 17 in Beyond What is Written (2006) by Jan Krans.

The reaction on (his annotation by one of his critics, Titelmans, forces Erasmus to pronounce himself on the relative quality of the Greek and the Latin texts; he writes:

... with me, who defends the translator |the Vulgate], he wants a quarrel, reproaching me that I do not prefer the Latin reading to the Greek one in many places as I do here. However, this is what I would have done, and what I do as often as it seems probable. He adds that the Greek is to he corrected from the Latin rather than the Latin from the Greek. If he had said both from both it would have been acceptable. But he wanted me to cut out from the Greek that which 1 consider to he superfluous; this task I had not assumed, namely to correct the Greek hooks, unless a place had an obvious error made by the copyists.
 
Where is your evidence for this?

You can simply read the Erasmus Annotationes, which Grantley has in Latin and English in Raising the Ghost of Arius. Grantley makes this error about the Vulgate Prologue in other cases as well. The full consensus before c. AD 1650 was that the Vulgate Prologue is written by Jerome, after that it is in dispute, with various arguments on both sides.
 
Steven Avery said:
Notes on Erasmus and the heavenly witnesses.
1) Very curious is the omission of Cyprian in the Erasmus studies of the heavenly witnesses.
2) The Council of Carthage with 400+ orthodox affirming the verse from John was not yet published.
3) Erasmus did a little dance to try to get around the solecism.
4) Old Latin sources including the Freisinger Fragment and the Speculum were not yet discovered. These match up with the Tertullian and Cyprian references.
What are your sources for all the above.

What point do you need sources for?

This is all easily available information.

#1 - Erasmus actually produced a Cyprian edition with the Unity of the Church reference.
I cover that and Ad Jubaianum on PBF.

#2 - The Council of Carthage is published 1541.

Here is the Richard Simon footnote by W. R. Andrew Hunwick showing the edition.

Richard Simon Critical History of the Text of the New Testament: wherein is Established the Truth of the Acts on which the Christian Religion is Based (2013)
https://books.google.com/books?id=2RYzAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA179

18 Victor “Vitensis” (bishop of Vita [Tunisia], late 5th c.), Historia persecutionum, quas in Aphricci olim circa D. Augustini tempora ... [composed ca. 485] in Jean Quintin, et al., eds., Opus historiarum nostro seculo conuenicntissimum, in quo multa circa urbes, arces, and insulis habentur [Basel: Westhemer, 1541] [BnF RES-G-2126], 371-483,437. Also PL 58:227 where text appears in Historia Persecutions Africae Provinciae hook 3 ch. 11.

1541 edition

Opus historiarum nostro seculo conuenicntissimum, in quo multa (1541)
https://books.google.com/books?id=0ZxTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA25
See also
https://books.google.com/books?id=aUlPAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA653

#3 is in the Annotationes, "torquebit grammaticos"

#4 is simply the 1800s history of the two manuscripts
 
Last edited:
We see you using an English translation of Cyprian (of which there are, by ECW standards, very many to chose from) that deliberately rearranges the English word order to make it appear more like the Comma (Parenthetical Text) in the King James Version.

The clause "it is written" has been deliberately (IMO) transposed (from the original Latin word order, which is perfectly comprehensible in English and does not need to be changed) and put before the clause "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" in order to make it appear as if "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" was written in Cyprian's Bible.

It is a false and deceptive impression.

The words "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are written, yes that's true, they ARE WRITTEN BY CYPRIAN!

They are Cyprian's words
- not John's.

Why haven't you put your own translation Steven?

The one you made earlier:

Your one is very different to the one you quote above.
  • It is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, "And these three are one". (Robert Ernest Wallis 1868)
  • It is written "and the three are one", referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Steven Spenser Avery translation)
Am I to presume that you think your word order is an improvement? Providing a better sense in English?
Perhaps you would like to explain why you have transposed the word order in your translation?
Also, why you missed the Latin "et" "and" between "the Father" and "the Son"? Is this you trying to deceptively make it look more like the KJV Comma and it's missing "and"?

So not only did you falsely claim a "quote", you also had a not of total nonsense about deceptive blah-blah.

Either word order is totally acceptable, you just have blinders and confirmation bias and wildly accuse.

You love the word "deceptively" based on your own flights of fancy and nonsense and your unique confusions.

Cheap politician tricks.
 
Last edited:
It is a simple truism in English.

Was Cyprian "English"? = No!

Did Cyprian speak "English"? = No!

Did Cyprian write any of his works in "English"? = No!

Does the English take precedent over the Latin original? = No!

Therefore you should try to understand the Latin grammar and syntax and meaning, instead of rearranging the "English" word order to look more like another "English" text, i.e. the Comma Johanneum in the KJV 1611, rather than looking more like the Latin original.

You dropped an "and" (between Father and Son) in your post from the Cyprian text, why?

There is no legitimate textual justification for it, except...

[Typos fixed, post posting]
 
You dropped an "and" (between Father and Son) in your post from the Cyprian text, why?

You are talking about a sentence I wrote in a post that was not a translation, simply a quick attempt to show an alternate word order.
The one you falsely called a translation.

You beat the deadest horses.

You make up the dumbest faux accusatory arguments. You put the most energy into fabricating bogus nonsense. You would do better to appreciate the beautiful scripture text!

My translation is in the Shorter Summary. I changed it from the TWOGIG word order. Following the Latin word order does not change the meaning either way, but it does make the excellent point of Franz Pieper clearer, noting the Father, Son and Holy Spirit between "and again" and "it is written". TWOGIG may do the same.

AD 250 – 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."

In English it may sometimes be a bit more natural to put the verb before the subject.

and again, it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit

However, upon examination, I prefer the text in the box above, as "and again" is a bit awkward in juxtaposition with "it is written." And it is good to have "it is written" contiguous to "and these three are one".

However, the non-Latin-word-order text is far more common in the literature.
e.g.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ywn1mbUlqA4C&pg=PA382
 
Last edited:
Was Cyprian "English"? = No!
Did Cyprian speak "English"? = No!
Did Cyprian write any of his works in "English"? = No!
Does the English take precedent over the Latin original? = No!

Therefore you should try to understand the Latin grammar and syntax and meaning, instead of rearranging the "English" word order to look more like another "English" text, i.e. the Comma Johanneum in the KJV 1611, rather than looking more like the Latin original.

Why would the other word order text look more like:

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

You claim does not even make sense, even without your false and wacky attempt to impute motives. I don't think you even thought it out.

and again, of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit it is written, "And these three are one."

and again, it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit , "And these three are one."
 
You are talking about a sentence I wrote in a post that was not a translation, simply a quick attempt to show an alternate word order.
The one you falsely called a translation.


If your "It is written 'and the three are one', referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" is NOT a translation of Cyprian, what is it then? (In the context of a pages long discussion about English translations of Cyprian)

Does this "It is written 'and the three are one', referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" look like a translation of Cyprian's De Unitate 6.5 to you, everyone?

What do you think?

Has anyone else seen this specific word order and translation being claimed by anyone else? Anywhere? Before Mr Avery proposed it in his post?


There's definitely something not quite right about what you're saying. It just doesn't add up.

I don't quite buy what your saying Mr Avery.
 
Last edited:
If your "It is written 'and the three are one', referring to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" is NOT a translation of Cyprian, what is it then? (In the context of a pages long discussion about English translations of Cyprian)

You should learn how to read.
It was simply an ad hoc quick method to show an alternate word order.

What a waste of time and energy.

You should learn from the real discussions, like the evidences not available to Erasmus, or the connection of the three Tertullian and Cyprian evidences. You get obsessed over nothings, or less than nothings.
 
Back
Top