heavenly witnesses - full use in extant writings before Priscillian - Isaac the Jew

The supposed allusion to the Comma in Clement, is in Eclogae Propheticae 13.1.

But what's in the very next sentence (Eclogae Propheticae 14.1)?

The immediate context?
 
Clement of Alexandria

"Eclogae Propheticae"

Chapter 14.1

[14.1] Ἡ νηστεία ἀποχὴ τροφῆς ἐστι κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμενον, τροφὴ δὲ οὐδὲν δικαιοτέρους ἡμᾶς ἢ ἀδικωτέρους ἀπεργάζεται, κατὰ δὲ
τὸ μυστικὸν δηλοῖ ὅτι ὥσπερ τοῖς καθ' ἕνα ἐκ τροφῆς ἡ ζωή, ἡ δ' ἀτροφία θανάτου σύμβολον, οὕτως καὶ ἡμᾶς τῶν κοσμικῶν νηστεύειν χρή, ἵνα τῷ κόσμῳ ἀποθάνωμεν καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο τροφῆς θείας μετα λαβόντες θεῷ ζήσωμεν.

SELECTIONS FROM THE PROPHETIC SCRIPTURES.
[Page 41] Translated by the Rev. William Wilson, M.A.​

[14.1] Fasting, according to the signification of the word, is abstinence from food. Now food makes us neither more righteous nor less. But mystically it shows that, as life is maintained in individuals by sustenance, and want of sustenance is the token [Or: "symbol"] of death; so also ought we to fast from worldly things, that we may die to the world, and after that, by partaking of divine sustenance, live to God."​

What kind of context surrounds this (13.1) reference?

Context = (μυστικὸν) "mystical"
Context = (σύμβολον) symbolic

That's not all either. ;)

P.S. note that, to my present knowledge, Avery never told you anything about this context.
 
Last edited:
If you read the post, you will see it's simply and honest process of putting "the words" in context.

You, for some reason, appear to want to divorce all "allusions" and/or "quotations" (as you call them) from there context.

Clement of Alexandria

"Eclogae Propheticae"

Chapter 14.1

[14.1] Ἡ νηστεία ἀποχὴ τροφῆς ἐστι κατὰ τὸ σημαινόμενον, τροφὴ δὲ οὐδὲν δικαιοτέρους ἡμᾶς ἢ ἀδικωτέρους ἀπεργάζεται, κατὰ δὲ
τὸ μυστικὸν δηλοῖ ὅτι ὥσπερ τοῖς καθ' ἕνα ἐκ τροφῆς ἡ ζωή, ἡ δ' ἀτροφία θανάτου σύμβολον, οὕτως καὶ ἡμᾶς τῶν κοσμικῶν νηστεύειν χρή, ἵνα τῷ κόσμῳ ἀποθάνωμεν καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο τροφῆς θείας μετα λαβόντες θεῷ ζήσωμεν.

SELECTIONS FROM THE PROPHETIC SCRIPTURES.
[Page 41] Translated by the Rev. William Wilson, M.A.

[14.1] Fasting, according to the signification of the word, is abstinence from food. Now food makes us neither more righteous nor less. But mystically it shows that, as life is maintained in individuals by sustenance, and want of sustenance is the token [Or: "symbol"] of death; so also ought we to fast from worldly things, that we may die to the world, and after that, by partaking of divine sustenance, live to God."​

What kind of context surrounds this (13.1) reference?

Context = (μυστικὸν) "mystical"
Context = (σύμβολον) symbolic

Putting things in there proper context.
 
Why would any honest person want to divorce this text ("Eclogae Propheticae" Chapters 13-14) from it's μυστικὸν "mystical" and σύμβολον symbolic context?
 
A few other considerations already brought out, but not exhaustive either:

  1. It's from a late corrupted manuscript of Clement's work's.
  2. It's definitely not a quotation of any specific clause of the Comma.
  3. The immediate context is Deuteronomy 18:6 [LXX 17:6 see LXX 19:5 also, or Matthew 18:16; 2 Corinthians 13:1]
  4. The near context is baptism, and more likely has "baptizing them in the name of" (F+S+HS = 3) formula from Matthew 28:19 in view.
  5. In view of Clement's Comma-less specific 1 John 5:7-8 Commentary (and even after 6th century Trinitarian modifications) on the passage in question, makes it even more unlikely this a Comma allusion.
  6. In view of the wider context of Tertullian's, Cyprian's "sacramentum" and Origen's mystery eisegetical interpretations, make's the probability that this has anything to do with Comma, very very (extremely) unlikely.
 
There is nothing particularly difficult, mystical or symbolic about the words.

"By two and three witnesses every word is established. (Deut xvii.6) By Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, by whose witness and help the prescribed commandments ought to be kept."
 
Steven Avery said:
Rick, feel free to give my quotes.

Then, if you demonstrate them to be false, I will be happy to retract.

If you can’t do that, we only have your blah-blah.
Click to expand...
Is it possible for you to engage with other posters with even a modicum of grace, civility? I don't believe that bringing up strife by calling them deceitful and cunning is appropriate. It's hard for me to respect anyone who uses name calling, as an expert in anything. My interest comes from the scripture:

James 1:26
New American Standard Bible
​

26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this person’s religion is worthless.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Why don't you email Mr Babinotis and tell him about the older more original Latin forms (schema or syntactic structure) of the Comma Johanneum which are lacking the "Holy" with "Spirit"?

And ask him if he thinks "Spirit" without the "Holy" makes a better syntactic parallel with verse 8's "Spirit" without the "Holy"?
Click to expand...

Is this your full response to the grammatical argument affirmed by Babiniotis?
 
Steven Avery said:
The textual writers seem to be stuck on the idea of Priscillian as the first full heavenly witnesses evidence. Since his quote of both the heavenly and earthly witnesses is quirky, and he was executed for sorcery or magic, with lots of controversy, this identification of the heavenly witnesses with Priscillian allows a type of hand-waving dismissal.

Similarly, earlier references using the heavenly witnesses like Cyprian and Potamius (4 times, including one to Athanasius) are dismissed by uninformed textual critics on the very weak grounds that these writers did not spell out the full verse. This is a type of negative special pleading, since partial references are common in the textual apparatus.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this statement of yours is certifiably stupid. Cyprian simply did not cite the verse at all but you expect everyone to pretend that he did because you have personally decided he did due to your own imaginations and if anyone does not want to participate in your own self deception routine then they are doing so "on very weak grounds."

That's just stupid and honest, rational people know that it is.

But it seems that you have no intention of being honest and rational.

Steven Avery said:
The Ambrosian ms., with the Muratonian canon, has a work Confessio fidei Catholicae, where the author is likely Isaac the Jew, writing around 370, connected with the AD 366 election dispute between Damasus and Urbanus.



This identification of Isaac the Jew as the author was explained by Dom Germain Morin, and affirmed by Cuthbert Hamilton Turner and Theodor Zahn, and three is a superb review by Andrew Eubank Burn.

Lewis Ayres of Durham affirms this authorship in:

Augustine and the Trinity, 2014
https://books.google.com/books?id=LpyG7YnkqokC&pg=PA99
p. 99-100.

While neither writing can be dated precisely, and both connect to Damasus, the quotation from Isaac the Jew is likely earlier than that of Priscillian by about a decade.
Click to expand...

And that is going to make all the difference eh?

Where is your head man?

Steven Avery said:
All those textual articles and books that place Priscillian as the first extant usage should be corrected.

Some even have tried to make him the originator of the verse!
Click to expand...

You have a serious case of confirmation bias addiction.

That would be a mental illness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top