Hundredfold Martyrs

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Hundredfold Martyrs
Sermon the Hundredfold, Sixty-fold, and Thirty-fold
Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima

Heavenly Witnesses
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.

A powerful evidence, corroboration of the Ante-Nicene Old Latin of Tertullian in Against Praxeas and the two references from Cyprian, Ad Jubaianus and Unity of the Church, in their usage of the heavenly witnesses.

This works with the material in The Witness of God is Greater (TWOGIG) and my value-added study and sharing as well.

History in the Bible Debate
This fine heavenly witnesses reference first became known to the public in 1914 so it is not in the real heavenly witnesses debate season of 1690 to 1890. The most public spot where this was referenced was the section by Raymond Brown in the Epistles of John, who sought to give it a later date spin, against most of the scholarship. Michael Maynard, (1955-2014), the pioneer in modern heavenly witnesses defense studies, did not have this reference. And Grantley Robert McDonald missed the reference in Raising the Ghost of Arius. Yet this has even been in the Critical Text apparatus as (Ps-Cyprian.) This can puzzle readers since the Rebaptism Treatise is also a Ps-Cyprian. TWOGIG helped bring the material together.

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

Hundredfold Martyrs
"
the illustrious three, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit ... spiritually bound by the Three Witnesses ... by the mouth of three witnesses it will be proved, that is: by the mouth of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit it will be confessed"

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

Also this clear reference to the heavenly witnesses verse does not fit the absurd narrative that virtually everybody, including Tertullian and Cyprian, were only allegorizing the earthly witnesses. And it does not fit the alternative narrative that Tertullian and Cyprian were stumbling around and giving nascent style to the eventual verse formation
🙂
.

In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that the full heavenly witnesses verse was in Latin Bibles in the 200s. Especially when you consider Old Latin manuscripts like the Freisinger Fragment and the Speculum, on top of all the ECW (early church writing) referencing, and Jerome's clear acknowledgment of our majestic verse and then the amazing usage at the Council of Carthage of AD 484. The ECW referencing includes 15 or so full verse uses in the early centuries, supporting long-term OId Latin Bible acceptance of our verse.

If the contras wanted to be honest, they should fall back to a position of claiming an early Old Latin interpolation. This would be wrong, e.g. the grammatical and stylistic and "internal" evidences essentially destroy that position, but at least the Old Latin interpolation try would have a gram of scholastic honesty. They would have to give up the errant idea that this was an orthodox interpolation against the Arians, which is very popular in contra-land.

Also there is the simple fact that Tertullian and Cyprian were strong in Greek as well as Latin, and Tertullian is thought to often translate directly from his Greek Bible into his Latin writing. Simply put, the Latin of the heavenly witnesses came from the Greek.

While the date assigned to Hundredfold Martyrs has varied from the time of Justin Martyr in the 2nd century to the 4th century, there is strong scholarship that makes it no later than the era around Cyprian. This work has an unusual angelomorphic Christology that fits much better in the early centuries. And is highly unlikely for a fourth century writing. Generally Hundredfold Martyrs is considered as Christian in origin, although a couple of scholars have looked at it as in the gnostic fringe.

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

"On the other hand it is not to be denied that many of his peculiarities, e.g. his Christology, have an archaic stamp."

Harvard Theological Review - 1914
Literature on Church History

https://books.google.com/books?id=a_cLAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA337

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

While the Critical Text apparatus for the heavenly witnesses is a total disaster in terms of references from the early church writers, they have in fact included (Ps-Cyprian) on the positive side!

Walter Thiele (1923-2016), a leading Old Latin expert who "wrote the book" on the Old Latin of the Johannine Epistles, calls this an allusion to the verse, without any reservations. This is in Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1959), p. 69.

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

There is a fuller textual section and some commentary in The Witness of God is Greater.
Your thoughts welcome.

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


Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 
Last edited:
Hundredfold Martyrs
Sermon the Hundredfold, Sixty-fold, and Thirty-fold
Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima

Heavenly Witnesses
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.

A powerful evidence, corroboration of the Ante-Nicene Old Latin of Tertullian in Against Praxeas and the two references from Cyprian, Ad Jubaianus and Unity of the Church, in their usage of the heavenly witnesses.

This works with the material in The Witness of God is Greater (TWOGIG) and my value-added study and sharing as well.

History in the Bible Debate
This fine heavenly witnesses reference first became known to the public in 1914 so it is not in the real heavenly witnesses debate season of 1690 to 1890. The most public spot where this was referenced was the section by Raymond Brown in the Epistles of John, who sought to give it a later date spin, against most of the scholarship. Michael Maynard, (1955-2014), the pioneer in modern heavenly witnesses defense studies, did not have this reference. And Grantley Robert McDonald missed the reference in Raising the Ghost of Arius. Yet this has even been in the Critical Text apparatus as (Ps-Cyprian.) This can puzzle readers since the Rebaptism Treatise is also a Ps-Cyprian. TWOGIG helped bring the material together.

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



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

Also this clear reference to the heavenly witnesses verse does not fit the absurd narrative that virtually everybody, including Tertullian and Cyprian, were only allegorizing the earthly witnesses. And it does not fit the alternative narrative that Tertullian and Cyprian were stumbling around and giving nascent style to the eventual verse formation
🙂
.

In fact, the evidence is overwhelming that the full heavenly witnesses verse was in Latin Bibles in the 200s. Especially when you consider Old Latin manuscripts like the Freisinger Fragment and the Speculum, on top of all the ECW (early church writing) referencing, and Jerome's clear acknowledgment of our majestic verse and then the amazing usage at the Council of Carthage of AD 484. All that is before we add another 15 or so full verse uses in the early centuries, supporting long-term OId Latin Bible acceptance of our verse.

If the contras wanted to be honest, they should fall back to a position of claiming an early Old Latin interpolation. This would be wrong, e.g. the grammatical and stylistic and "internal" evidences essentially destroy that position, but at least the Old Latin interpolation try would have a gram of scholastic honesty. They would have to give up the errant idea that this was an orthodox interpolation against the Arians, which is very popular in contra-land.

Also there is the simple fact that Tertullian and Cyprian were strong in Greek as well as Latin, and Tertullian is thought to often translate directly from his Greek Bible into his Latin writing. Simply put, the Latin of the heavenly witnesses came from the Greek.

While the date assigned to Hundredfold Martyrs has varied from the time of Justin Martyr in the 2nd century to the 4th century, there is strong scholarship that makes it no later than the era around Cyprian. This work has an unusual angelomorphic Christology that fits much better in the early centuries. And is highly unlikely for a fourth century writing. Generally Hundredfold Martyrs is considered as Christian in origin, although a couple of scholars have looked at it as in the gnostic fringe.

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



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

While the Critical Text apparatus for the heavenly witnesses is a total disaster in terms of references from the early church writers, they have in fact included (Ps-Cyprian) on the positive side!

Walter Thiele (1923-2016), a leading Old Latin expert who "wrote the book" on the Old Latin of the Johannine Epistles, calls this an allusion to the verse, without any reservations. This is in Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1959), p. 69.

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

There is a fuller textual section and some commentary in The Witness of God is Greater.
Your thoughts welcome.

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


Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
😄 🤣 😂 😆 😄 🤣 😂 😆 😄 🤣 😂 😆
 
Steven Avery must be desperate to have to turn to the gnostics.

1023. J. Danielou, “Le traite De centesima , sexagesima, tricesima et le judeo-
christianisme latin avant Tertullien,” VigChrist 25 (3, 71) 171-181.

Extracts....(french text englished)

The pseudo-Cyprianist sermon on the three rewards has given rise to various interpretations. Its first publisher, Reitzenstein, placed it at the end of the Second Century. Hugo Koch, emphasizing connections with Cyprian, placed it at the end of the Third Century. M. Heer recognized both pre-Cyprianist data and others who depend on Cyprian. He seems to have charted the right course. The redaction that we have of this treatise is later than Cyprian. But it is a reworking of a Judeo-Christian sermon of the Second Century. V Esdras among the testimonies of Latin Judeo-Christianity before Tertullian. This is what I would like to show. The De centesima presents in the biblical material features characteristic of an archaic Judeo-Christian tradition. This is worth several aspects. The first is the freedom in the use of biblical quotations, which tends to be attenuated from the beginning of the third century. I note here some examples. Thus for the quotation of Is. consummatum faciet Dominus super terram, which abbreviates the biblical text, whereas Cyprian (Test. 11,3) reproduces it in its entirety.
.
.
.
The interest of our text is that it appears to be the first "to establish a relationship between the three rewards and the martyrs, the virgins and the spouses who maintain continence. Cyprian alludes to this, at least for the first two categories (Hab . virg. 31), as in something known. It seems likely that it depends on our treatise. Origen relates the three rewards to martyrs, virgins and widows, which is very close to Cent. ( Hom. Jos. II, 1).Later interpretation will deal with martyrs, virgins and married people - or else virgins, widows and married people.9 A particularly interesting feature of Judeo-Christian theology is the anthropology of our text: the earth, has a soul inspired by God. Indeed the spirit (spiritus) comes from heaven. The spirit possesses future things, the flesh possesses the blood>> (58, 35-37). There is, in the background, the Judeo-Christian theme, which we find in Tatian, of two principles created by God in man, an animal soul, identified with blood, and a celestial spirit: these two principles are in conflict (55,19-26; 58,36-37). There is an opposition between the first creation, where the flesh is dominated by the Spirit, and the state of man after the fall, where he is dominated by the blood. In the first state man is under the empire of God, in the second under that of the demon (64,13-15). The body, captive of blood, is liberated in Christ who sheds his blood. And this sanctified blood of Christ triumphs over our blood (56,51-57; 59,4-13). The body, prisoner of the blood, is the sheep led by the devil into the desert (58,49-53). It seems that here the theme of the possessed being dragged away by the demon in the desert of Luke 8.29 merges with that of the lost sheep. In any case, it will be noted that this horror of blood, considered as soul, is Semitic. It is found in Judeo-Christianity in pseudo-Clementine writings. Moreover, the very realistic conception of the body inhabited by the Spirit or by the demon is found in the Pastor. Tertullian rejected this conception of the evil material soul and spirit as equated with the breath of God from Gen. 2.7. Blood is the principle of the passions (59.1-5). Another important theme is that of the Word as the 76th day. His Judeo-Christian character and his relationship with the Pastor of Hermas are decisive. The text is as follows: “When the Lord created (created) the first seven angels from the fire, he decided to constitute himself one of them as a Son, whom Isaiah would announce as Lord Sabaoth. We therefore learn that there remain six angels created with the Son... Consider indeed the origin of the past time, at the end of which day the Lord ceased to work, he who exposed the commandment of the creation of all in saying, Heaven and earth were finished on the fifth day, and God rested from his works on the sixth, and he blessed the seventh. It is this day that without knowing it imitates the ascetic (agonista) by resting from works of iniquity. >> Then the text quotes Apoc. 4.7: Et vidi quartet animalia habenti alas senas. He continues: Non ignorandum est igitur de hoc titulo quod Christiani animalibus insist, propter quod et alas senas possident quibus in medio filius Dei graditur (60.50-61.37). This text has been extensively studied by Barbel, Christos Angelos (1941) 192-224. Three themes can be distinguished. First there is the creation of angels from fire, which is found especially in II Henoch. More important is the representation of the six angels in the midst of which is the Son of God, who is the seventh angel. This conception has only one equivalent, which is the Shepherd of Hermas, with the theme of the six angels created first (nprotot Krtoc0Ovteg) and in the middle of which is the Son of God (IX, 12, 8). The word principum of our text seems to relate well to this conception of the protoctists. Clement of Alexandria speaks well of the npo-r6ktic -rot, but there are seven of them and the Son is never known with them. The third theme is the assimilation of the seven angels to the seven days and of the Son to the seventh day. The angels are explicitly called days and the Son the seventh day, "the one whom God blesses". The designation of the Son as a day is a Judeo-Christian theme, which is already found in the Kirygma of Peter. This corresponds to Judeo-Christian speculations on the beginning of Genesis. The theme is not explicit in the Pasteur d'Hermas, but seems well assumed. It is also interesting to note the designation of the Son by the word Sabaoth borrowed from Is. 6,8. Sabaoth is a name of an angel in the apocalyptic (Orac. Sib. 1,304,316). Reitzenstein and Barbel have recalled this6. Gnosticism took over the word. One text is of particular interest in the Hypostasis of the Archons. Sabaoth appears as the son of Ialdabaoth, the leader of the Seven Archangels. But whereas Ialdabaoth is a fallen angel, Sabaoth is converted. He is exalted on the celestial chariot (143,413-31). Likewise in Cent. Sabaoth, the Son of God, advances in the chariot carried by the four animals which have six wings (61,28-37). Bullard clearly saw that the theme in the Hypostasis of the Archons stems from the Jewish apocalyptic. It is the same in our case. We will also note the strange doctrine of the cessation of creation at the end of the fifth day. Maybe it can be clarified. Victorin de Pettau writes: Prius opera sua consummavit quam angelos creavit et hominemfabricavit (Fabr.; Routh, III, 457). This is the sixth day. .... And furthermore the creation of the angels is related to the sixth day. There is therefore a doctrine of the creation of angels on the sixth day, before the creation of man. Also Cent. writes that the ascetic "imitates the six angels, in that, while he is a corporeal man, he testifies that he is spiritual". This seems to indicate that the five days correspond to the creation of the material world and the sixth day to that of the spiritual world, the angels and the spiritual man. The sixth day thus appears essentially not as that of rest in the sense of reward, which is the seventh day, but of rest in the sense of the cessation of material works. It is he who abstains from the works of the flesh who pretends to obtain the reward of sixty. It is not impossible that there is here also an allusion to Friday as a day of jefine. In the same context Victorin calls it: Hoc die ob passionem Domini Jesu Christi aut stationem Deo aut ieiunium facimus (ibid.)
.
.
.
(cont.)
 
Last edited:
(cont. from above)

However, a precise study of the whole of the quotation that we find in our Sermon will show us that it rests on a file of encratite (a member of certain 2d century ascetic sects that condemned sexual intercourse, clericalism, and the use of animal food and strong drink) tendency. A first indication is given to us by a testimonium which we have mentioned: “Blessed are those who have wives as if they had none. >> The verse recalls I Cor. 7.29. But in its exact form, it is found in the Acts of Paul (5) and in Ephrem (Assemani, 1,16D. See Resch, Agrapha, p. 274). The rapprochement is decisive. Our author knew the Acts of Paul or their source. He belongs to the same encratite milieu. Now we know that the Acts of Paul were attacked by Tertullian. They are from the end of the Second Century. We are therefore brought back to the Latin milieu prior to "Tertullian". Acts of Paul Another quotation on which our author relies is: Filii aevi huius nubunt et nubuntur; filii autem illius aevi, qui digni habentur esse resurrectione a mortuis, neque nubunt neque nubuntur. The text is inspired by Luke 20 34. But it includes an important variant. Luke does not speak of "sons of the other century", but of those who are worthy of the other century". This is what we find in the De habitu virginum of Cyprian (22) Our author wanted to oppose "the sons of this world>> and the "sons of the other world". text towards the opposition of the two centuries". Quispel has shown that this text is capital for the encratites. They do not understand it from the f know that in the next life marriage will no longer exist, but that from this life it must be rejected6. encratite. Clement of Alexandria writes: These in the same way support their thesis by the quotation: The sons of the other century neither marry nor take a wife>> (Strom. III, 12,87,1). This is exactly our text. And Clement continues: <But this question concerns the dead and those who inquire about their future fate and does not show the Lord condemning marriage. Moreover the word "the sons of this century" is not said by him in opposition to the sons of some other century, since all those who are born in this world, being sons by birth, are born and begotten>> (III 12,87,3). We see that our quotation was at the heart of the discussions with the encratites and belonged to their file in the form that Cent proposes to us. A final remark should be made about this quote. In Luke 20,34, it is "to a question posed by the Jews to the disciples that Christ answers. Now we read in Cent.: Cum Thomas a Judaeis lege Moysi urgeretur (64,37). This mention of Thomas is singular It is not found in Luke. We know the place that Thomas holds in Encratite circles. It is from them that the Gospel of Thomas comes to us. We are in the presence of a logion analogous to those of this Gospel. and which must come from the same tradition. We have an analogous case in a quotation attributed to Paul and which had not hitherto been identified: Qui continens est in omnibus continens permaneat, non tantum corpore, sed spiritu (60, 7-9). It seems that we are in the presence of a modified quotation from I Cor. 9,25.....
.
.
......Now these two texts are quoted in Clement's controversy against the Encratites, perhaps here the Marcionites. With regard to the first, Clement quotes it thus: "It is sin which, fighting against the law of God and of my spirit, he says, makes me captive to the law of sin" (III, 11, 77.1). Clement emphasizes that it is sin acting through the body of which man is captive and criticizes the encratites for not citing what concerns sin. This is precisely the case with our text. As for the second, Clement quotes it in the form it has not in 7.16, but in 7.20: Si quod nolo hoc facio, iam non ego operor illud, sed quod habitat in me peccatum. Here again it is the reminder of sin which is essential......

The Encratites .... used the Epistle to the Romans in the sense of a dualism of mind and body and a condemnation of the body as the source of sin. Clement shows that the body is good and that it is only sin that makes it the instrument of evil. Now Cent. refers only to the opposition of mind and body. The whole last part, the one that targets married people, has as its main object to show that Paul, after his conversion, renounced flesh and blood, that is to say marriage, and that he is therefore a model for marius people to give it up. Moreover, these quotations are not the only ones that are common to our text and to the file that Clement uses in his controversy against the encratites. There we find precise allusions to "I Cor. 7,29 (Strom. III, 14,95,3); to Math. 10,37 (111,15,97,2). We will also find the formula of I Petr. 1.21: "Be holy as I am holy." It is interpreted by Cent of sanctimonia, that is, of continence in marriage (62, 43-44). repeats, as he does for the other formulas, in a non-encratite sense. But it is clear that he is discussing the texts which were used by the encratites and that he restores their true meaning to them. This is also the case for the quotation of I Petr. 1,24 (Strom. 111,16,103,2). But more significant is the interpretation of Gen. 3,15. Per Cent. "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil " is sexual union. The prohibition to eat the fruit of the tree is a call to continence. It is under the instigation of the devil that Adam and Eve violate the commandment (64,13- 31. Now this is found in Cassian, whose thesis Clement exposes and discusses (111,17,103,1-104,5). elsewhere to identify the tree at the wedding. But the text means that it is capable of good or bad use. The theme of the tree of good and evil to designate concupiscence is found in Od. Hello. 111.9. It seems that it is in this sense that Cent. the interpreter (66.2). This use by Cent. of an encratite file makes it possible to respond to those who affirm the dependence of our text on Cyprian' because of the fact that quite a number of biblical quotations, about fifteen, are found at once in Cent. and in Cyprian, in the De habitu virginum and the Testimonia ad Quirinum. But a careful examination shows that this argument is not convincing. Among these quotations, several appear in Cent. with modifications compared to the biblical text which have an archaic character whereas they have their correct form in Cyprian. This is the case of Mth. 7.21, which is found in Justin, I Apol. 16, 9-10 with the same modification; of I Cor. 7.29, which comes from the apocryphal Acts of Paul; from Luke 20.34, which is quoted in this form by Clement of Alexandria; of Ps. 118.1; Math. 22.40; John. 3.5; I Cor. 3.16; I Cor. 10, 23; I Cor. 6.15; Apoc. 14.4. It would be unlikely that these quotations were taken from Cyprien. The solution seems to be that the two authors refer to a collection of Testimonia. We have proof of this in the study by Michel Reveillaud.

This showed that Cyprien had used a collection of unpublished Testimonia. Now at least five of the common quotations "Cent. and "Cyprien are indicated by Reveillaud as borrowed by Cyprian" from this collection. These are Joh. 6,38; I Joh. 2,17; Is. 10,23; Math. 22, 40; Joh. 5.14. This collection was of an ascetic character. It was first used by Cent. in an incratic sense, as we have seen. Cyprian used it in his turn, correcting it from the point view of the text and eliminating tendentious lines. It is also to this collection that the agraphon belonged: Omnia ista in saeculo nata et in saeculo remansura, commun " Cent. and has Habit. These remarks allow us to draw some conclusions. The sermon De centesima, which Cyprian doubtless knew and whose rather primitive Latin was retouched in his entourage, is a Judeo-Christian Latin sermon from the end of the Second Century. It presents characteristic features of Judeo-Christianity: freedom in the use of biblical quotations, allegorical exegesis of parables, angelomorphic Christology, against which we know that Tertullian "reacted. Other traces of Judeo-Christianity in South Africa Nord before Tertullian have been noted by G. Quispel, The Discussion of Judaic Christianity, Vig.Chr.22 (1968) 93.

Moreover, he uses a file of Pauline texts which is for the most part that which we know from Clement of Alexandria to have been that of Tatian and Julius Cassian. It is possible that he used the Diatessaron of Tatian in his Latin translation. He presents specifically encratite features. He therefore testifies to a Judeo-Christian current, of encratite tendency, in Africa at the end of the Second Century. It is a monument of the first Christian Latin literature before Tertullian.
 
Steven Avery must be desperate to have to turn to the gnostics.

Hilarious.

1) Any source can show that a verse was in the Bible of the day. Apocrypha, Julian the Apostate, Trypho or Celsus, and various doctrines. when you are demonstrating that a verse is in the Bible, the doctrinal beliefs of the writer is not a factor. The verse is in the Bible and can be used for all beliefs.

2) You will attack doctrinally anybody, Tertullian, Cyprian, the anonymous author here, just to avoid acknowledging that the verse was in the early Bibles.

Most scholars do not consider Hundredfold Martyrs a gnostic work, but it has no effect one way or another in showing the verse was in the Bible.
 
Hilarious.

1) Any source can show that a verse was in the Bible of the day. Apocrypha, Julian the Apostate, Trypho or Celsus, and various doctrines. when you are demonstrating that a verse is in the Bible, the doctrinal beliefs of the writer is not a factor. The verse is in the Bible and can be used for all beliefs.

2) You will attack doctrinally anybody, Tertullian, Cyprian, the anonymous author here, just to avoid acknowledging that the verse was in the early Bibles.

Most scholars do not consider Hundredfold Martyrs a gnostic work, but it has no effect one way or another in showing the verse was in the Bible.
So from WOGIG
===========

"Certainly, whoever might be so inclined to accomplish the work of those six angels, he shall enjoy so much
blessedness [fruitfulness] as the illustrious three, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, which therefore you
long for in the kingdom of heaven.[1] ...Therefore you who have learnt to receive God through virtuousness,
observe his promise too, which said : Anyone not reborn from water and holy spirit, will not enter into the
kingdom of heaven. Therefore you who will long to arrive in the kingdom of heaven, do not cast out that spirit of
renewal by your lustful living.[2] ...For He Himself [Christ] is a step in the ascent into heaven, for He Himself is the
gate, Himself the entry into life, by whom in your redemption from the contagion of the world you have been
spiritually bound by the Three Witnesses. This Trinity, therefore, increases by the Ten Words [i.e. multiplied by the 10 Commandments] so that the thirty-fold reward is completed. [i.e.,”the sum”that is 30 (3 multiplied by 10)].[3]

For the Law of the Lord is hard and bitter, but it makes bitterness, in order that it might reveal sweetness. For also
by John this is demonstrated, when the spirit hands over the book to the angel who broke the seals, saying:”Take
the book and eat it up. And it shall make thy belly bitter, but in thy mouth it shall be sweet as honey.”This means:
by the mouth of three witnesses it will be proved, that is: by the mouth of the Father and Son and Holy
Spirit it will be confessed, because it is apparent that honey [Latin: mel] is written in three letters. For certainly,
we also read honey [Latin: mel], constituted of three letters.

○ Latin: lex enim domini dura est et amara, [Line 349] <sed> amaritudinem facit, ut dulcedinem ostendat.
nam et per Iohannem de- [Line 350] -monstravit, cum spiritus [PAGE 87] librum angelo sigilla solventi
traderet dicens:”Accipe [Line 351] librum et devora eum et amaritudinem faciet ventri tuo, sed in ore tuo
erit [Line 352] dulce, tamquam mel.”(Rev 10:9) hoc est per os trium testium probari, id est per os
[Line 353] patris et filii et spiritus sancti confiteri, quod mel tribus litteris constat scribi; [Line 354]
nam et mel quidem legimus tribus litteris statui. (Ps-Cyprian, Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima,
edited by Reitzenstein, dans ZNTW, 1914, 15, p. 86-87, lines 348-352)

Translator Jeroen Beekhuizen's note: The author explains the text of Revelations 10:9 to refer to the testimony
of the Trinity. The clue to this is the Latin word”mel”(honey) which he finds in the text. To the author this has a
deeper meaning than”honey”alone, because this word was deliberately chosen (according to the author) for it's
three letters (m-e-l). At least, this is how I understand these Latin lines. (Jeroen Beekhuizen, Correspondence, 28
October 2019)

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

Isn't this pretty much what the Eclogae Propheticae 13.1 is saying? ("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")

Cassian and Tatian, with whom the Cent. is closely conected (see article above), were both associated with Valentinus, who was likely associated with the author of the text from Eclogae Propheticae 13.1 and with the authori of the Tripate Tractate ("Baptism is the confession of faith in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.").

That there were gnostics in North Africa interested in these heavenly witnesses might explain the Comma's origin, and as you say on your blog:

"The Pseudo-Cyprianic Sermo de Centesima, published by R. Reitzenstein, ZNW 15, (194) 60-90, is attributed by H. Koch, ZNW 31 (1932) 248, to fourth-century Africa and (possibly) to a follower of Priscillian, drawing upon Cyprian's works."

So what have you proved? A lot of noise, but little substance other than a likely gnostic origin to the Comma in the 4th cent.
 
Last edited:
"The Pseudo-Cyprianic Sermo de Centesima, published by R. Reitzenstein, ZNW 15, (194) 60-90, is attributed by H. Koch, ZNW 31 (1932) 248, to fourth-century Africa and (possibly) to a follower of Priscillian, drawing upon Cyprian's works."

Highly unlikely.
It was an early opinion of Hugo Koch, picked up by Raymond Brown, as a contra it fit his narrative better than the early date.

Expositio et quæstiones in Aristotelis De anima (1995)
The Hundredfold Reward for Martyrs and Ascetics: Ps.-Cyprian, De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima
Philip Sellew
http://books.google.com/books?id=XBLtIGhU9UYC&pg=PA94

p. 95
One controversial question about the homily concerns its date and circumstances of composition. Reitzenstein suggested an origin in Carthage before the end of the second century. While other historians have accepted his arguments for a North African provenance, some have pushed the composition date back by several generations7. I have concluded that, on balance, the language, attitudes, use of Scripture, theological viewpoints, and the narrative situation implied by the text all point most strongly to rigorist circles of Christian Carthage in the first half of the third century. The concepts and use of apocryphal texts seem to require a relatively early date, while the language used shares much in common with Cyprian. This state of affairs may best be explained not as evidence of direct borrowing or literary imitation of one author by the other, but instead as revealing a shared environment, along with a common storehouse of biblical texts.

7 Notably Hugo Koch, ‘Die ps.-cyprianische Schrift De centesima. sexagesima, tricesima in ihrer Abhiingigkcit von Cyprian.’ ZNW 31 (1932) 248-272.

In TWOGIG you have:

Dated Late 2nd century:
● Reitzenstein (1914) Eine frühchristliche Schrift ZNTW
● Daniélou (1977) Origins of Latin Christianity
● Rordorf and Tuilier (1978) La Doctrine des Douze Apôtres

Sellew will be a fine addition, likely the strongest, looking at the explanation above.
 
Last edited:
Simply put, the Latin of the heavenly witnesses came from the Greek.
Strong delusion. No proof. All empty assertion. Where are all the cries of "where'd it go?" You wont find it coming from anyone but Pseudo-Jerome. Explain that.


Walter Thiele (1923-2016), a leading Old Latin expert who "wrote the book" on the Old Latin of the Johannine Epistles, calls this an allusion to the verse, without any reservations. This is in Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1959), p. 69.
Give me his exact words....the German along with the English translation. I'd wager you don't even have that work of his (I do).

You're a parrot.
 
Hundredfold Martyrs
"the illustrious three, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit ... spiritually bound by the Three Witnesses ... by the mouth of three witnesses it will be proved, that is: by the mouth of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit it will be confessed"
What's with the ellipses? Are you trying to suppress the context?

And by the way, the Comma doesn't have the word "witnesses" in it. And the fact that the words "three" and "witnesses" have been capitalized in your excerpt immediately raises red flags that something is rotten in Denmark.

You're so predictable.
 
Hundredfold Martyrs
"the illustrious three, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit ... spiritually bound by the Three Witnesses ... by the mouth of three witnesses it will be proved, that is: by the mouth of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit it will be confessed"

What's in the ... parts that are missing?

Anybody else notice that? The ... in the translations provided?

Is important context missing?
 
Walter Thiele (1923-2016), a leading Old Latin expert who "wrote the book" on the Old Latin of the Johannine Epistles, calls this an allusion to the verse, without any reservations. This is in Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1959), p. 69.
He says no such thing.
 
Walter Thiele Beobachtungen zum Comma Johanneum (1959), p. 69.
__________________________________________________________________________
Thiele does make the argument that Avery alleges, but on slender grounds viz. The retrospective introduction of an addendum as long and widespread as the C.J. is would be a very singular exception. The problem for Thiele is that the C.J. has proved to be just such a very singular exception, which he seems to ignore. Another problem for Thiele is that he hasn't taken into account Augustine's point which is that Latin translations of the Greek were unregulated: anyone could make a translation, and anyone did. There were therefore, according to Augustine, many Latin variants floating around in North Africa: it was never the case of the Latin translation being performed just once, as Thiele presupposes.

(If I can recall, Thiele does also have dogmatic views on other matters that others disagree with.)

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

Folgende Gründe bestimmen mich, im Gegensatz zu der bisher allgemein üblichen Auffassung (11) in diesen Stellen eine Anspielung Cyprians auf das C. I. zu sehen und damit das C. I. als Bibeltext für die älteste lateinische Bibel zu beanspruchen:

a) Zusätze sind charakteristisch für den alten Bibeltext. Die Textgeschichte strebt ihre Ausscheidung an. Die nachtr gliche Einführung eines so langen und weit verbreiteten Zusatzes, wie es das C. I. ist, wäre eine ganz singuläre Ausnahme. Es gibt keinen Anhaltspunkt, für das C. I. eine solche Sonderstellung zu fordern: der Zusatz der Himmelszeugen steht durchaus in einer Reihe mit anderen »dogmatischen« Zusätzen der Katholischen Briefe, cf I Ptr 1:19; 3:22; I Joh 5:9, 20.

b) Was unter a) als allgemeines Ergebnis der Textgeschichte ausgesprochen wurde, findet seine Best tigung, wenn wir die Zitate Cyprians zu I Johannes untersuchen. Cyprians Bibeltext für I Johannes ist durch zahlreiche Zus tze gegen ber dem Griechischen
gekennzeichnet:
1:9 εάν] + autem; δίκαιος] + dominus';
2:16 σαρκός] + est; ουκ Ιστιν] quae non est; εκ του κόσμου] ex concupiscentia saeculi;
2:17 αίωνα] + quomodo (et) ipse (deus) manet in aeternum;
2:23 καΐ τον πατέρα] et filium et patrem;
4:3 το του αντίχριστου] de antichristi spiritu;
4:4 ὁ ἐν υμϊν] qui in vobis est; ἐν τφ κόσμορ] in hoc mundo. cf. auch II Joh 1:1 Sententiae episcoporum numero LXXXVII de haereticis baptizandis 81: ταύτηv την διδαχήv] doctrinam christi; οἰκίαν] + vestram.

Aus welchen Gründen ist nun die Auffassung, bei Cyprian liege das C. I. vor, bestritten worden? Maßgebend war vor allem die Beobachtung, daß die 2. Person der Trinität bei Cyprian "filius", und nicht wie in den bekannten Texten des C. I. "verbum" heißt. Aber die Erfassung des gesamten Materials zeigt offenkundig, daß filius ebenso wie verbum Lesart des C. I. ist (12).

filius wird außer bei Cyprian belegt in den Hss 67 ΘΩ(D) in den Zitaten bei Pseudo-Augustinus (Solutiones diversarum quaestionum ab haereticis obiectarum, Biblica 23 [1942] 263), Eugenius von Karthago (CV 7, 60 im überlieferungszweig β) und Cassiodor (PL 70, 1373 A), ferner in einer Anspielung bei Pseudo-Cyprian (De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima 44, ZNW 15 [1914] 87), um nur die ganz sicheren Zeugen zu nennen.
_____________________
11. Die überwiegende Mehrzahl der Forscher sieht in Cyprian, de unitate 6 nur einen Beleg dafür, daß Cyprian Geist, Wasser und Blut allegorisch auf die Trinität gedeutet habe, nicht aber das C. I. voraussetze; vgl. C. Tischendorf, N. T. Graece (8) II (1872) zu I Joh 5:7f., ferner in der unter Anm. l genannten Literatur Künstle 6—8, Chapman 263, Bludau, Theol. Quartalschrift 101, 13f., Riggenbach 398, Ayuso, Biblica 29, 53 f. Nur F. Büchsel, Die Johannesbriefe (Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament 17), Leipzig 1933, 82f., rechnet mit einem Zitat des C. I. bei Cyprian.

12. Vgl. dazu schon B. Fischer, Biblica 23 (1942), 264.

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

The following reasons determine me, in contrast to the hitherto generally accepted view (11), to see Cyprian's allusion to the C.J. in these passages and thus to claim the C.J. as the Bible text for the oldest Latin Bible:

a) Additions are characteristic of the old Bible text. The textual history strives for their elimination. The retrospective introduction of an addendum as long and widespread as the C.J. is would be a very singular exception. There is no evidence to demand such a special position for the C.J.: the addition of the heavenly witnesses is quite in line with other "dogmatic" additions to the Catholic Epistles, cf I Ptr 1:19; 3:22; I John 5:9, 20.

b) What was stated under a) as a general result of the history of the text is confirmed when we examine Cyprian's quotations from I John. Cyprian's Bible text for I John differs from the Greek in numerous additions marked:
1:9 εάν] + autem; δίκαιος] + dominus';
2:16 σαρκός] + est; ουκ Ιστιν] quae non est; εκ του κόσμου] ex concupiscentia saeculi; 2:17 αίωνα] + quomodo (et) ipse (deus) manet in aeternum;
2:23 καΐ τον πατέρα] et filium et patrem;
4:3 το του αντίχριστου] de antichristi spiritu;
4:4 ὁ ἐν υμϊν] qui in vobis est; ἐν τφ κόσμορ] in hoc mundo. cf. also II Joh 1:1 Sententiae episcoporum numero LXXXVII de haereticis baptizandis 81: ταύτηv την διδαχήv] doctrinam christi; οἰκίαν] + vestram.

On what grounds has the view that Cyprian had the C.J. been disputed? The decisive factor was above all the observation that the 2nd person of the Trinity is called "filius" in Cyprian and not "verbum" as in the well-known texts of C.J. But gathering all the material evidently shows that "filius", like "verbum," is a reading of C.J. (12).

Apart from Cyprian, "filius" is documented in Hss 67 ΘΩ(D) in the quotations from Pseudo-Augustinus (Solutiones diversarum quaestionum ab haereticis obiectarum, Biblica 23 [1942] 263), Eugenius von Karthago (CV 7, 60 in the tradition branch β) and Cassiodorus (PL 70, 1373 A), also in an allusion in Pseudo-Cyprian (De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima 44, ZNW 15 [1914] 87), just to name the most reliable witnesses.
________________________
11. The overwhelming majority of researchers sees in Cyprian, de unitate 6 only a proof that Cyprian has allegorically interpreted spirit, water and blood as referring to the Trinity, but does not presuppose the C.J..; cf. C. Tischendorf, N. T. Graece (8) II (1872) on I Joh 5:7f., also in the literature cited under note 1 Künstle 6-8, Chapman 263, Bludau, Theol. Quarterly publication 101, 13f., Riggenbach 398, Ayuso, Biblica 29, 53f.

Only F. Büchsel, Die Johannesbriefe (Theologischer Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 17), Leipzig 1933, 82f., counts on a quotation from C.J. in Cyprian.

12. See in addition B. Fischer, Biblica 23 (1942), 264.
 
Last edited:
● Daniélou (1977) Origins of Latin Christianity
If you'd read what I said above, you would have read this:

"The redaction that we have of this treatise is later than Cyprian. But it is a reworking of a Judeo-Christian sermon of the Second Century. V Esdras among the testimonies of Latin Judeo-Christianity before Tertullian. This is what I would like to show. The De centesima presents in the biblical material features characteristic of an archaic Judeo-Christian tradition......."

So Hugo Koch may be partly correct. And in any event, an allusion to "three witnesses" doesn't qualify it as an allusion to 1 John 5:7, just because we have "three witnesses" in 1 John 5:8.

I submit it was the gnostic element related to Valentinus which (predicatably) and early manipulated the "three witnesses" of 1 John 5:8 and also the baptismal formula of Matt 28:9 into an allusion to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit being witnesses or bearing witness, which is opposed to the orthodox 1 John 5:8 position, as alluded to in the homily In illud: In principio erat verbum, of Bishop Severian of Galalus, which seems to allude to 1 John 5:8 as a triad of witnesses to the 'Trinity' (i.e. to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

I concur that as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are stated as bearing witness (as well as being witnesses) in De centesima in
.... by the mouth of three witnesses it will be proved, that is: by the mouth of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit it will be confessed....
that there is a close parallelism with 1 John 5:7. But what is embarrasing for you, is that this text in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit bear witness (by confession) is unambiguously GNOSTIC (i.e. non-scriptural): consider also
........by whom in your redemption from the contagion of the world you have been spiritually bound by the Three Witnesses. This Trinity, therefore, increases by the Ten Words so that the thirty-fold reward is completed. [i.e.,”the sum”that is 30 (3 multiplied by 10)]

IOW, you can't rely on this kind of overtly contrived material to prove anything about scripture because large parts of it are simply made up.
 
Last edited:
What's in the ... parts that are missing?
Anybody else notice that? The ... in the translations provided?
Is important context missing?

Ps-Cyprian, Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima, edited by Reitzenstein, dans ZNTW, 1914, 15

● Certainly, whoever might be so inclined to accomplish the work of those six angels, he shall enjoy so much blessedness [fruitfulness] as the illustrious three, the Father and Son and Holy Spirit, which therefore you long for in the kingdom of heaven.[1]

utique qui se disposuerit ad [Line 239] persequendum opus illorum angelorum sex, percipiet fructus tam praeclaros [Line 240] tres, patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum qui ergo in regnum caelorum cupies.
( p. 83, lines 238-240)

...For He Himself [Christ] is a step in the ascent into heaven, for He Himself is the gate, Himself the entry into live, by whom in your redemption from the contagion of the world you have been spiritually bound by the Three Witnesses. This Trinity, therefore, increases by the Ten Words [i.e., multiplied by the 10 Commandments] so that the thirty-fold reward is completed. [i.e., "the sum" that is 30 (3 multiplied by 10)].[3]
(p. 84, lines 286-289)

ipse est enim gradus ascensionis in caelum, ipse est enim porta, ipse in- [Line 287] -troitus vitae, a quo in redemptione tua a mundi contagione tribus testimoniis [Line 288] spiritaliter sis religatus. trinitas ergo ista per decem verba adolescit, ut [Line 289] trecesima merces compleatur.
(p. 84, lines 286-289)

● For the Law of the Lord is hard and bitter, but it makes bitterness, in order that it might reveal sweetness. For also by John this is demonstrated, when the spirit hands over the book to the angel who broke the seals, saying: "Take the book and eat it up. And it shall make thy belly bitter, but in thy mouth it shall be sweet as honey." This means: by the mouth of three witnesses it will be proved, that is: by the mouth of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit it will be confessed, because it is apparent that honey [Latin: mel] is written in three letters. For certainly, we also read honey [Latin: mel], constituted of three letters.

lex enim domini dura est et amara, [Line 349] <sed> amaritudinem facit, ut dulcedinem ostendat. nam et per Iohannem de- [Line 350]-monstravit, cum spiritus [PAGE 87] librum angelo sigilla solventi traderet dicens:”Accipe [Line 351] librum et devora eum et amaritudinem faciet ventri tuo, sed in ore tuo erit [Line 352] dulce, tamquam mel.”(Rev 10:9) hoc est per os trium testium probari, id est per os [Line 353] patris et filii et spiritus sancti confiteri, quod mel tribus litteris constat scribi; [Line 354] nam et mel quidem legimus tribus litteris statui.
(p. 86-87, lines 348-352)

Translator Jeroen Beekhuizen
 
I concur that as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are stated as bearing witness (as well as being witnesses) in De centesima in
.... by the mouth of three witnesses it will be proved, that is: by the mouth of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit it will be confessed....
that there is a close parallelism with 1 John 5:7. But what is embarrasing for you, is that this text in which the Father, Son and Holy Spirit bear witness (by confession) is unambiguously GNOSTIC

As I explained to you earlier, all sorts of Subordinist, Sabellian, Unbeliever, Ebionite, Apocryphal and Gnostic writing can shed light on the existence of variants. Ending of Mark, heavenly witnesses, John 1:18, etc.

And unusual writing was very common in the Ante-Nicene era. If you think that is a problem, then you simply do not understand textual analysis of the writings of the early centuries.

Plus you will attack anyone, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome etc. from your own quirky positioning. All such attacks are irrelevant when the issue is first, simply, the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses verse.
 
Last edited:
As I explained to you earlier, all sorts of Subordinist, Sabellian, Unbeliever, Ebionite, Apocryphal and Gnostic writing can shed light on the existence of variants. Ending of Mark, heavenly witnesses, John 1:18, etc.

And unusual writing was very common in the Ante-Nicene era. If you think that is a problem, then you simply do not understand textual analysis of the writings of the early centuries.
De centesima is widely condemned as heretical. And likely it was so at the time, which is why, like the gnostic texts, it became lost. That means it is not reliable evidence of scripture, even if it may have contributed to the formation of scripture. It seems to have been originally composed in the heyday of gnosticism.

Plus you will attack anyone, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome etc. from your own quirky positioning. All such attacks are irrelevant when the issue is first, simply, the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses verse.
Get real: all sorts of ECFs have all sorts of rubbish attributed to them which they never wrote. With the heavenly witnesses verse, none of the principal ECFs obviously mentioned the verse. Mainly we engage with psuedo-this and psuedo-that. All the ECFs you mention are extensively critqued by others to my knowledge (although I know little of Clement): Athanasius is even accused of lying or at least being disingenuous at the Council of Alexandria over the creed agreed at the Council of Serdica. They were after all, human - something the Catholic church often forgets.
 
Last edited:
De centesima is widely condemned as heretical.

Nonsense. Only a handful of people have written in depth of De Centisma.
And they are split as to source, and without condemnations. And they often place it right in the Cyprian milieu.

And since you consider almost everybody Gnostic and Heretical, including Cyprian, why is your mistaken representation even relevant?
 
All the ECFs you mention are extensively critqued by others to my knowledge (although I know little of Clement): Athanasius is even accused of lying or at least being disingenuous at the Council of Alexandria over the creed agreed at the Council of Serdica. They were after all, human - something the Catholic church often forgets.

Yes, they are critiqued. Wow.

You are all over the map.
 
Nonsense. Only a handful of people have written in depth of De Centisma.
And they are split as to source, and without condemnations. And they often place it right in the Cyprian milieu.
Do you even know what De Centisma is about? It is given over to angel-worship - false humility - cf. Col 2:18.19 "Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind. They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow."

And since you consider almost everybody Gnostic and Heretical, including Cyprian, why is your mistaken representation even relevant?
I never said Cyprian was gnostic: I suggested he was mistaken, as he didn't have the experience to know what he was talking about. Many have also seen his views on re-baptism as mistaken, including modern Catholics.
 
Back
Top