Hundredfold Martyrs

What I do on my PBF forum is sound scholarship, I show both sides of an issue, so e.g. you might see the arguments for Italy and for Spain for a work. Contras generally avoid that type of scholastic honesty. You always cherry-pick your arguments, ignoring scholarship that would counter and refute your contention.
All I learn of Isaac the Jew was that he became an apostate. I don't know why you waffle on so much. Junghoo Kwon has clearly shown that the Ps.-Athan. De Trin, I-VII is not by Eusebius of Vercelli or by anyone orthodox that we know of.

Your arguments are just waffle.
 
All I learn of Isaac the Jew was that he became an apostate. I don't know why you waffle on so much. Junghoo Kwon has clearly shown that the Ps.-Athan. De Trin, I-VII is not by Eusebius of Vercelli or by anyone orthodox that we know of. Your arguments are just waffle.

You are discussing different heavenly witnesses references than the one that was in the conversation with TNC, where Isaac the Jew is the proposed writer (his name is on the TOC of the Ambrosian ms.). Maybe I will switch over to De Trinitate later, after you catch up to our actual conversation. (One of the key issues is the development of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit.)

And why are you bragging about your ignorance about Isaac the Jew?
There is lots of good information available.

First try to come up to speed as to the conversation about the Ambrosian ms. Various apologetic writings would be combined together on one manuscript, so it is unlikely that you would see material considered heretical there.
 
Last edited:
So the last entry on your blog is that from Markus Vinzent that Ps.-athanasii De Trinitate likely originated in Spain (cf. also Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo Di Berardino, IVP Academic, Downers Grove 2014, vol III, p. 834, ".....the so-called Johannine comma (1 Jn 5:7) (De Trin. I): the presence of the passage seems to indicate the treatise’s belonging to the Spanish milieu of the last decades of the 4th c.").

Interesting.

Pseudographic-Athanasius "De Trinitate" possibly originated in Spain.
 
Don't forget this caveat emptor actually written in the manuscripts!

Pseudo-Athanasius "De Trinitate"

End of Book 8

Manuscript Heading


"HOS LIBELLOS OCTO TRANSSCRIPSI QUI MULTA ADDITA ET IMMUTATA CONTINENT"

Literally

“These books eight I-have-transcribed/copied, which many-things [Or: “much of which”] have-been-inserted [Or: “added”] and have-been-changed [Or: “altered”] these-contain.”

“I have copied these eight books which contain many things [Or: “much of which contains things”]
that have been inserted [Or: “added”] and altered [Or: “changed”].”

Richard Porson's Translation

“I have transcribed these eight books, which contain many things added and altered.”​
 
Puxanto said:
Little precisation...contra interpretation trinity for me only on this work:
Text de cent:
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 bilis [Latin: fel], constituted of three letters.

Twice, this needs to be demonstrated.

Deuteronomy 17:6 LXX
“upon two witnesses or
upon three witnesses.”

ἐπὶ δυσὶν μάρτυσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθανεῗται ὁ ἀποθνῄσκων οὐκ ἀποθανεῗται ἐφ᾽ ἑνὶ μάρτυρι

Deuteronomy 17:6 Clementine Vulgate

in ore duorum aut trium testium peribit qui interficietur nemo occidatur uno contra se dicente testimonium

Deuteronomy 17:16 Vetus Latina (Sabatia 1751, Page 363)

In duobus testibus aut in tribus morietur. Moriens non morietur in uno teste.

Deuteronomy 19:15 LXX
“at the mouth of two
and at the mouth of three witnesses every word is to be established.”

οὐκ ἐμμενεῗ μάρτυς εἷς μαρτυρῆσαι κατὰ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν καὶ κατὰ πᾶν ἁμάρτημα καὶ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἣν ἂν ἁμάρτῃ ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ ἐπὶ στόματος τριῶν μαρτύρων σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα

Deuteronomy 19:15 Clementine Vulgate

non stabit testis unus contra aliquem quicquid illud peccati et facinoris fuerit sed in ore duorum aut trium testium stabit omne verbum

Deuteronomy 19:15 Vetus Latina (Sabatia 1751, Page 363)

Non manebit unus in teftificationem adversus hominem , fecundum omnem iniquitatem , et fecundum omne peccatum quodcunque peccatur : in ore duorum testium aut trium stabit omnis sermo

Matthew 18:16
“at the mouth of two witnesses or three.”


ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσῃ, παράλαβε μετὰ σοῦ ἔτι ἕνα ἢ δύο, ἵνα ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων ἢ τριῶν σταθῇ πᾶν ῥῆμα·

John 8:17
“because of the testimony of two men is true.”


καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ γέγραπται ὅτι δύο ἀνθρώπων ἡ μαρτυρία ἀληθής ἐστιν.

2 Corinthians 13:1
“at the mouth of two
and of three witnesses.”

Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ τριῶν σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα.

1 Timothy 5:19
“upon two or three witnesses.”


κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ παραδέχου, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων·

Hebrews 10:28
“upon two or three witnesses.”


ἀθετήσας τις νόμον Μωυσέως χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθνήσκει·
A Latin paraphrased translation of Deuteronomy 19:15 (Clause-B) "at the mouth of three witnesses" is quoted and is eisegetically connected with Matthew 28:19 and Revelation 10:9's "three" letters etc.




Pseudo-Cyprian of Carthage

"Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima," Edited by Reitzenstein, dans ZNTW, 1914.

Pages 86-87, Lines 348-352 (Modified slightly by me).


"lex enim Domini dura est et amara, [Line 349] <sed> amaritudinem facit, ut dulcedinem ostendat. nam et per Iohannem [Line 350] demonstravit, 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.

"For the Law of the Lord is hard and bitter, but it makes bitterness, in order that it might reveal sweetness. Another example of this is shown through John, 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.” [Revelation 10:9] That is [Or: "This means"], "at the mouth of three witnesses," [Deuteronomy 19:15] it is to be established, which means through the mouth [Perhaps: "which means with the mouth"] "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," [Matthew 28:19 (genitive case Latin)] is to be confessed, because it is apparent that honey is written in three letters. For certainly, we also read honey, constituted of three letters."



Matthew 28:19 Latin Vulgate
Clementine


euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

Matthew 28:19 Vetus Latina
Sabatia 1751


euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti


Matthew 28:19 LV Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)
Matthew 28:19 VL Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)
Pseudo-Cyprian Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)
1st John 5:7 LV Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus (nominative case grammar)

The Comma's F+L+HS grammar is different to Pseudo-Cyprian's "Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima,".
Matthew 28:19's F+S+HS grammar is identical with Pseudo-Cyprian's "Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima,".

No one-ness "these three are one", no "in heaven", no "there are three who", no "are giving witness", no "Logos", honestly - no Comma in view at all.

The text is obviously a paraphrased translation and reference to Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 28:19's genitive case "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
 
Steven Avery said:
Nothing wrong with this presenation, except you deliberately ignore the fact that the witnessing is done in the heavenly witnesses verse, which has three who bear record, and there is nothing like that in Matthew 28:19. This is likely why Wohlenberg, Raymond Brown, the Critical Text apparatus and Walter Thiele connect the allusion. If I remember, Centesima uses 1 John elsewhere, an important corroborative element.

And I don't think the case can be proven one way or another, but the evidence is good for calling this a heavenly witnesses allusion.

Baptism is a public confession done before witnesses.

The catechumen also, himself confesses his belief "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" - that is what is given witness to, and what is witnessed by onlookers.

Matthew 28:19 LV Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)
Matthew 28:19 VL Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)
Pseudo-Cyprian Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)
1st John 5:7 LV Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus (nominative case grammar)

The Comma's F+V+HS nominative case grammar is different to Pseudo-Cyprian's "Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima,".
Matthew 28:19's F+S+HS gentive case grammar is identical with Pseudo-Cyprian's "Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima,".

You are mistaken.
 
Twice, this needs to be demonstrated.

Deuteronomy 17:6 LXX
“upon two witnesses or
upon three witnesses.”

ἐπὶ δυσὶν μάρτυσιν ἢ ἐπὶ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθανεῗται ὁ ἀποθνῄσκων οὐκ ἀποθανεῗται ἐφ᾽ ἑνὶ μάρτυρι

Deuteronomy 17:6 Clementine Vulgate

in ore duorum aut trium testium peribit qui interficietur nemo occidatur uno contra se dicente testimonium

Deuteronomy 17:16 Vetus Latina (Sabatia 1751, Page 363)

In duobus testibus aut in tribus morietur. Moriens non morietur in uno teste.

Deuteronomy 19:15 LXX
“at the mouth of two
and at the mouth of three witnesses every word is to be established.”

οὐκ ἐμμενεῗ μάρτυς εἷς μαρτυρῆσαι κατὰ ἀνθρώπου κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν καὶ κατὰ πᾶν ἁμάρτημα καὶ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν ἣν ἂν ἁμάρτῃ ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ ἐπὶ στόματος τριῶν μαρτύρων σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα

Deuteronomy 19:15 Clementine Vulgate

non stabit testis unus contra aliquem quicquid illud peccati et facinoris fuerit sed in ore duorum aut trium testium stabit omne verbum

Deuteronomy 19:15 Vetus Latina (Sabatia 1751, Page 363)

Non manebit unus in teftificationem adversus hominem , fecundum omnem iniquitatem , et fecundum omne peccatum quodcunque peccatur : in ore duorum testium aut trium stabit omnis sermo

Matthew 18:16
“at the mouth of two witnesses or three.”


ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσῃ, παράλαβε μετὰ σοῦ ἔτι ἕνα ἢ δύο, ἵνα ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων ἢ τριῶν σταθῇ πᾶν ῥῆμα·

John 8:17
“because of the testimony of two men is true.”


καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ γέγραπται ὅτι δύο ἀνθρώπων ἡ μαρτυρία ἀληθής ἐστιν.

2 Corinthians 13:1
“at the mouth of two
and of three witnesses.”

Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς· ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ τριῶν σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα.

1 Timothy 5:19
“upon two or three witnesses.”


κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ παραδέχου, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων·

Hebrews 10:28
“upon two or three witnesses.”


ἀθετήσας τις νόμον Μωυσέως χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶν ἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθνήσκει·
A Latin paraphrased translation of Deuteronomy 19:15 (Clause-B) "at the mouth of three witnesses" is quoted and is eisegetically connected with Matthew 28:19 and Revelation 10:9's "three" letters etc.




Pseudo-Cyprian of Carthage

"Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima," Edited by Reitzenstein, dans ZNTW, 1914.

Pages 86-87, Lines 348-352 (Modified slightly by me).


"lex enim Domini dura est et amara, [Line 349] <sed> amaritudinem facit, ut dulcedinem ostendat. nam et per Iohannem [Line 350] demonstravit, 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.

"For the Law of the Lord is hard and bitter, but it makes bitterness, in order that it might reveal sweetness. Another example of this is shown through John, 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.” [Revelation 10:9] That is [Or: "This means"], "at the mouth of three witnesses," [Deuteronomy 19:15] it is to be established, which means through the mouth [Perhaps: "which means with the mouth"] "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," [Matthew 28:19 (genitive case Latin)] is to be confessed, because it is apparent that honey is written in three letters. For certainly, we also read honey, constituted of three letters."



Matthew 28:19 Latin Vulgate
Clementine


euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti

Matthew 28:19 Vetus Latina
Sabatia 1751


euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti


Matthew 28:19 LV Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)
Matthew 28:19 VL Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)
Pseudo-Cyprian Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)
1st John 5:7 LV Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus (nominative

grammar is different to Pseudo-Cyprian's "Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima,".
Matthew 28:19's F+S+HS grammar is identical with Pseudo-Cyprian's "Sermo de centesima, sexagesima, tricesima,".

No one-ness "these three are one", no "in heaven", no "there are three who", no "are giving witness", no "Logos", honestly - no Comma in view at all.

The text is obviously a paraphrased translation and reference to Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 28:19's genitive case "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
I'm sorry but here it is you who are wrong:
1) I repeat the translation you used with two mel is wrong look at the screenshot of the handwritten I have invite you the manuscript one is mel, the other is fel; one is sweet the other is bitter; and third time I say it: http://vb.uni-wuerzburg.de/ub/foliomagnifier.html?book=33241177&page=102 read line 9-11 i read mel and fel

2) What does sweet and bitter have to do with Matthew 28.19?

3) The author is clearly using a series of quotations to bring them back to the double testimony without citing it and saying that both refer to the Trinity analyzing the Latin cases is useless
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but here it is you who are wrong:
1) I repeat the translation you used with two mel is wrong look at the screenshot of the handwritten I have invite you the manuscript one is mel, the other is fel; one is sweet the other is bitter; and third time I say it: http://vb.uni-wuerzburg.de/ub/foliomagnifier.html?book=33241177&page=102 read line 9-11 i read mel and fel

2) What does sweet and bitter have to do with Matthew 28.19?

3) The author is clearly using a series of quotations to bring them back to the double testimony without citing it and saying that both refer to the Trinity analyzing the Latin cases is useless

The "three witnesses" concept here is clearly built upon the paraphrased quotation and "three witnesses" concept from Deuteronomy 19:15, which also makes the connection with the preceding phrase "the Law of the Lord" (i.e. given through Moses).

Secondly.

Matthew 28:19 LV Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)​
Matthew 28:19 VL Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)​
Pseudo-Cyprian Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti (genitive case grammar)

And "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is a definite quote of Matthew 28:19 (Clause-C).

Absolutely nothing is literally said about the Trinity in either Deuteronomy 19:15 (i.e. "the Law of the Lord") or in Revelation 10:9 which together constitute the foundation upon which the entire passage in question is built, thus, ruling out ex-egesis.

It's you who confuses the "three witnesses" from Deuteronomy 19:15 with the Comma, and it's you who confuses the Comma with the text's eisegetical connection to Matthew 28:19 "of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" through it's close resemblance to the Comma's "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" (omitting of course the first "and" and reading "Verbum" instead of "Filii").

It doesn't matter Puxanto, whatever manuscript reading you want to choose here, either "Mel" or "Fel", because it's the number (i.e. 3) that is the key factor (common denominator) in the interpretation (eis-egesis). It's the number "three" that makes the real eisegetical connection, not the meaning of the words "mel" or "fel" (i.e. "sweet/honey" or "bitter").

Your objection, in reality, is the other way round. Your going beyond the text to 1 John, I'm sticking to the text.

Sorry, but I can't agree.
 
Last edited:
Twonotablecorrutions you are funny .... You pretend you don't understand me and say that I am talking about a reading of Deuteronomy19: 15 and other miscellaneous reading of the New Testament of the Bible that refer to this one referring to the Trinity, when instead I am talking about what the author is saying and what verse he uses to say it: AND APPLIES IT TWICE - MEL - FEL-.


Then what many manuscript readings are you talking about there are only two manuscripts and surely the correct reading is mel and later fel where did you get the double mel? I'll play your game and I'll even make the schemino so it's clear to you ..
 
Twonotablecorrutions you are funny .... You pretend you don't understand me and say that I am talking about a reading of Deuteronomy19: 15 and other miscellaneous reading of the New Testament of the Bible that refer to this one referring to the Trinity, when instead I am talking about what the author is saying and what verse he uses to say it: AND APPLIES IT TWICE - MEL - FEL-.


Then what many manuscript readings are you talking about there are only two manuscripts and surely the correct reading is mel and later fel where did you get the double mel? I'll play your game and I'll even make the schemino so it's clear to you ..

No pretending about anything. Perfectly serious. The Latin text was from Mr Ferrando via Mr S. A. Spencer. Talk to them.

Unless your playing some sort of unethical devious game, you have to recognize honestly that "per os trium testium" lit., "through the mouth of three witnesses" is referencing Deuteronomy 19:15.

There's no per "by/at/through" os "the mouth" in the Comma.

But "at the mouth of" is definitely in "the Law of the Lord" in the "three witnesses" concept found at Deuteronomy 19:15 (and multiple places elsewhere in the OT and NT other than 1 John 5:7-8).

The "mouth of" is an unmistakable reference point.
 
No pretending about anything. Perfectly serious. The Latin text was from Mr Ferrando via Mr S. A. Spencer. Talk to them.

Unless your playing some sort of unethical devious game, you have to recognize honestly that "per os trium testium" lit., "through the mouth of three witnesses" is referencing Deuteronomy 19:15.

There's no per "by/at/through" os "the mouth" in the Comma.

But "at the mouth of" is definitely in "the Law of the Lord" in the "three witnesses" concept found at Deuteronomy 19:15 (and multiple places elsewhere in the OT and NT other than 1 John 5:7-8).

The "mouth of" is an unmistakable reference point.
Did I ever say that he is not applying Deuteronomy 19:15 ? it is Deuteronomy 19:15;
but the problem you carefully avoid! it is that he uses it TWICE: the three letters of Mel and the three letters of Fel and I explained to you because it leads back to the knowledge of the double testimony by the author, and because Mel and Fel respectively refer one to the witnesses heavenly (sweet:Trinity direct) and the other to earthly witnesses (bitter: Christ's suffering:Simbols Trinity)

Easier than that I don't know how to explain it to you!

Ps.
Fel does not even exist in Revelation 10, 9-10 in the text Latin
The author transforms the bitter into a term indicating a liquid that represents the bitter: bilis precisely to make this representation of the double testimony
 
Last edited:
Your simply reading your own interpretation into the text, not out of it.

This is more of a "I think" (eis-egesis) scenario. Rather than a plain ex-egesis clearly written in the text.

There's simply no clearly written "on earth"/"in heaven" contrast in the translated passage I posted on - at least that I'm aware of.

Is there something in the immediate context which mentions "there are three that bear witness on earth" = FEL? And "there are three who bear witness in heaven" = MEL? From the Comma?
 
hoc est: per os trium testium probari, id est: per os Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, confiteri, quod mel tribus litteris constet scribi. Nam et fel quidem legimus tribus litteris statui

This means: to be tried by the mouth of three witnesses, that is, by the mouth of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: to confess. Because honey (Latin: mel) consists of three letters because bilis (Latin: fel) which we also read established by three letters

Because you know other points in the Bible where the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are called to testify twice since I repeat it to you, the author has invented a term Fel that is not even in the text to do this

This is not even an exegesis of some text. it is simply a logical conclusion: cause and effect

Method carried out by intellectually correct people and do not carry out counter-Trinitarian agents because it goes against their beliefs

Sorry but when you need to be pungent you have to be stinging sometimes, i hope you will understand that you are wrong; and this time I am not referring to Comma
 
hoc est: per os trium testium probari, id est: per os Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, confiteri, quod mel tribus litteris constet scribi. Nam et fel quidem legimus tribus litteris statui

This means: to be tried by the mouth of three witnesses, that is, by the mouth of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: to confess. Because honey (Latin: mel) consists of three letters because bilis (Latin: fel) which we also read established by three letters

Because you know other points in the Bible where the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are called to testify twice since I repeat it to you, the author has invented a term Fel that is not even in the text to do this

This is not even an exegesis of some text. it is simply a logical conclusion: cause and effect

Method carried out by intellectually correct people and do not carry out counter-Trinitarian agents because it goes against their beliefs

Sorry but when you need to be pungent you have to be stinging sometimes, i hope you will understand that you are wrong; and this time I am not referring to Comma

If you see no application to the Comma. What's your point?
 
the point is: I not refer only Comma but in general ;the problem my dear is that very often, they take as true '' statements '' that in reality '' they are not '' because that great scholar said so or because that great Nobel Prize winner says that other.

Statement: There is no ancient Greek, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic manuscript (1st-9th century) that has the Comma! (Leaving aside those manuscripts from the 14th to the 19th century that depend on Latin)
It all depends on how you mean the sentence!

I ask you is this a true Statement?
 
1023. J. Danielou, “Le traite De centesima , sexagesima, tricesima et le judeo-christianisme latin avant Tertullien,” VigChrist 25 (3, 71) 171-181.

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

This footnote 9 leads to a book in Italian that studied the interpretations.

Voir A. Quacquarelli, II triplice frutto della vita cristiana (Rome 1953).

And this book is described here.

Medieval Religion: New Approaches (2004)
Constance Hoffman Berman
https://books.google.com/books?id=Utp4HPqcx_8C&pg=PA80

32 Sec Antonio Quacquarelli, Il triplice frutto della vita cristiana: 100, 60, e 30 (Matteo XIII-8, nelle diverse interpretazionei) (Rome: Herder, 1953, rep. 1989), who studied the use of the parable in the works of various writers from the fathers to modern times; Giovanni Miccoli. Chiesa gregoriana. Ricerche sulla riforma del secolo XI (Florence: La Nuova Italia, 1966), pp. 5-6, and Congar, “Les laïcs ,” pp 86-9.

Matthew 13:8 (AV)
But other fell into good ground,
and brought forth fruit,
some an hundredfold,
some sixtyfold,
some thirtyfold.

Mark 4:20 (AV)
And these are they which are sown on good ground;
such as hear the word,
and receive it,
and bring forth fruit,
some thirtyfold, some sixty, and some an hundred.
 
Not all "orthodox" were nearly as orthodox as we are first led to think.

We can credit Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen as being encratic-ally unorthodox, along with crediting a mystical trinity from 1 John 5:8.

____________________
Hunter, David G. , Professor of Religious Studies and Monsignor James A. Supple Chair of
Catholic Studies, Iowa State University
Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity
The Jovinianist Controversy
Publication date 2007 (print edition)
Print ISBN: 978-0-19-927978-4



"3. THE LEGACY OF THE THIRD CENTURY"

Although Irenaeus and Clement could be said to have articulated the
‘orthodox’ response to radical encratism—that is, to have rejected celibacy
as a requirement for membership of the Christian community—this did not
mean the end of encratite Christianity. On the contrary, when Tatian
abandoned the church in Rome (c.170), he ‘merged back without remark
into a Syrian Christianity that may always have been as radical as
himself’.

Throughout the third and fourth centuries, Syria continued to be a source of
ascetic radicalism that inspired many in the West to emulation. For example,
a document such as the Acts of Thomas, written in Syria early in the third
century, perpetuated the encratite vision of Tatian in a popular narrative
form that was to appeal to ascetics of many stripes, from the Manichees of
fourth-century Rome and Carthage to the Priscillianists of Spain. Translated
immediately from Syriac into Greek, and subsequently into Latin and other
late antique languages, the Acts of Thomas (together with texts such as the
Acts of Paul and Thecla and the Acts of John) ensured that radical encratism
would remain a potent force well into the end of antiquity.

On the encratite theology of the Acts of Thomas, see Yves Tissot, ‘L'Encratisme
des Actes de Thomas’, ANRW II.25.6 (1988): 4415–30; H. J. W. Drijvers, ‘The Acts
of Thomas’, in Edgar Hennecke and Wilhelm Schneemelcher (eds.), New Testament
Apocrypha, ii. Writings relating to the Apostles, Apocalypses, and Related Subjects,
2nd edn., trans. R. McL. Wilson (Louisville, Ky: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992),
322–39. On their use by Manichees, see Jean-Daniel Kaestli, ‘L'Utilisation des Actes
apocryphes des apôtres dans le manichéisme’, in M. Krause (ed.), Gnosis and
Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 1977), 107–16; and Peter Nagel, ‘Die apokryphen
Apostelakten des 2. und 3. Jahrhunderts in der manichäischen Literature’, in
Karl-Wolfgang Tröger (ed.), Gnosis und Neues Testament (Gütersloh, 1973),
148–82.

The Syrian radicalism evident in the apocryphal Acts soon produced Latin
fruit. In the early third century at Carthage an unknown author composed a
sermon, The Hundredfold, Sixtyfold, and Thirtyfold Reward (De centesima,
sexagesima, tricesima),
which offered a distinctively encratite reading of the
parables of Jesus, especially the Parable of the Sower (Matt 13: 3–9).

(De Cent. First edited by Richard Reitzenstein, ‘Eine frühchristliche Schrift von den dreierlei
Früchten des christlichen Lebens’, ZNW 15 (1914), 60–90; reprinted in PLS 1,
53–67. The text has been newly edited with an English translation by Philip Sellew,
The Hundredfold Reward: Martyrdom and Sexual Renunciation in Christian North
Africa (WGRW; Atlanta: SBL/Leiden: Brill, forthcoming)).

For the author of this sermon, the ‘hundredfold’ reward was reserved for
martyrs, the ‘sixtyfold’ for virginal ascetics (who are styled ‘combatants’
(agonistae)), and the ‘thirtyfold’ for married persons who had renounced sex
upon receiving baptism. Those who remained sexually active appear to have
been excluded from reward altogether.
Addressing married persons the author
urged them to take seriously their baptismal commitment and to embrace
total celibacy:


"At first the Lord did lay down the precept of procreation, to be sure,
but then he modeled celibacy. Since you have been reborn through
the Holy Spirit, why do you not understand that you have been
transformed for celibacy?…If you have been reborn through the
life-giving bath from unrighteous work, why not also from lust?
Remember that desire for increase is the Devil's first deception! "
Cent. 35 and 38 (PLS 1, 63–4); trans. Sellew, slightly altered.

Like his Syrian forebears, the author of The Hundredfold Reward envisioned
baptism as the occasion to repudiate all aspects of one's former birth,
especially sexual activity. Laced with biblical readings that echoed the
Diatesseron of Tatian, the Acts of Paul and Thecla, and the Gospel of
Thomas, the Latin sermon The Hundredfold Reward influenced the thought
and language of later orthodox Christians, such as Cyprian of Carthage, even
when they did not follow all of its radical encratite prescriptions.


For Cyprian's use of De centesima, see Jean Daniélou, A History of Early Christian
Doctrine Before the Council of Nicaea, iii. The Origins of Latin Christianity, trans.
David Smith and John Austin Baker (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977), 63–92;
Quispel, ‘Study of Encratism’, 64–5.

But radical encratism was not the only challenge to the view of marriage
promoted by Clement of Alexandria. In the third century we encounter
several Christian thinkers who did not require celibacy of all the baptized, but
who did relegate married persons to a lower status within the Christian
community. Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen produced bodies of work that
definitively shaped Western Christian thought on marriage and sexuality.
Indeed, the elevation of celibacy over marriage was articulated by these
writers with a trenchancy that forever changed the character of Christian
discourse.
Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen cannot be classified as ‘radical’
encratites, since each of them allowed Christians to marry. Nevertheless all
three exhibit tendencies that could be classified as ‘moderate encratism’. By
‘moderate encratism’ I refer to a theological position that reproduces key
features of Tatian's theology, but without fully condemning marriage.

I have borrowed the concept and language of ‘moderate encratism’ from Sfameni
Gasparro, ‘Asceticism and Anthropology’, 130–1.

Through the writings of Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen, a variety of encratite
themes entered into the mainstream of Western ascetical theology and
influenced the contemporaries of Jovinian, most notably Ambrose and
Jerome.
 
Cyprian the Trinitarian Encratite (De habitu virginum)

"Avoid wide and broad roads. In them are deadly allurements and
death-bringing pleasures; in them the devil flatters that he may
deceive, smiles that he may harm, entices that he may kill. The first
fruit, that of a hundredfold, belongs to martyrs; the second, sixtyfold,
is yours [i.e. the virgins]. Just as with the martyrs there is no thought
of the flesh and of the world, and no slight and trivial and dainty struggle,
so also in you, whose reward is second in the order of grace, let the power of
endurance be next to theirs."

Hab. virg. 21 (CSEL 3, 202); trans. Keenan, 49.

Hunter, David G. (Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity) notes: "Irenaeus, Haer. 5.36.2 (SC 153, 456–8), had applied the same biblical passage to the various ‘dwelling-places’ and ‘many mansions’ in the kingdom of God. He did not, however, specify who belonged where. See Antonio Quacquarelli, Il triplice frutto della vita cristiana: 100, 60 e 30 (Rome: Coletti Editore, 1953), 22–3."
 
Last edited:
Jovinian & his colleagues attacked all "orthodox" promoters of virginity as being Manichees.

Manichaeism is a dualistic religion that offered salvation through special knowledge (gnosis) of spiritual truths. With respect to "orthodoxy" in Christianity, one such mystical Manichaean type of gnosis is, par excellence, the constitution of the heavenly Trinity as "tres unum sunt" - three are one thing - as contrasted with the scriptural "noster Dominus unus" - one Lord - (Vulgate: Deut 6:4).

"Jovinian believed that certain emphases in ascetic piety led inexorably to heresy. Excessive pessimism regarding the body and doubts about the original goodness of sex and marriage were features of fourth-century ascetical theology that both Jovinian and the other heresiologists sought to correct. Like Filastrius and Epiphanius, Jovinian attacked even moderate encratism with the accusation of ‘Manichaeism’ and attempted to connect contemporary enthusiasm for asceticism with the errors of Tatian and the Encratites. It is, perhaps, not too much to suggest that a continuous, anti-encratite tradition—leading from Irenaeus and Clement, through Methodius of Olympus, and continuing into the writings of Epiphanius and Filastrius—eventually found expression in the commentarioli of Jovinian. As the handbooks of Epiphanius and Filastrius show, resistance to encratism (both moderate and radical) remained a prominent feature of fourth-century heresiological discourse, and Jovinian's views largely cohered with this tradition." unter, David G. (Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity) p.158.

From:
RESISTANCE TO THE VIRGINAL IDEAL IN
LATE-FOURTH-CENTURY ROME: THE CASE OF
JOVINIAN
DAVID G. HUNTER
Theological Studies 48 (1987)

" I will argue that each of Jovinian's positions can be seen as directed against distinctively Manichean ideas: a Manichean Docetic Christology, an exaltation of virginity and fasting which implied the denigration of the Old Testament and married Christians, and a Manichean view of the authority of the devil in the created world and denial of the efficacy of baptism. Jovinian is best understood, I suggest, when he is seen not as the opponent of monasticism or asceticism per se, but rather as a kind of ecclesiastical watchdog wary of the influence of extreme dualistic views on the community at Rome. His primary concern is not to attack virginity or abstinence as legitimate Christian practices, but to reject the view that asceticism was a higher and truer form of the Christian life, a view which he believed led inevitably to Manicheism.

"Jovinian's "failure," if I may call it that, was his inability to distinguish between the exaltation of virginity espoused by the Church's hierarchy and the Manichean rejection of marriage. His tactical error was to accuse as Manichees all defenders of the superiority of virginity over marriage, notably the Roman bishop Siricius and Ambrose. That this tactical error took place in the same decade which witnessed three imperial edicts against the Manichees and the execution of Priscillian on charges of sorcery and suspicions of Manicheism made Jovinian's views all the more persuasive to some and all the more abhorrent to others. We know with certainty that Jovinian accused those who defended the superiority of virginity of being Manichees.

The point is mentioned several times by Augustine, and Jerome answers the charge directly in Adversus Jovinianum. At the beginning of his refutation of Jovinian, Jerome disclaims the charge that the defense of the superiority of virginity entails a Manichean condemnation of marriage: "We do not follow the teachings of Marcion and Manicheus and disparage marriage; nor, deceived by the error of Tatian, the leader of the Encratites, do we consider all intercourse impure." Later, after listing the many texts which Jovinian cited in favor of marriage, Jerome quotes the following words of Jovinian: "All this makes it clear that, in forbidding to marry and to eat food which God has created for use, you have consciences seared as with a hot iron and are followers of the Manichees."

"Jerome's evidence explicitly indicates that Jovinian attacked the Catholic defenders of virginity for being Manichees. The same point is also explicitly affirmed by Augustine. In his first work against Julian of Eclanum, De nuptiis et concupiscentia, as well as in later works, Augustine noted that Julian's attack on Augustine for Manicheism had been attempted earlier by Jovinian against Ambrose. Like Jerome, Augustine was well aware of Jovinian's anti-Manichean interests."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top