Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis

Here we have another wonderful confirmation that the heavenly witnesses was solidly in the OId Latin line from early days.

The honest contras will give up the myth that the verse was created after Nicaea, in the Arian controversies. If they cannot accept authenticity, they can try the fallback position of the verse being created in the 2nd century. A very difficult position, but not totally absurd like 4th century creation.

This evidence of the Speculum is right in the mix with the Latin writings:

Tertullian,
Cyprian (x2)
Hundredfold Martyrs
Potamius of Lisbon
Confessio fidei Catholicae
Symboli Apostolici et Athanasii Enarratio
Priscillian
De Trinitate (about 4 refs)
Contra Varimadum
Phoebadius of Agen
Speculum
Vulgate Prologue of Jerome
Freisinger Fragment
Council of Carthage of AD 484,
Codex Fuldensis (Vulgate Prologue)
Pseudo-Fulgentius
Eleutherius
Fulgentius
Cassiodorus
Isidore of Seville
Etheiius and Beatus
Leon Palimpsest
Corbie 13174 (shows Speculum text transmitted as Augustine)
Regensburg ms (explains Augustine not using verse)
Codex Cavensis

And I left off a number of good allusions from around AD 400-450, just to stay with items that are early, special or clear verse quotes.

A few, mostly the last ones, could be hybrid or Vulgate, in which case they also support Jerome's original Vulgate having the verse. Every Latin evidence must support the Old Latin, or the Vulgate, or a hybrid reference can support both.

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

There are two textual traditions called Speculum, one is in Bible book order and is often ascribed to Augustine and does not have the heavenly witnesses. While this one with the heavenly witnesses is topically arranged.

Here are the two Latin sections of the Speculum.
This Speculum is called Audi Israhel and is also known as Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis and (PS-AU spe).

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

Latin: Item illic:
Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis: et hii tres unum sunt in christo iesu. et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, uerbum et spiritus: et hii tres unum sunt.

(Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis. Chapter I, CSEL 12:314; Mai 1852: p. 6)
Weihrich - 1887
https://archive.org/details/corpusscriptorum12auguuoft/page/314/mode/2up

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

Latin: Item iohannes in epistula I:
Spiritus est qui testimonium reddit, quia spiritus est ueritas. Item illic:
Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, uerbum et spiritus, et hii tres unum sunt.

(Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis. Chapter III, CSEL 12:325-326; Mai 1852, p. 9-10)
Weihrich - 1887
https://archive.org/details/corpusscriptorum12auguuoft/page/324/mode/2up

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

Grantley McDonald in Raising the Ghost of Arius only had one of these texts, the second one, without in christo iesu.
Grantley also omitted the critical question of date of composition.

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

The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts
Hugh Houghton
p. 38-39 - Speculum

One of Augustine’s last works was a collection of testimonia, the Speculum quis ignorat (AU spe). There are many unusual features to this selection of biblical passages .. doubt has been cast on its authenticity. However, the composition of the Speculum is described in the biography of Augustine written by Possidius (POS vi), and the handful of quotations in the authorial sections do correspond to Augustine’s characteristic forms in other works.60 It therefore appears that biblical text was substituted at a relatively early point in the textual tradition, affecting all surviving copies.

Another collection of biblical testimonia with the title Speculum is attributed to Augustine, also known as the Liber de diuinis scripturis (PS-AU spe). This seems not to be authentic, but is an earlier compilation made in Italy around the year 400. The passages are arranged thematically under 144 headings with extensive quotation from the whole New Testament apart from Hebrews, 3 John, and Philemon. Both the order of the Gospels and the textual affiliation confirm that the scriptural sources were Old Latin. This work features in the apparatus of several editions of the New Testament, sometimes with the siglum m even though it is not a biblical manuscript.61

60 See Vaccari 1961.

61 See Appendix 1; m derives from Mai, who rediscovered the original form. The siglum in NA and UBS is Spec.

Vaccari, A. (1961). ‘Les traces de la Vetus Latina dans le Speculum de Saint Augustin.’ Studia Patristica 4.2: 228-33.
Alberto Vaccari (1875-1965)

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

Hugh Houghton is saying that Speculum with the heavenly witnesses is around AD 400, and its composition actually precedes the Augustine (354-430) Speculum, which would be around AD 425, shortly before he passed. And clearly this is a powerful witness to the extensive Old Latin tradition of our verse.

When Houghton says "This seems not to be authentic" he is simply saying that it is not believed to be by Augustine. However, there are not any internal claims in the document that it is by Augustine, so his phrasing is awkward at best.

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

Corbie 13174 confirms the heavenly witnesses text in the Speculum (placing it as Augustine) showing that it had been subject to transmission for a long period.

This is from Corbie 13174:
[a]ug[ustinus]: Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt in Christo Jhesu; et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, Pater Verbum et Spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt.

This is the first one, the one that Grantley missed when describing the Speculum.

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

Btw, I believe it is possible that the two Speculums are connected, and that each one can be connected to Augustine. The coincidence gives one pause. However, the powerful early Speculum evidence stands either way.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis

Here are the two Latin sections of the Speculum.
This Speculum is called Audi Israhel and is also known as Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis and (PS-AU spe).

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

Latin: Item illic:
Quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in terra, spiritus, aqua et sanguis: et hii tres unum sunt in christo iesu. et tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, uerbum et spiritus: et hii tres unum sunt.

(Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis. Chapter I, CSEL 12:314; Mai 1852: p. 6)
Weihrich - 1887
https://archive.org/details/corpusscriptorum12auguuoft/page/314/mode/2up
1659549382882.png

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

Latin: Item iohannes in epistula I:
Spiritus est qui testimonium reddit, quia spiritus est ueritas. Item illic:
Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, uerbum et spiritus, et hii tres unum sunt.

(Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis. Chapter III, CSEL 12:325-326; Mai 1852, p. 9-10)
Weihrich - 1887
https://archive.org/details/corpusscriptorum12auguuoft/page/324/mode/2up

1659549598022.png
 

cjab

Well-known member
If you just gave the link to the Sanday article, you'd be providing some much needed info. Here it is.

The Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum
Latinorum S. Augustini Opera, Sect. III. Pars i.
(Speculum), ed. Weihrich. Vienna, 1887. 15 Mk.
Priscilliani quae supersunt, ed. Schepss, Vienna, 1889.
8 Mk. 50.
W. Sanday
The Classical Review / Volume 4 / Issue 09 / November 1890, pp 414 - 417
DOI: 10.1017/S0009840X00191322, Published online: 27 October 2009
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If you just gave the link to the Sanday article, you'd be providing some much needed info. Here it is.

On PBF I have urls for both the 1887 (related info, touches on Eugippius) and 1890 articles, but they do not have the text in the pics above.

The Classical Review - Volume 1 (1887)
Sanday
https://books.google.com/books?id=UjYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA139
p. 139-144

JSTOR
Classical Review - (1890)
Sanday
https://www.jstor.org/stable/692384#metadata_info_tab_contents
p. 414-417
Zenodo above from cjab
https://zenodo.org/record/1688902#.Yu1wNJYpCxN
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
On PBF I have urls for both the 1887 (related info, touches on Eugippius) and 1890 articles, but they do not have the text in the pics above.

The Classical Review - Volume 1 (1887)
Sanday
https://books.google.com/books?id=UjYrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA139
p. 139-144

JSTOR
Classical Review - (1890)
Sanday
https://www.jstor.org/stable/692384#metadata_info_tab_contents
p. 414-417
Zenodo above from cjab
https://zenodo.org/record/1688902#.Yu1wNJYpCxN
The Speculum appears to be in the same genre of writings as the Priscillian, per Sanday, and likely derives from a similar origin. It is therefore wrongly attributed to Augustine.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The Speculum appears to be in the same genre of writings as the Priscillian, per Sanday, and likely derives from a similar origin. It is therefore wrongly attributed to Augustine.

This Speculum is not generally attributed to Augustine today, using Hugh Houghton as an example. However, his view, partly based on the Old Latin text, is that it PRECEDES Augustine's Speculum.

There are still elements to study, so I am not taking any position as to whether Augustine may have had a connection to the Speculum with the heavenly witnesses. For discussion purposes we can follow the scholarship that says it precedes Augustine's writing.

The key point.

Here we have another manuscript testimony to the early Old Latin text, similar to the Freisinger Fragment. Plus other Latin manuscripts that are Old Latin in the apparatus but may be a hybrid text.

This Speculum is more important in a sense, because it shows that the heavenly witnesses was seen as significant for its doctrinal teaching. Think Council of Carthage as well, where it is the fulcrum verse for the orthodox position.

For contras to pretend that all this happened by a later verse creation in the fourth century is simply scholastic and textual absurdity.

(All after the supposed invisible allegory by Cyprian.)

The contras show have the honesty to give up that approach, and they could try the fallback position of Ante-Nicene verse creation, before the Arian controversies, perhaps around AD 150-200. Granted, this has great difficulties, but at least it can be seen as theoretically possible and maintain a gram of scholastic honesty.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
This Speculum is not generally attributed to Augustine today, using Hugh Houghton as an example. However, his view, partly based on the Old Latin text, is that it PRECEDES Augustine's Speculum.

There are still elements to study, so I am not taking any position as to whether Augustine may have had a connection to the Speculum with the heavenly witnesses. For discussion purposes we can follow the scholarship that says it precedes Augustine's writing.

The key point.
The key point is that it has no relation to Augustine but is textually related to the Pricillian, and therefore likely of a similar era (per Sanday).

Here we have another manuscript testimony to the early Old Latin text, similar to the Freisinger Fragment. Plus other Latin manuscripts that are Old Latin in the apparatus but may be a hybrid text.

This Speculum is more important in a sense, because it shows that the heavenly witnesses was seen as significant for its doctrinal teaching. Think Council of Carthage as well, where it is the fulcrum verse for the orthodox position.

For contras to pretend that all this happened by a later verse creation in the fourth century is simply scholastic and textual absurdity.

(All after the supposed invisible allegory by Cyprian.)

The contras show have the honesty to give up that approach, and they could try the fallback position of Ante-Nicene verse creation, before the Arian controversies, perhaps around AD 150-200. Granted, this has great difficulties, but at least it can be seen as theoretically possible and maintain a gram of scholastic honesty.
Your problem is that you don't really have much of a clue as to the background of Latin Christianity.

There were, at least from the 2nd century, quite a few psuedo-scriptures circulating in Latin in North Africa that were non-canonical, as Tertullian (& Daniélou - LES ORIGINES DU CHRISTIANISME LATIN) make clear. One was the De Centisima. There were also others. At first these 2nd century Latin tracts were treated as equivalent to scripture. Tertullian made a first attempt to separate the canonical from the psuedo-scriptures in some of his later works, rejecting some of the doctrines as taught in e.g. De Centisima. But as Cyprian's De Habitatu Virginum showed, which inter alia plagiarized De Centisima, De Centisima was still considered authoritative in his day. It then became transferred into the canonical scriptures in the late 4th century when such as De Centisima fell out of favour amongst the mainstream.

Priscillian was reputed to be a gnostic and Manichean heretic, very likely one who would have De Centisima and other such heretical tracts in his possession. Today we only have a fraction of these heretical tracts.

"Some of Priscillian's activities at least laid him open to such charges: Advent and Lenten retreats, for example, organised under lay direction to add deeper dimension to a developing church calendar when both men and women, their commitment strengthened and their discernment sharpened by an ascetic discipline which included celibacy, poverty, vegetarianism, and going barefoot (a practice as familiar to contemporaries for its magical as for its ritual or ascetic associations), would withdraw to search the scriptures day and night—and popular heretical apocrypha—for fuller understanding of the spiritual conflict in which they were called to engage, for knowledge of God, but also of Satan" (James S. Alexander - Review of Chadwick's Priscillian of Avila &etc - Scottish Journal of Theology / Volume 31 / Issue 01 / January 1978, pp 82 - 85).

Other evidence includes a treatise on the Trinity and prologues to the four gospels, "both notably Monarchian." As to the Priscillian tractates, they include a defence of the study of apocrypha.

"The biblical canon is seen to be determined solely by
considerations of numerological symbolism and does not therefore
impose restrictions on those who wish to probe beyond it into arcane
mysteries reserved for truly spiritual inquirers (long lists of demonic
names exercise a strange fascination). The highly prized charis-
matic gift is prophecy, not speaking with tongues, and prophecy
means spiritual interpretation of biblical and apocryphal texts (ac-
cording to an exegetical method derived from Origen perhaps
through Hilary, to whom great indebtedness is otherwise shown).
Justification of the study of apocryphal texts is to be understood not
just in terms of their support of an ascetic ideal, but more funda-
mentally in terms of a rejection of arbitrarily imposed limits on
divine revelation. There is a notable lack of interest in theology as
a technically precise discipline, in the subtle distinctions of the Arian
controversy. The outdated Monarchian language in which belief in
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is affirmed to be belief in One God
Christ betrays a certain theological naivete.
Yet insistence on the
simple identity of Christ as God also expresses a less restrictively
Christocentric view of divine activity than that implied by an in-
carnation which is regarded as unique because exclusive—it em-
braces a view of the divine Christ immanent in all things. While
accepting as genuine Priscillian's disavowal of Manicheism, Pro-
fessor Chadwick points out how dangerously close his use of
apocrypha and his generous universalism brought him to it."
James S. Alexander &etc.

Thus we can see how the gnostic/monarchian 1 John 5:7 came to be transferred out of the NT apocrypha and into the canon by the likes of Priscillian and his followers, who were likely numerous (such as to pose a threat to the existing order), likely influenced also by Tertullian's monarchian misconceptions in Adversus Praxean.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
The key point is that it has no relation to Augustine but is textually related to the Pricillian, and therefore likely of a similar era (per Sanday).


Your problem is that you don't really have much of a clue as to the background of Latin Christianity.

There were, at least from the 2nd century, quite a few psuedo-scriptures circulating in Latin in North Africa that were non-canonical, as Tertullian (& Daniélou - LES ORIGINES DU CHRISTIANISME LATIN) make clear. One was the De Centisima. There were also others. At first these 2nd century Latin tracts were treated as equivalent to scripture. Tertullian made a first attempt to separate the canonical from the psuedo-scriptures in some of his later works, rejecting some of the doctrines as taught in e.g. De Centisima. But as Cyprian's De Habitatu Virginum showed, which inter alia plagiarized De Centisima, De Centisima was still considered authoritative in his day. It then became transferred into the canonical scriptures in the late 4th century when such as De Centisima fell out of favour amongst the mainstream.

Priscillian was reputed to be a gnostic and Manichean heretic, very likely one who would have De Centisima and other such heretical tracts in his possession. Today we only have a fraction of these heretical tracts.

"Some of Priscillian's activities at least laid him open to such charges: Advent and Lenten retreats, for example, organised under lay direction to add deeper dimension to a developing church calendar when both men and women, their commitment strengthened and their discernment sharpened by an ascetic discipline which included celibacy, poverty, vegetarianism, and going barefoot (a practice as familiar to contemporaries for its magical as for its ritual or ascetic associations), would withdraw to search the scriptures day and night—and popular heretical apocrypha—for fuller understanding of the spiritual conflict in which they were called to engage, for knowledge of God, but also of Satan" (James S. Alexander - Review of Chadwick's Priscillian of Avila &etc - Scottish Journal of Theology / Volume 31 / Issue 01 / January 1978, pp 82 - 85).

Other evidence includes a treatise on the Trinity and prologues to the four gospels, "both notably Monarchian." As to the Priscillian tractates, they include a defence of the study of apocrypha.

"The biblical canon is seen to be determined solely by
considerations of numerological symbolism and does not therefore
impose restrictions on those who wish to probe beyond it into arcane
mysteries reserved for truly spiritual inquirers (long lists of demonic
names exercise a strange fascination). The highly prized charis-
matic gift is prophecy, not speaking with tongues, and prophecy
means spiritual interpretation of biblical and apocryphal texts (ac-
cording to an exegetical method derived from Origen perhaps
through Hilary, to whom great indebtedness is otherwise shown).
Justification of the study of apocryphal texts is to be understood not
just in terms of their support of an ascetic ideal, but more funda-
mentally in terms of a rejection of arbitrarily imposed limits on
divine revelation. There is a notable lack of interest in theology as
a technically precise discipline, in the subtle distinctions of the Arian
controversy. The outdated Monarchian language in which belief in
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is affirmed to be belief in One God
Christ betrays a certain theological naivete.
Yet insistence on the
simple identity of Christ as God also expresses a less restrictively
Christocentric view of divine activity than that implied by an in-
carnation which is regarded as unique because exclusive—it em-
braces a view of the divine Christ immanent in all things. While
accepting as genuine Priscillian's disavowal of Manicheism, Pro-
fessor Chadwick points out how dangerously close his use of
apocrypha and his generous universalism brought him to it."
James S. Alexander &etc.

Thus we can see how the gnostic/monarchian 1 John 5:7 came to be transferred out of the NT apocrypha and into the canon by the likes of Priscillian and his followers, who were likely numerous (such as to pose a threat to the existing order), likely influenced also by Tertullian's monarchian misconceptions in Adversus Praxean.
Errata in the above;

(a) Read "pseudo" for psuedo.
(b) Read "the comma became transferred into the canonical scriptures in the late 4th century....." for "It then became transferred ...."
(c) Read "would have had De Centisima and other such heretical tracts" for "would have....."
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The key point is that it has no relation to Augustine but is textually related to the Pricillian, and therefore likely of a similar era (per Sanday).

Your problem is that you don't really have much of a clue as to the background of Latin Christianity.

There were, at least from the 2nd century, quite a few psuedo-scriptures circulating in Latin in North Africa that were non-canonical, as Tertullian (& Daniélou - LES ORIGINES DU CHRISTIANISME LATIN) make clear. One was the De Centisima. There were also others. At first these 2nd century Latin tracts were treated as equivalent to scripture

You are giving contradictory theories.

1) Priscillian era.

2) Prior to Tertullian

You are not really thinking the issues through before posting.
Your "not much of a clue" is quite humorous.
 

cjab

Well-known member

cjab

Well-known member
Interets
You are giving contradictory theories.

1) Priscillian era.
Interesting the Priscillians had a specific charge laid against them, (no. 15 of 16) by Leo, as prompted by Turibius's libellus, of corrupting the canonical codicies (p.222 Chadwick, "Priscillian of Avila). The Priscillian bodge of 1 John 5:7,8 suggests corruption:

"A rough translation of this passage as found in Priscillian’s first tractate, Liber apologeticus, reveals some interesting details. It reads, “As John has said, ‘There are three who give testimony upon the earth: the water, the flesh, and the blood and these three are in one; and there are three who give testimony in heaven: the father, the word, and the spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.’” It is noticeable that Priscillian had placed what is now the disputed phrase after the location where it is presently found in Erasmus’ Greek Text and the King James Version. Also, Priscillian has added the concluding phrase “in Christ Jesus” to the Trinitarian formula and has the word “flesh” instead of “spirit” in the earthly triune witness." (Brian Wagner: "Priscillian of Avila: Heretic or Early Reformer?").

The unique wording of the Priscillian textual variant is followed by some manuscripts of the Vulgate (Tarmo Toom, "Was Priscillian a Modalist Monarchian?", p. 480), which lends itself to Priscillian being a progenitor of this variant.

Also the Vulgate early Latin gospel prologue is said to be Priscillian. "Priscillian's permanent legacy came to be through his Pauline canons and no doubt also the gospel prologues, incorporated in manuscripts of the Vulgate and even penetrating the Latin liturgy." - Chadwick.

"The impassioned Monarchianism, the free use of apocryphal Acts to illustrate and enforce the demand for celibacy, the numerology and far-fetched biblical exegesis, the many contacts in diction and style with the Wurzburg tractates, the archaic Christology, and the awareness of the need to use great reserve and oracular obscurity in formulating theological statement, combine to make it virtually certain that the prologues emerge from the Priscillianist milieu, perhaps from the master himself. The extent of his success in concealing his meaning by his invouted style and dark sayings may be seen in the acceptance of the prologues into the manuscripts of the Vulgate Gospels written in the sixth century, with the exception of those written in north Italy." - Chadwick.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Did you decide betwen your contradictory theories for Centesima, before Tertullian and the time of Priscillian?
No contradiction. Priscillian was clearly an avid devotee of De Centesima, and othe pseudo - Manichaean publications. Both De Centesima and Priscillian stand accused of corrupting the scriptures.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Interesting the Priscillians had a specific charge laid against them, (no. 15 of 16) by Leo, as prompted by Turibius's libellus, of corrupting the canonical codicies (p.222 Chadwick, "Priscillian of Avila). The Priscillian bodge of 1 John 5:7,8 suggests corruption:

Would be interesting to examine these charges of corrupting the Scriptures.

Numbers 15 and 16 by Leo?

What is the work this is in? Can we track it down?
 

cjab

Well-known member
The principal corollary to 1 John 5:7 amongst the (pseudo-)Priscillian documentary milieu is the De Trinitate Fidei Catholicae, which has been touted as a pseudo-Priscillian publication post-400AD, after Priscillianism had undergone something of a reformation.

De Trinitate Fidei Catholicae is seen to be obsessed with the "two or three witnesses" cast as the witnesses of heaven. Despite the pretension of its title to orthodoxy, it reads like a work of gnosticism.

Sylvain Jean Gabriel Sanchez, in "Priscillien, un chrétien non conformiste. Doctrine et pratique du priscillianisme du IVe au VIe siècle,"TH n°120; Paris: Beauchesne, 2009, 88–131, makes a distinction between the original, first-generation Priscillians (les priscilliens) and later Priscillianists (les priscillianistes) and thus considers all Würzburg Tractates together as the earliest extant writings of Priscillians (see also "Was Priscillian a Modalist Monarchian" - Tarmo Toom - Harvard Theological Review / Volume 107 / Issue 04 / October 2014, pp 470 - 484).

________________________________________________
(Selection from) De Trinitate (translated by Marco Conti)

" In fact, every word can only be established on two and three witnesses.
The only true testimony of catholic faith is that, which the Holy Spirit
confirms with the united Trinity.


"Therefore, in order that especially that testimony of the false witness, who will
say that he is not one God, but only [if he is] without the Father, may be
refuted, he says: 'on two.' But he has added-in order that the number of
two may not turn us away from the faith of one God- 'every word can only
be established [on two] and three witnesses', so that the unity of the
undivided Trinity may be restored with the name of the Father and the Son.
through the addition of the Holy Spirit, and we may understand that every
word is supported by two and three witnesses, because the Son is signified, in
whom 'the entire fullness of the godhead bodily dwells'. And he did not
actually say 'in either two or three' so that, to speak in simpler terms, even
though three were required for the fullness, two might nevertheless appear to
be possibly sufficient, although the third was missing; but he says: 'on two and
three witnesses'. What is this, I ask, which at the same time means that they
are two, and they are three? If he had said 'either two or three', he would have
declared with this that he separated number from number, [and] by using a
conjunction which divided, that two was quite distant from three, and besides
this he would have explained nothing, except that two could not sustain a
testimony. But 'on two', he says, 'and three'. Here no necessity of shortage is
put forward, so that only two may appear to be possibly sufficient, when two
and three are joined. But this is written too: 'You will make an ark with two
compartments, and you will make it with three compartments.' When one
of these [sentences] should be about two, and [the ark] should be built with
either two or three compartments, I do not see how each of these things
might be accomplished in it. With either two or three compartments, as on
either two or three witnesses: one has been referred to necessity, the other has
been relinquished to power. When both actions are prescribed in two and
three, the authority of the one commanding excludes the will of the one who
is subject: we who are ordered to use two and three do not have the freedom
to use either two or three in consequence of the abundance or scarcity of
things. But since our calculation does not keep to the number, this was not
even so written with empty faith or in an impossible manner; in fact, in the
sacrament of the godhead it is shown to the minds of religious men that they
are established on the stable and fixed worship of one God, with the symbol
of the Father and the Son as the two witnesses of catholic truth, in whose
testimony there is the pure profession of one God, [ and] the third testimony
of the Holy Spirit is joined, so that it may not be separated by any gap of
distinction from the body of the two. If they were said to be either two or
th:ee, two would be evidently distinguished from three; now, since they are
said to be two and three, we are taught that three is the same as being two."

"Therefore, in obtaining one God, the entire Word is established on two and
three witnesses, as to the Father and the Son, the one God, the Holy Spirit is
nonetheless added, who is of the Father and the Son. And the catholic faith is
indeed nourished, especially for the confirmation of the one God and the
Holy Spirit, with this very testimony, namely that, since the Holy Spirit sent
by the Father and the Son is one, it is necessarily attested that God is one,
that is, that he who is one signifies one Father, [and] one author. In fact, since
it is written: 'I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate, so
that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth, there are not, for that
reason, two Holy Spirits; but in order that the Father and the Son may be
understood even more to be one God, the Spirit given by the Father,
and the Spirit given by the Son is one Spirit, because it is written:
'One and the same Spirit does all things.' To say 'one and the same'
is to warn against believing that it is not one, because it would be
superfluous to proclaim one [ Spirit], if it were not of both the
Father and the Son. But also the Lord taught so, saying:
'Go now, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.'
Therefore, there is one Spirit. And, however, it is written:
'I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate.'

And after this does anybody hesitate to believe the Father and the Son to be one God, when one is the Spirit of the Father and the Son? Or perhaps may it be doubted that the Hol~ Spirit was given by the Son? Certainly it is written: 'After saying these thmgs, he breathed, and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive their sins, they will be forgiven, and if you retain them, they will be retained.' Therefore he says with good reason: 'I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate, so that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth.' While being about to give the Holy Spirit, he also promises another one from the Father: not because you may believe in two Spirits, or because he says: 'Baptize in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit'; but because, when he says that his Spirit and the Spirit of the Father is one, he may declare that it is one. 'I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate, so that he may be with you forever, the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you will know him, because he stays with and is in you.'"
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The idea that Priscillian in Spain was the promulgator of the heavenly witnesses verse was a pet theory of:

Karl Künstle (1859-1932)
http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-nr2001012339/

This was soundly refuted by:

Adolf Jülicher (1859-1936)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Jülicher

Joseph Denk (1849-1927)
https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Josef_Denk_(Philologe)

Ernest-Charles Babut (1875-1960)
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest-Charles_Babut

Covered nicely by Grantley Robert McDonald in Raising the Ghost of Arius, p. 36:

Since Priscillian was the first author to cite the comma, Karl Künstle (1905) suggested that he had invented it and inserted it in the biblical text. This suggestion was immediately challenged by Adolf Jülicher (1905). Joseph Denk (1906) likewise argued that Priscillian’s citations of Scripture reflect a “very early, extremely interesting and faithful form of the Itala,” and pointed out that he himself had not found any other instance of deliberate falsification of Scripture in Priscillian’s work. Moreover, Denk suggested that if Jerome had suspected Priscillian of inventing the passage, he certainly would have unmasked and denounced such an outrageous forgery.44 (However plausible Denk’s suggestion may appear, arguments ex silentio do not compel assent. Indeed, Jerome also fails to mention the unusual variant “water, flesh and blood” in Priscillian’s reading of verse 8, which—although it is represented in some later Spanish manuscripts— would certainly have merited a comment from Jerome if he were familiar with Priscillian’s text.) Ernest-Charles Babut (1909) concurred with Denk, and added that the comma is to be found in several orthodox works of the fifth century, which would hardly be expected if it were the invention of a man condemned as a heretic. All these factors suggested to Babut that the comma was already to be found in the bibles of Priscillian’s orthodox opponents as well as in his own.45

44 Denk, 1906.
Denk, Joseph. “Ein neuer Texteszeuge zum Comma Johanneum.” Theologische Revue 5 (1906): 59-60.

45 Babut, 1909, Appendix IV.3; Brooke, 1912, 160.
Babut, Ernest-Charles. Priscillien et le Priscillianisme. Bibliothèque de l’École des hautes études, sciences historiques et philologiques 169. Paris: H. Champion, 1909

Jülicher, Adolf. Rev. of Künstle, 1905a. Göttingische gelehrte Anzeigen 167 (1905): 930-935

Künstle, Karl. Das Comma Ioanneum. Auf seine Herkunft untersucht. Freiburg: Herder, 1905a.
-----. Antipriscilliana: Dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Texte aus dem Streite gegen Priscillians Irrlehre. Freiburg: Herder, 1905b.

Brooke, Alan England. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Johannine Epistles. The International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912.

And I quoted Alan England Brooke on this back awhile in CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/tho...search-on-1-john-5-7.5539/page-43#post-401414

The International Critical Commentary on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments (1912)
Alan England Brooke
https://books.google.com/books?id=_ekYAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA160

Note that Brooke talks of the Expositio Fidei and the Speculum as anti-Pricillianist. p. 158-160, also against the cjab theories.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Ernest-Charles Babut (1909) concurred with Denk, and added that the comma is to be found in several orthodox works of the fifth century, which would hardly be expected if it were the invention of a man condemned as a heretic.
The original Priscillian comma was condemned:

See The First Council of Toledo which condemned the Priscillians (also see here):

The early Priscillian "heavenly witnesses formula":

"there are three who give testimony in heaven: the father, the word, and the spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus"

seems to have been roundly condemned by the 1st Council of Toledo:

XIV "Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatis et carnis unam in Christo esse naturam, anathema sit."

(If anyone says or believes that the nature of deity and flesh are one in Christ, let him be anathema.)

___________________________
This canon is particular interesting for Trinitarians and their theokotos doctrine:

VII. "Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatem nascibilem esse, anathema sit."

(If anyone says or believes that a deity can be born, let him be anathema.)


Note that Brooke talks of the Expositio Fidei and the Speculum as anti-Pricillianist. p. 158-160, also against the cjab theories.
The above documents would clearly have been Pricillianist (i.e. post-Priscillian) rather than directly from Priscillian himself (i.e. of Priscillian). They denoted a reformation within Priscillianism, after Priscillian's death. The Expositio Fidei is clearly gnostic.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The original Priscillian comma was condemned:
See The First Council of Toledo which condemned the Priscillians (also see here):
The early Priscillian "heavenly witnesses formula":
"there are three who give testimony in heaven: the father, the word, and the spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus"
seems to have been roundly condemned by the 1st Council of Toledo:

XIV "Si quis dixerit vel crediderit deitatis et carnis unam in Christo esse naturam, anathema sit."

(If anyone says or believes that the nature of deity and flesh are one in Christ, let him be anathema.)

This is a good find that can help raise the Council of Toledo c. AD 400 to a heavenly witnesses reference. The fact that it was contra Priscillian was well known, but this adds info directly pertaining to our verse.
 
Top