TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
There's that Christocentrism again. Christ centered, Christ centric. A kind of Christ only theology. An undifferentiated one-person/thing-ness.
Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
There's that Christocentrism again. Christ centered, Christ centric. A kind of Christ only theology. An undifferentiated one-person/thing-ness.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Although Priscillianist Apology and Tractates, has Biblical quotations in it (that is ordinary Biblical terminology for God) the author, or authors, of the Apology most often call God the "Christ God" in Latin, or "the God Christ", which is far from ordinary. His Latin phraseology in his text is weird. It's not what you find in standard Trinitarian texts as theological terminology.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Correct.
1 John 5:8 Clause-D focused.
The mystery of why the whole/entire verse was simply never quoted, but instead is referred to as "these heavenly symbols".
I would not like to be you, and try and explain why (or away - as you put it) why Cyprian's Clause-D focus is referred to as "these heavenly symbols", and how you tacitly (or straight out) admit Cyprian doesn't quote the entire "heavenly symbols" verse, and why Cyprian's Clause-D focus on "these heavenly symbols" is somehow not a symbolic interpretation (eis-egesis), even though he refers to "et tres unum sunt" as "this one-ness" as "these heavenly symbols".
You have no indisputable proof of any real/genuine Latin or Greek ECW contemporary with Cyprian, or before his time, actually (not theoretically or a micro quote focusing on Clause-D "et tres unum sunt") quoting the entire, complete, full "heavenly witnesses" verse (as you call it in opposition to Cyprian's "these heavenly symbols").
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
It is amazing how everybody is on the trail!
Although Italian traccia can mean "trail", it can also mean "hint" "sign" "trace" "mark" etc.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Any body else notice this focus on 1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering) Clause-D?
The major focus on the "et tres unum sunt" Clause instead of the entire verse in the earlier references?
A survey of who, and how many focus on Clause-D, and who don't, would be really helpful.
The major focus on the "et tres unum sunt" Clause instead of the entire verse in the earlier references?
A survey of who, and how many focus on Clause-D, and who don't, would be really helpful.
1 John 5:7 KJV-numbering TR
[Clause-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Clause-C] ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· [Clause-D] καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
[Clause-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Clause-C] ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· [Clause-D] καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν
1 John 5:7 KJV-numbering Vulgate
[Clause-A] Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in cælo : [Clause-C] Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt.
1 John 5:8 KJV-numbering TR
[Clause-A] καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] ἕν τῇ γῇ, [Clause-C] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [Clause-D] καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν
[Clause-A] καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] ἕν τῇ γῇ, [Clause-C] τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [Clause-D] καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν
1 John 5:8 KJV-numbering Vulgate
[Clause-A] Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt.
Finally got hold of a copy of "The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy," by Virginia Burrus. Another good summary of Priscillianism is in "History of dogmas Vol 2." J. TIXERONT, translated from the French by H. L. B. p 229-241.
From Burrus, p. 18-20, we read that Priscillianism was just one sect that emerged from a milieu of enthusiastic ascetic sects (likely also focussed on Trinitarianism, Encratism, and Gnosticism), all indebted to pretended "charisma," (cf. the Montanists). Allegations of Manichaeism were run of the mill in condemning opponents such as Priscillian.
__________________________________
Excursus: A Selective Review of Priscillian in Twentieth-Century Scholarship
"Investigations of the broader social and cosmological aspects of the Priscillianist controversy have been under way since the discovery of the tractates, and the present study rests on the insights of previous scholarship. Of particular significance is E.-Ch. Babut's 1909 monograph Priscillien et le priscillianisme. Babut places the conflict surrounding Priscillian within the context of the divergence between ascetic and anti-ascetic currents in fourth-century western Christianity. As the "new gospel" of asceticism arrived from the east and swept the western provinces, there arose simultaneously a movement of reaction and protest against the ascetic "saints." This protest centered above all in the clergy, explains Babut, and was frequently expressed by means of accusations of Manichaeism.
"Mutual hostility could not fail to arise. The clergy considered themselves raised above the common run and brought closer to God by ordination, the monks by the practice of sanctity. Each of these two aristocracies, the one sacramental, the other purely moral, was inclined not to recognize any kind of excellence other than its own." Babut goes on to argue that Priscillian should be viewed, not as the leader of his own movement, but rather as a member of a broader network of ascetic "fraternities'' scattered throughout Gaul and Spain. The members of these fraternities were not concerned merely with their personal spiritual growth, Babut further suggests; they also pursued the broader goal of educating an ascetic clergy and thereby countering the growing trend toward the secularization of episcopal office. The attempt to link Priscillian closely and directly with other western ascetics appears to have been poorly founded, as does the emphasis on the explicit clerical ambitions of Priscillian and his followers.
"Nevertheless, Babut's basic positioning of the Priscillianist controversy in the context of the fourthcentury
ascetic movement and the related conflicts of authority is fundamental to any discussion of its social roots.
In an unpublished 1957 dissertation, Willy Schatz builds on the foundation laid by Babut. Not content with a generalized discussion of the conflict between ascetics and anti-ascetic bishops, Schatz attempts a more precise social analysis of the forces which gave rise to the fourth-century proliferation of ascetic splinter-movements.
"Ultimately, he identifies the underlying cause of division between the mainstream church and these ascetic sects as "the polarity between office and charisma." Acknowledging that Priscillian and some of his ascetic associates were themselves bishops, Schatz nevertheless argues that their authority was essentially charismatic, remaining deeply embedded in an ascetic spirituality: "they based their priesthood, not primarily on office, but much more on their charismatic gift." The conflict between office and charisma at the heart of the Priscillianist controversy was defined primarily from the point of view of those who identified themselves as officeholders. "Spiritual" Christians like the ascetic Priscillian did not typically perceive any inherent conflict or contradiction between official and charismatic authority. Nor was it Priscillian who initiated the schism in Spain. Rather, the Spanish bishops made the first move to exclude Priscillian and his followers from the Christian community.
"The heresy is therefore at first actually artificially created. And the purpose of this is equally clear: with the constitution of the 'sect' the bishop gains the possibility of proceeding against the ascetics in order to enforce their acknowledgement of his authority and their incorporation into the hierarchically determined
ecclesiastical order" (emphasis mine). Schatz here emphasizes the bishops' initiative in labeling Priscillian's
movement heretical or sectarian and thereby enforcing either conformity or exclusion from the community. But he also adds that Priscillian and his followers played a part in provoking such opposition: first, they implicitly claimed a competing ecclesiastical authority on the basis of their ascetic calling, and second, they organized themselves into a separate group (Eigenorganisation, Sonderorganisation) whose existence threatened the unity and integrity of the episcopally led urban congregation."
From Burrus, p. 18-20, we read that Priscillianism was just one sect that emerged from a milieu of enthusiastic ascetic sects (likely also focussed on Trinitarianism, Encratism, and Gnosticism), all indebted to pretended "charisma," (cf. the Montanists). Allegations of Manichaeism were run of the mill in condemning opponents such as Priscillian.
__________________________________
Excursus: A Selective Review of Priscillian in Twentieth-Century Scholarship
"Investigations of the broader social and cosmological aspects of the Priscillianist controversy have been under way since the discovery of the tractates, and the present study rests on the insights of previous scholarship. Of particular significance is E.-Ch. Babut's 1909 monograph Priscillien et le priscillianisme. Babut places the conflict surrounding Priscillian within the context of the divergence between ascetic and anti-ascetic currents in fourth-century western Christianity. As the "new gospel" of asceticism arrived from the east and swept the western provinces, there arose simultaneously a movement of reaction and protest against the ascetic "saints." This protest centered above all in the clergy, explains Babut, and was frequently expressed by means of accusations of Manichaeism.
"Mutual hostility could not fail to arise. The clergy considered themselves raised above the common run and brought closer to God by ordination, the monks by the practice of sanctity. Each of these two aristocracies, the one sacramental, the other purely moral, was inclined not to recognize any kind of excellence other than its own." Babut goes on to argue that Priscillian should be viewed, not as the leader of his own movement, but rather as a member of a broader network of ascetic "fraternities'' scattered throughout Gaul and Spain. The members of these fraternities were not concerned merely with their personal spiritual growth, Babut further suggests; they also pursued the broader goal of educating an ascetic clergy and thereby countering the growing trend toward the secularization of episcopal office. The attempt to link Priscillian closely and directly with other western ascetics appears to have been poorly founded, as does the emphasis on the explicit clerical ambitions of Priscillian and his followers.
"Nevertheless, Babut's basic positioning of the Priscillianist controversy in the context of the fourthcentury
ascetic movement and the related conflicts of authority is fundamental to any discussion of its social roots.
In an unpublished 1957 dissertation, Willy Schatz builds on the foundation laid by Babut. Not content with a generalized discussion of the conflict between ascetics and anti-ascetic bishops, Schatz attempts a more precise social analysis of the forces which gave rise to the fourth-century proliferation of ascetic splinter-movements.
"Ultimately, he identifies the underlying cause of division between the mainstream church and these ascetic sects as "the polarity between office and charisma." Acknowledging that Priscillian and some of his ascetic associates were themselves bishops, Schatz nevertheless argues that their authority was essentially charismatic, remaining deeply embedded in an ascetic spirituality: "they based their priesthood, not primarily on office, but much more on their charismatic gift." The conflict between office and charisma at the heart of the Priscillianist controversy was defined primarily from the point of view of those who identified themselves as officeholders. "Spiritual" Christians like the ascetic Priscillian did not typically perceive any inherent conflict or contradiction between official and charismatic authority. Nor was it Priscillian who initiated the schism in Spain. Rather, the Spanish bishops made the first move to exclude Priscillian and his followers from the Christian community.
"The heresy is therefore at first actually artificially created. And the purpose of this is equally clear: with the constitution of the 'sect' the bishop gains the possibility of proceeding against the ascetics in order to enforce their acknowledgement of his authority and their incorporation into the hierarchically determined
ecclesiastical order" (emphasis mine). Schatz here emphasizes the bishops' initiative in labeling Priscillian's
movement heretical or sectarian and thereby enforcing either conformity or exclusion from the community. But he also adds that Priscillian and his followers played a part in provoking such opposition: first, they implicitly claimed a competing ecclesiastical authority on the basis of their ascetic calling, and second, they organized themselves into a separate group (Eigenorganisation, Sonderorganisation) whose existence threatened the unity and integrity of the episcopally led urban congregation."
Steven Avery
Well-known member
I usually use
"The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority, and the Priscillianist Controversy,"
https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft009nb09t;brand=ucpress
Although I also use Google books for some page bookmarking.
CHAPTER FIVE - "GNOSTIC"
Priscillian Reinterpreted by Sulpicius Severus and Jerome
https://books.google.com/books?id=Cm2x3DK_C3MC&pg=PA126
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge: Embracing Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology and Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Biography from the Earliest Times to the Present Day, Volume 9
https://books.google.com/books?id=AmYAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA258
Later Edition
https://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc09/htm/iv.v.xv.htm
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Not much of a mystery.
First, we are dealing with the Johannine Epistles, which have limited quoting.
It is common for Ante-Nicene writers, especially, to not quote a full verse. Do some checking with the famous battleground verses like 1 Timothy 3:16, Acts 8:37 and dozens more. I have some of them on PBF because generally the apparatuses are very unreliable and also don't give the text.
This is one reason why textual criticism discussions are often shots in the dark. James Snapp has helped on a few variants, including the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae, also Acts 8:37 and some others.
Of course, there are exceptions, especially John 10:30.
Abundant quoting, even Ante-Nicene, helped by brevity.
It is fairly common even later that our quotes are partial.
Once you get to the late fourth century, it is very common for the heavenly witnesses verse to have a full quote. Which in terms of textual referencing is fairly early. This has been hidden by contra authors. (Which has had an effect on defender writing.) Even Grantley McDonald found ways to hide the truf of the full quoting. He wanted to nurture the theory that there was some sort of formulation process over centuries, so you will find very few of the few quotes, and those usually in Latin only. Only The Witness of God is Greater, and my summary projects, touch this properly. Nick Sayers makes an effort to keep up.
Look for full quotes of 1 John 5:8.
The pickens are slimens.
And I did some checking on 1 John 2:23b. It is true that Cyprian did give a full quote, but that was the only Ante-Nicene one I could verify. Once you get around AD 400, full quotes are common, exactly as we see in the heavenly witnesses.
One thing that is humorous is the claim that the partial quotes of the heavenly witnesses verse, referring to Father, Son and (Holy) Spirit, are actually invisible allegories of the spirit, water and blood. Without any mention of the three terms. This is even taken to quotes after the eight given by Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian and Potamius. The claim is bumped up to around AD 400 and later, by Grantley Robert McDonald. (Recently I showed two of the later ones, Phoebadius of Agen and Victricius of Rouen.)
All this absurdity is one major reason why I see the current contra position as totally bankrupt scholastically.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Not exactly "new" is it, this "New" encyclopedia.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Exactly!
The mystery of why they didn't quote the full "who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" (Clauses B-and-C) as a legitimate full Scripture verse, is because these clauses simply didn't exist in or as Scripture then.
But the Latin translation of 1 John 5:8 Clause-D "et tres unum sunt" did exist then.
This is very simple stuff.
So there's no mystery for us.
They simply started reading-interpreting into (the process of eis-egesis) that particular Clause (Clause-D "et tres unum sunt") Trinitarian ideas and concepts.
The words/vocabulary of "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," or the word "Trinity" (or any combination of these words individually), don't have to be literally written in the verse itself for these writers to interpret suitable Scriptural phrases (i.e. individual Clauses of Scripture) as being about "the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit," or the "Trinity" etc etc.
That's simply what eis-egesis is.
Superimposing on, over, or into Scripture theologically what you think the verse should be about - from your point of view.
And that's exactly what you see happening with all these Interpreter's of 1 John 5:8 Clause-D "et tres unum sunt" in this Pre-Nicene era.
So, Steven, don't confound eis-egesis for/as allegory. Particularly not deliberately, or for nefarious purposes.
Not absurd, but dishonest. The Trinity doctrine "tres unum sunt" was in hindsight a two-stage project. The first stage entailed the dishonest Latin mistranslation of 1 John 5:8 from the Greek, "Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt" (Vulgate).
Yet it seems that the Latin ECFs were not content to have "tres unum sunt" in their bibles in such an obscure way. Having dishonestly mistranslated the Greek, in the fourth century, the Trinitarian ascetics, who in being generally corrupted by neo-Manichaen doctrines, went even further with the heavenly witness verse. We see evidence of their rank dishonestly in Priscilliant's tractates, which evidence a desire to amend scripture itself.
To conceive of any of these early Trinitarian-obsessives as engaging in more than gnostic eisegesis is asking too much.
Very well said! Kudos!
Something NO kjvo will ever understand or admit to.
EVER.
It's not in their DNA to attempt any sort of understanding of how the ECFs interpreted scripture. They've been fully infected with hyper-fundamentalist/literalist/baptist schemes of interpretation.
They've been Cloud/Waite-ified.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
What was the honest Latin text they should have given?
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Are you walking back the post-Nicea claims?
Didn’t you make the same claim about the four uses of:
Potamius.
And don’t you, like Grantley Robert McDonald, give the same fuzz and buzz for:
Phoebadius of Agen
Victricius of Rouen
Gains Marius Victorinus
And others.
==========
When do you place the heavenly witnesses text in Bibles?
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The most astounding (absurd) element of this contra theory is the paralysis on these dozen or so Bible writers.
Again and again they (Clement of Alexandria x2, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian x2, Potamius x4, etc.) are supposed to be reading the Trinity into the spirit, water and blood.
Yet not once do they actually given the supposed base of the allegory, spirit water and blood.
Their minds are fogged!
The bankrupt contra theory.
=============
Only post-400, with Augustine, when the verse was clearly in Latin Bibles, do we get a readable explanatory allegory.
Again and again they (Clement of Alexandria x2, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian x2, Potamius x4, etc.) are supposed to be reading the Trinity into the spirit, water and blood.
Yet not once do they actually given the supposed base of the allegory, spirit water and blood.
Their minds are fogged!
The bankrupt contra theory.
=============
Only post-400, with Augustine, when the verse was clearly in Latin Bibles, do we get a readable explanatory allegory.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
A single word (Greek εἰς or Latin "in") omission was by far the easiest part. But that's where and how it began. Poor, or deliberate mistranslation of Clause-D.
No. What I claim anyway, and what you twist my claims into are two different things.
Eis-egesis is not synonymous with allegory.
Potamius speaks for himself, and only quotes 1 John 5:8 Clause-D "et tres unum sunt".
He is Clause-D focused.
He gives eis-egesis about 1 John 5:8 Clause-D "et tres unum sunt". with no quotation of any part of "who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" (Clauses B-and-C).
He announces clearly what kind of interpretation he is going to give Scripture, at the beginning of LSB.
POTAMIUS OF LISBON (circa. 300?-360 C.E.): “Therefore, because from our examination in the previous treatise [Or: “tractate”] on the Trinity, we were able to elicit forth such light (oh you flashing star [Or: “oh you flashing constellation”]) we have gathered this together into all the books [Or: “the volumes”] by their own theme, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in which we have illuminated clearly all doctrine that was capable of being explained [Or: “capable of explanation” “able to be explained”]. The only thing left over is that I may attempt to make known the substance in such a way that is worthy of the splendid name of the supreme authority [Lit., “of the supreme Empire”] of the undivided Trinity. So let us get on with it then, by the help of God, whose name this is, that we may make known what connection might exist with respects to the substance (oh most beloved bishops). The first thing then, that we might teach is the substance itself by the authority of the law (through which the eternal law has flourished) and as a logical consequence of this, that we may try to prove to you the power of the substance from the figurative meanings that lye hidden underneath [Or: “from the figures that lye hidden beneath” Or: “from the underlying figurative meanings” Or: “from the figurative meanings that lay hidden underneath”]. Yes as the prophet says: “They have not heard of the word [Or: “the sound of”] 'substance' from the fleeing birds of heaven, and the cattle which have become terrified, and they are crying out all the time with a loud voice, and I will give Jerusalem over into captivity.” [Jeremiah 9:10 VL [from LXX 9:9(Part-C)-10(Part-A)]] Behold! It is capable of speaking of [Possibly: “capable of prophesying about”] the “substance” in this place concerning the Trinity; but what will they do, then, those who have removed the words about the “substance”?” - (Chapter 2:1-15; “Letter concerning the Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”)
He speaks for himself.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The phrase used by Grantley is a
“Trinitarian interpretation of of 1 Jn 5:8”
Raising the Ghost of Arius. p. 26,
That is your view as well.
And you two do apply it to Potamius and apparently others post-Nicea.
Last edited: