Steven Avery
Well-known member
Are there any spots where they are invoked?
Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Are there any spots where they are invoked?
Every allusion to heavenly witnesses.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Good to know you acknowjedge the heavenly witnesses c. AD 200.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
One article emphasized how the Priscillianists used the Acts of Thomas. (From memory.)
In the apocryphal literature. Of course, if it has been in the canon, it wouldn't have appeared in the apocryphal literature, except by a specific scriptural reference. The absence of any reference to the canon shows it wasn't in the canon. Haven't you worked that one out yet?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Since it makes zero sense, I can not work it out.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Latin
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Puxanto, this post will have a little about Letter 28.
First, this is from The Witness of God is Greater, discussing the Latin and Greek issues.
3. ”translated into Greek"
a. The Tome was originally written in Latin & Leo could not read Greek.
[R. Price] Very soon after the council, a copy of the minutes in Greek was brought to Rome, where neither Leo nor his staff could read it with ease. In March of 453 Leo wrote to Julian of Cos, who had represented him at the council, and complained that he still knew very little about what had actually taken place at Chalcedon. These linguistic difficulties – along with his opposition to the twenty-eighth canon – help explain Leo’s long hesitancy (much to the consternation of Marcian and Anatolius) to endorse the council’s decrees. He asked Julian to arrange for a full translation of the acts into Latin, but there is no evidence that this task was ever begun or that subsequent popes of the late fifth and early sixth centuries had access to a Latin version.287
287 Leo to Julian of Cos, 11 March 453: Leo, ep. 113. Julian, unlike the other papal legates, was fluent in both languages.
(Council of Chalcedon, Richard Price, and Michael Gaddis. The acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 2005, vol 1, vol 1, p. 83)
=====================
A good book review read by Uwe Michael Lang
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated Texts for Historians, 45). Translated with introduction and notes by Richard Price and Michael Gaddis (2007)
Review by Uwe Michael Lang
https://www.academia.edu/22629199/T...and_notes_by_Richard_Price_and_Michael_Gaddis
=====================
Raising the Ghost of Arius (2016) - Grantley Robert McDonald
We can look at the confusion of the contras trying to form our verse.
Even though extant manuscripts show us the full verse was in common use in the latter 4th century and all of the 5th century, Leo is given as part of the formulation of the verse! Then Grantley even throws in the much later Facundus and Haymo!
How can they help formulate a verse that was fully quoted from 150 to 400+ years earlier?
=====================
RGA - Raising the Ghost of Arius - p. 38 - Grantley Robert McDonald (spacing added)
The first stage in the formulation of the comma was the simple translation of the Greek text of 1 Jn 5:8
(ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες: τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν)
into Latin:
Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, Spiritus [et] aqua et sanguis, et tres VNVM SVNT.
This translation of verse 8 is attested by Leo the Great and Codex Amiatinus. The existence of Trinitarian allegoresis of this verse before the formulation of the comma is demonstrated by the fact that some early writers (e.g. Facundus and Haymo) give the spatial marker in terra in verse 8 but do not yet cite the comma.
=====================
RGA - p. 41-42
The same year, Frankish monks in Jerusalem were being persecuted for reciting the Nicene Creed with the filioque. In response, Leo issued a general letter to all the Western churches containing a profession of faith containing a summary of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the first doctrinal statement from Rome to formulate the classic Catholic position. In this creed we find the symbolum cited by Charlemagne, hæc tria unus Deus.56
56 Pope Leo III, Epistola XV, seu symbolum orthodoxæ fidei Leonis papæ, PL 102:1031: “Et hæc tria unus Deus. Hæc tria idem Deus et Dominus, vera et sempiterna trinitas in personis, vera et sempiterna unitas in substantia, quia una est substantia Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus.” Haußleiter, 1920, 37-38
... Pope Leo’s Tomus ad Flavianum (449) cites the fifth chapter of John’s epistle, but omits the comma. Fascinatingly, Leo’s gloss on verse 8 contains both symbola, quæ tria unum sunt and in Christo Iesu (though this latter phrase is also omitted in some manuscripts).57
57 Leo the Great, Tomus ad Flavianum [Epist. 28], in Bindley 1899, 203; Cavallera, 1936, 371
“Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Iesus Christus; non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et spiritus est, qui testificatur, quoniam Spiritus est veritas. Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, Spiritus aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt.
Spiritus utique sanctificationis et sanguis redemptionis et aqua baptismatis, quæ tria unum sunt et individua manent nihilque eorum a sui connexione seiungitur: quia catholica ecclesia hac fide vivit, hac proficit, ut in Christo Iesu nec sine vera divinitate humanitas nec sine vera credatur [om. Bindley] humanitate divinitas.”
=====================
On p. 52, Fulgentius is noted citing Leo.
And TWOGIG gives a lot of detail on both Fulgentius and Facundus quoting Leo's Tome.
First, this is from The Witness of God is Greater, discussing the Latin and Greek issues.
3. ”translated into Greek"
a. The Tome was originally written in Latin & Leo could not read Greek.
[R. Price] Very soon after the council, a copy of the minutes in Greek was brought to Rome, where neither Leo nor his staff could read it with ease. In March of 453 Leo wrote to Julian of Cos, who had represented him at the council, and complained that he still knew very little about what had actually taken place at Chalcedon. These linguistic difficulties – along with his opposition to the twenty-eighth canon – help explain Leo’s long hesitancy (much to the consternation of Marcian and Anatolius) to endorse the council’s decrees. He asked Julian to arrange for a full translation of the acts into Latin, but there is no evidence that this task was ever begun or that subsequent popes of the late fifth and early sixth centuries had access to a Latin version.287
287 Leo to Julian of Cos, 11 March 453: Leo, ep. 113. Julian, unlike the other papal legates, was fluent in both languages.
(Council of Chalcedon, Richard Price, and Michael Gaddis. The acts of the Council of Chalcedon, 2005, vol 1, vol 1, p. 83)
=====================
A good book review read by Uwe Michael Lang
The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Translated Texts for Historians, 45). Translated with introduction and notes by Richard Price and Michael Gaddis (2007)
Review by Uwe Michael Lang
https://www.academia.edu/22629199/T...and_notes_by_Richard_Price_and_Michael_Gaddis
=====================
Raising the Ghost of Arius (2016) - Grantley Robert McDonald
We can look at the confusion of the contras trying to form our verse.
Even though extant manuscripts show us the full verse was in common use in the latter 4th century and all of the 5th century, Leo is given as part of the formulation of the verse! Then Grantley even throws in the much later Facundus and Haymo!
How can they help formulate a verse that was fully quoted from 150 to 400+ years earlier?
=====================
RGA - Raising the Ghost of Arius - p. 38 - Grantley Robert McDonald (spacing added)
The first stage in the formulation of the comma was the simple translation of the Greek text of 1 Jn 5:8
(ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες: τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν)
into Latin:
Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, Spiritus [et] aqua et sanguis, et tres VNVM SVNT.
This translation of verse 8 is attested by Leo the Great and Codex Amiatinus. The existence of Trinitarian allegoresis of this verse before the formulation of the comma is demonstrated by the fact that some early writers (e.g. Facundus and Haymo) give the spatial marker in terra in verse 8 but do not yet cite the comma.
=====================
RGA - p. 41-42
The same year, Frankish monks in Jerusalem were being persecuted for reciting the Nicene Creed with the filioque. In response, Leo issued a general letter to all the Western churches containing a profession of faith containing a summary of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, the first doctrinal statement from Rome to formulate the classic Catholic position. In this creed we find the symbolum cited by Charlemagne, hæc tria unus Deus.56
56 Pope Leo III, Epistola XV, seu symbolum orthodoxæ fidei Leonis papæ, PL 102:1031: “Et hæc tria unus Deus. Hæc tria idem Deus et Dominus, vera et sempiterna trinitas in personis, vera et sempiterna unitas in substantia, quia una est substantia Pater et Filius et Spiritus sanctus.” Haußleiter, 1920, 37-38
... Pope Leo’s Tomus ad Flavianum (449) cites the fifth chapter of John’s epistle, but omits the comma. Fascinatingly, Leo’s gloss on verse 8 contains both symbola, quæ tria unum sunt and in Christo Iesu (though this latter phrase is also omitted in some manuscripts).57
57 Leo the Great, Tomus ad Flavianum [Epist. 28], in Bindley 1899, 203; Cavallera, 1936, 371
“Hic est, qui venit per aquam et sanguinem, Iesus Christus; non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. Et spiritus est, qui testificatur, quoniam Spiritus est veritas. Quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, Spiritus aqua et sanguis, et tres unum sunt.
Spiritus utique sanctificationis et sanguis redemptionis et aqua baptismatis, quæ tria unum sunt et individua manent nihilque eorum a sui connexione seiungitur: quia catholica ecclesia hac fide vivit, hac proficit, ut in Christo Iesu nec sine vera divinitate humanitas nec sine vera credatur [om. Bindley] humanitate divinitas.”
=====================
On p. 52, Fulgentius is noted citing Leo.
And TWOGIG gives a lot of detail on both Fulgentius and Facundus quoting Leo's Tome.
Last edited:
So in De cent,
"For also by John this is demonstrated, when the spirit hands over the book to the angel who broke the seals, saying:”Take the book and eat it up. And it shall make thy belly bitter, but in thy mouth it shall be sweet as honey.”
......This means: by the mouth of three witnesses it will be proved, that is: by the mouth of the Father and Son and Holy
Spirit it will be confessed, because it is apparent that honey [Latin: mel] is written in three letters. For certainly,
we also read honey [Latin: mel], constituted of three letters.
___________________
We have a reference to John for the Revelation text, which is a specific reference to a canonical text. Then what follows "This means....." is a gnostic interpretation, which is evidently not from John, i.e. no scripture is being quoted here, because otherwise De Cent. would have cited John again for the interpretation. Far from being a reference to a canonical text, De Cent. is proof of the gnostic origin of the three "heavenly" witnesses.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This does not even try to explain your earlier claim.
e.g. Why would apocryphal literature have to have a "specific scriptural reference"? Have you done a major review of apocryphal literature and how the dozens of works reference potential scriptural citations?
I think it does. Even apocryphal literature contains allusions to the canon, as De Cent. shows by invoking "John" to make salient points.
Of course, when you are engaged with the Acts of Andrew, Acts of Thomas etc, then there are no canonical references as this literature is 100% gnostic. De Cent. is what I would class as semi-gnostic, as it does refer to the canon (i.e. in the Priscillianist mould).
See my point above. Just read the text naturally. There are reference to canonical texts, and there is plainly a lot of teaching that isn't by reference to the canon. Especially when it says "This means......"
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So, whether or not your point is sound in the spot or two you looked at, you extrapolated to a general rule about Apocryphal texts that is simply false.
And you wonder why I do not spend time on your theories.
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.
Last edited:
You haven't shown anything I have said to be false, nor have you invalidated my theory, because not a single heavenly witness text up to and including Priscillian defers to a specifically canonical text.
Doesn't change anything "This means: by the mouth....because....."
It is a plain reference to there being no canonical heavenly witness verse in the bible.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Gibberish.
Absurd is too mild for this claim/theory.
If anything it is exactly the opposite ... If you say so you force me to explain a couple of things that seemed obvious to me! Putting aside whether the author is a heretic or not ...
The author is using By the mouth of three witnesses applying it twice once for mel to underline the sweetness of the verse: Father, Verb, Holy Spirit ; and one for fel to underline the bitterness of the other verse: Spirit water blood Or the suffering of Christ symbols of the Trinity
I hope it is clearer that way!
Why would a heavenly witness verse have been quoted without an appeal to its canonicity?
Last edited:
You're over-thinking it. De Cent. is gnostic gibberish.
Spirit water blood is "the testimony of God." To describe any of Spirit water blood as "bitter" is wrong. Moreover Spirit water blood only indirectly allude to the crucifixion, just as Spirit water blood only indirectly allude to baptism. They are central themes running throughout the whole ministry of Christ.