Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis

[Steven Avery]

I can't recall saying that John's name is there a dozen times or more. In fact his name is there twice, but there are many other scriptural allusions apart from John. John's gospel is sometimes referred to without the name of John being invoked, but in such a way as to insinuate a canonical quotation is being invoked, e.g. John 6:38.
... I have no idea how many allusions to John's gospel there are.

"I see an appeal to "John" in De Cent. wherever "John's" authority is invoked."

And I showed you the index, that would be at least 11 times, without Revelation.

It is obvious that you do not read my posts, if you did not notice the index reference, with url.
And you obviously did not check Centesima before making the quote above.

 

[cjab]

"I see an appeal to "John" in De Cent. wherever "John's" authority is invoked."

I admit my words are open to misapprehension but on their face they only allude to those places where "John's authority is [specifically] invoked" which are twice. What I was trying to say was that the author was on record as appealing to directly John to vouch for the legitimacy of his arguments and citations, in such places as he makes a direct appeal to his authority.

Regard should also be had to "per lohannem reuelatorem sui atque mundi" line 233 ("through John the revealer of himself [i.e. Christ], and moreover of the world").

I concluded that it would be strange if the author did not make some direct or indirect reference to John in respect of his Trinity bearing witness, even if only an indication of such being a citation.

And I showed you the index, that would be at least 11 times, without Revelation.

Yes I have the index, and the whole text. You will note from the index that 1 John 5:7,8 are not alluded to in the opinion of the author of the article (nor Matt 28:19, nor Deut 19:15). Evidently he has the same opinion as me that the mere allusion to the Trinity as "witnesses" doesn't qualify as a specific scriptural citation.

It is obvious that you do not read my posts, if you did not notice the index reference, with url.
And you obviously did not check Centesima before making the quote above.

See above. You are interpreting my words in a perverse sense.

 

[Steven Avery]

I admit my words are open to misapprehension but on their face they only allude to those places where "John's authority is [specifically] invoked" which are twice. What I was trying to say was that the author was on record as appealing to directly John to vouch for the legitimacy of his arguments and citations, in such places as he makes a direct appeal to his authority.

So in the two places where he says John, he means John.

And the other dozen+ places where he uses Johannine material, he does not use his name.

And from that, you come to conclusions?

 

[cjab]

So in the two places where he says John, he means John.

And the other dozen+ places where he uses Johannine material, he does not use his name.

And from that, you come to conclusions?

I concluded that because of the importance he attaches to John's words and to his authority, he would have phrased his argument differently had the Comma been included in the Latin text, i.e. he would at least have cited the whole Comma, and not just the Trinity + bearing witness.

 

[Steven Avery]

I concluded that because of the importance he attaches to John's words and to his authority, he would have phrased his argument differently had the Comma been included in the Latin text, i.e. he would at least have cited the whole Comma, and not just the Trinity + bearing witness.

Yet a dozen times he said nothing about John, falsifying your conclusion.

 

[cjab]

Yet a dozen times he said nothing about John, falsifying your conclusion.

No. What is important is how he quotes John. The strength of my conclusion would be born out by an analysis of the passages from John, and other passages also that he does cite in full: our author cites numerous passages verbatim. Where he cites John authoritatively, he often cites a whole text or appeals to John directly.

Consider this:

„Vtatur unus quisque suum uas in sanctimonio et honore, non in passione concupiscentiae sicut et gentes, quae ignorant deum." Qui ergo deum per .sanctimonium accipiendum didicisti, et promissum eius obserua, qui dixit: „Si quis non renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum caelorum." qui ergo in regmim caelorum cupies peruenire, ilium spiritum renouationis tuae lasciue uiuendo noli expellere. Enim ipse est gradus ascensionis in caelum, [enim] ipse est porta, ipse introitus uitae, a quo in redemptione tua a mundi contagione tribus testimoniis spiritaliter sis religatus. Quanto minorem te putas partem tenere, tanto in maiore gloria atque sufferentia corporis inueniaris. Proficiat tibi spiritaliter praenuntiatio Salomonis dicentis: „Felix uir, inquid, qui post aurum non abiit, qui potuit transgredi et non est transgressus et facere male et non fecit. Quis est hie, ai, et conlaudabimus eum." Quanta tibi permanet laus, si in praecepto tali profeceris!

"Let each one seek his own life in sanctification and honor, not in the passion of concupiscence, like the nations who do not know God." Who then learned to accept God through sanctification, and keep his promise, which said: "If a man is not born again of water and by the holy spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven." who therefore desire to reach the kingdom of heaven, do not expel that spirit of your renewal by living lasciviously. For he is the step of ascension into heaven, [for] he is the gate, the very entrance of life, from which in your redemption from the contamination of the world you are bound spiritually by the three testimonies. The less part you think you hold, the greater the glory and suffering of the body you will find. May the prophecy of Solomon, saying: "Happy is the man, indeed, who has not gone after gold, who could have transgressed and has not transgressed and done evil and has not done it." Who is here, say, and we will praise him.

So above we might think it was an allusion to 1 John 5:7 or 8. But there is no authoritative appeal to any scriptural passage. We could also defer to Matt 28:19. We could also infer a consensus that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were three witness or three testimonies without allusion to 1 John 5:7, but by an interpretation of 1 John 5:8 cf. Cyprian.

What can be concluded is that if 1 John 5:7 existed, the author felt no need to quote it directly. I find this strange, given his propensity for quoting scripture about so many things. As you can see from the index, the list of scriptural references is extensive.

What you have to ask yourself is why so many referring to three witness or three testimonies up to Priscillian, and yet no-one is quoting the Comma directly.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Awwww … I am simply pointing out the obvious truth. Dozens of your posts notice the common Christian terms about sacraments or symbols or the mystery of the Trinity, or in some later Latin uses, a mystical or allegorical sense applied to the three (earthly) witnesses. Nothing surprising at all.
And then you lose all sense about the dozens of powerful ECW quotes and references and allusions to the heavenly witnesses verse.

Then when I ask you for your theory about the supposed creation of the verse ….. silence, nothing.
And I showed carefully how Grantley’s theory of verse creation is fatally flawed.

You are not here for an actual discussion, an exchange and comparison of ideas. Instead, you look for diversions.

Cyprian engaged in eisegesis = mystical interpretation just as Eucherius, Facundus, and Fulgentius (nam et + De Oratione Dominica 34's "symbol of the Trinity") said he and others did. Earlier writers engaged in eisegesis = mystical interpretations, i.e. Clement of Alexandria, and contemporary writers engaged in eisegesis = mystical interpretations, i.e. Origen of Alexandria, Dionysius of Alexandria.

Nothing unusual.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

What you have to ask yourself is why so many referring to three witness or three testimonies up to Priscillian, and yet no-one is quoting the Comma directly.

Don't forget that exposition of the "three witnesses" from the OT in Conti's work the other day, which was applied directly to the Trinity.

That needs to be explored more.

 

[cjab]

Don't forget that exposition of the "three witnesses" from the OT in Conti's work the other day, which was applied directly to the Trinity.

[Conti] needs to be explored more.

Good point. What we learn from Conti is that the Priscillianists were obsessed with the idea of Deut 19:15 being applied to the "Word of God." Yet Christ is himself the Word of God: this leads to confusion as to the very nature of their argument: it seems that the earthly witnesses require further validation by heavenly witnesses.

So it is likely that the Priscillianists invented the "earthly" and the "heavenly" witnesses, which witnesses became multiplied gratuitously and in confusion according to their gnosis. They didn't see that the "earthly" witnesses of 1 John 5:8 in fact denote the witness of heaven, so they sought to multiply the "three witnesses" to create a six fold witness (or dual set of three witnesses): the "three witnesses in heaven" being superfluous to the true argument of John, but in the Priscillianist gnosis, offer necessary validation of the earthly witnesses (or witness).

For me, the grounds of attack include, (a) as to Tractate I, and the "words of John", such appears to entail invention or fabrication - such "words of John" never being heard of before - and the further doctrine "... are one in Jesus Christ" appears to have been condemned at the Council of Toledo, upon which the fabrication is seen to drop the ".. are one in Jesus Christ" in later versions of the Comma - showing it to have been fabricated all along, (b) as to Tractate III & De Trinitate Fidei Catholicae, such teachings respecting the Word of God requring a three-fold heavenly witness for validity are never articulated in the OT (does the validity of the Word of God in the OT ever depend on "three witnesses in heaven"?); but even if Deut 19:15 is extended by the Comma-less John into grounds for the condemnation of sinners on the day of judgement, it can only apply to the "earthly" witnesses (i.e. to the exclusion of witnesses in heaven which aren't valid in a court of law).
____________________________

Tractate I:
- "[and] as John says: 'There are three who testify on earth, the water, the
flesh, and the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three who testify
in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Jesus Christ.'"

Tractate III:
- "'but the evidence of the entire word depends on two or three witnesses'"

De Trinitate Fidei Catholicae:
- "In fact, every word [i.e. including God's 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
throu?h the addition of the Holy Spirit, and we may understand that every
word 1s 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'."


- "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,'58 there are n¿, 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, beca use it is written: 'One and the same Spirit does all
things.'"

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Good point. What we learn from Conti is that the Priscillianists were obsessed with the idea of Deut 19:15 being applied to the "Word of God." Yet Christ is himself the Word of God: this leads to confusion as to the very nature of their argument: it seems that the earthly witnesses require further validation by heavenly witnesses.

Tractate II
Sections 68-74
Section 105-109

Pricillian's Book to Bishop Damasus
(Priscilliani Líber ad Damasum Episcopum)

Collated editions: Priscilliani quae supersunt, ed. G. Schepss, CSEL 18 (Vienna, 1889), 34-43.

[68-73] "We preserve the way of the symbol and condemn with our catholic mouth all the heresies, doctrines, institutions, and dogmas which produced reciprocal arguments, but not cleverness or devotion, 'while we baptize', as is written, 'in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit'; [Matthew 28:19] in fact, it does not say 'in the names' as in many, but in one, because one venerable God with his threefold power 'is all and Christ is in all' [Colossians 3:11] [...] [105-109] Indeed Christ God, Son of God, is the whole faith, the whole life,
and the whole worship for us, who were baptized according to the faith of the symbol and were elected to priesthood
in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."​

Although on the surface there is an attempt here to make themselves appear as if they were orthodox Trinitarian's, this is nothing more than Christo-centric One-ness. To them, Christ is all of God, (cf. Tract. 1.369 "the universal God Christ") and the center of their worship, not a genuine co-equal sharing and distributing of the worship and devotion to all three persons (to which they appear to pay lip service only).

This has a bearing on the "and these three are one in Christ Jesus" addition.

 

[cjab]

Tractate II
Sections 68-74
Section 105-109

Pricillian's Book to Bishop Damasus
(Priscilliani Líber ad Damasum Episcopum)

Collated editions: Priscilliani quae supersunt, ed. G. Schepss, CSEL 18 (Vienna, 1889), 34-43.

[68-73] "We preserve the way of the symbol and condemn with our catholic mouth all the heresies, doctrines, institutions, and dogmas which produced reciprocal arguments, but not cleverness or devotion, 'while we baptize', as is written, 'in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit'; [Matthew 28:19] in fact, it does not say 'in the names' as in many, but in one, because one venerable God with his threefold power 'is all and Christ is in all' [Colossians 3:11] [...] [105-109] Indeed Christ God, Son of God, is the whole faith, the whole life,
and the whole worship for us, who were baptized according to the faith of the symbol and were elected to priesthood
in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."​

Although on the surface there is an attempt here to make themselves appear as if they were orthodox Trinitarian's, this is nothing more than Christo-centric One-ness. To them, Christ is all of God, (cf. Tract. 1.369 "the universal God Christ") and the center of their worship, not a genuine co-equal sharing and distributing of the worship and devotion to all three persons (to which they appear to pay lip service only).

This has a bearing on the "and these three are one in Christ Jesus" addition.

Good points. The problem lies is in your undefined use of the term "orthodox Trinitarian." That so many of these "orthodox Trinitarians" find the heavenly witnesses verse extremely palatable to their theology suggests that Priscillian may even have succeeded in converting much of the RC church to his or rather Tertullian's original "tres unum sunt" doctrine. And even the human Christ is definitely "God" in orthodox Trinitarianism (similarly to Priscilllian). The "orthodox Trinity" of "tres unum sunt" is expressed in Sabellian terminology. It is only by positing different "hypostases" that full Sabellianism is avoided, but how these hypostases are to be differentiated in practice is none too clear given Heb 1:3 (The son is the imprint of the hypostasis of God).

Personally I think the reason the orthodox Trinitarians like to label Priscillian as a Sabellian is because they need to find a way to differentiate themselves from Priscillian, which isn't that easy in practice.

 

[Steven Avery]

So it is likely that the Priscillianists invented the "earthly" and the "heavenly" witnesses, which witnesses became multiplied gratuitously and in confusion according to their gnosis. They didn't see that the "earthly" witnesses of 1 John 5:8 in fact denote the witness of heaven, so they sought to multiply the "three witnesses" to create a six fold witness (or dual set of three witnesses): the "three witnesses in heaven" being superfluous to the true argument of John, but in the Priscillianist gnosis, offer necessary validation of the earthly witnesses (or witness).

For me, the grounds of attack include, (a) as to Tractate I, and the "words of John", such appears to entail invention or fabrication - such "words of John" never being heard of before - and the further doctrine "... are one in Jesus Christ" appears to have been condemned at the Council of Toledo, upon which the fabrication is seen to drop the ".. are one in Jesus Christ" in later versions of the Comma - showing it to have been fabricated all along,

This has some similarity to the totally discredited Karl Kunstle theory of Priscillian creating the verse. Grantley Robert McDonald discusses this theory properly.

The last sentence is logically absurd. The variant had some staying power for centuries. You are confusing two distinct issues, the heavenly witnesses verse in general and the short variant phrase "one in Christ Jesus". The fact that the variant was not scripture does not affect our understanding of the verse history in gneral. Note: sometimes the phrase was attached to the earthly witnesses.

 

[Steven Avery]

Personally I think the reason the orthodox Trinitarians like to label Priscillian as a Sabellian is because they need to find a way to differentiate themselves from Priscillian, which isn't that easy in practice.

The modern writers on Priscillian, like Tarmo Toom, do seem to agree that he has been labeled unfairly. Or, at the very least, that he was presenting himself as orthodox.

And his execution was not on "Sabellian" or"oneness" issues, it involved the magic/sorcery issues, the intimations of unholy practices, stuff like that, and itself may be largely false accusations. It is an interesting history where the scholarly writers sometimes bring their own agenda as well.

It is interesting to compare his execution with that of Michael Servetus. In both, the goal was to shift the burden over to a secular court. In both, modern day writers often ignore the basics. e.g. How many mention that the rejection of infant baptism was a major accusation against Servetus?

However, one place they definitely differ is tone, with Servetus railing against the Trinity with a comparison to Cerberus, the three-headed dog. Yet when William Lane Craig uses that analogy, it is not really noticed.

 

[cjab]

The modern writers on Priscillian, like Tarmo Toom, do seem to agree that he has been labeled unfairly. Or, at the very least, that he was presenting himself as orthodox.

And his execution was not on "Sabellian" or"oneness" issues, it involved the magic/sorcery issues, the intimations of unholy practices, stuff like that, and itself may be largely false accusations. It is an interesting history where the scholarly writers sometimes bring their own agenda as well.

It is interesting to compare his execution with that of Michael Servetus. In both, the goal was to shift the burden over to a secular court. In both, modern day writers often ignore the basics. e.g. How many mention that the rejection of infant baptism was a major accusation against Servetus?

However, one place they definitely differ is tone, with Servetus railing against the Trinity with a comparison to Cerberus, the three-headed dog. Yet when William Lane Craig uses that analogy, it is not really noticed.

I'm not familiar with Craig. From the internet, here is the Trinitarian model as conceived by Craig:

God is an immaterial substance or soul endowed with three sets of cognitive faculties each of which is sufficient for personhood, so that God has three centers of self-consciousness, intentionality, and will. … the persons are [each] divine… since the model describes a God who is tri-personal. The persons are the minds of God. (101)

… just as [the mythological three-headed dog] Cerberus is a single dog with three consciousnesses, so God is a single spiritual substance or soul with three self-consciousnesses. (104)

The mere representation of God as akin to a malformed foetus with three heads and one body is enough in itself to fill anyone with horror, but it is a plausible analogy of the Trinitarian constructs of the schoolmen of the middle ages, which is what specifically concerned Servetus: I don't think he was directing his venom against the triad in the baptismal formula. The schoolmen sought to re-create an egalitarian Trinity in philosophy, but they could only achieve a man-made synthesis that veered between polytheism or sabellianism, depending on how it was formulated or perceived.

I find the key to understanding the biblical God lies in the central concept of hierarchy, without which nothing can be adequately rationalized. This is discerned from Ps 110:1, "The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit in the place of honor at my right hand until I humble your enemies, making them a footstool under your feet." There is nothing remotely egalitarian, polytheistic, or sabellian in these words. God is the Father, and defined as the Father. There is no room for "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit" for by definition, God can only be the Father. Yet the Son is synonymous with the exercise of the power of God, whilst the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God, so that both are equally deified along with the Father.

I see Priscillian as a forerunner of the schoolmen of the middle ages, engaging in pretentious philosophizing about God, which was also dishonest in attributing things to scripture that scripture never taught. In some respects, he inverts the Trinity, substituting "Christ God" for the Father. This is dangerous, because every ba'alist cult that ever arose in history did the same in substituting new god(s) in place of an old and replaced "father god."

Priscillian shows little appreciation of the true Hebew concept of God predicated on YHWH. IMO he is heretical. It's just that the extent of his heresy is difficult to fathom because he mimics biblical language and concepts (such as Deut 19:15, 1 John 5:8, John 10:30, Matt 28:19) ad nauseam, as indeed Tertullian does. Such mimicry is the key to the plausibility of novel heretical teachings. However Priscillian went further, even corrupting scripture at a period where very few Latins knew Greek, and where authentic copies of scripture in Latin were difficult to come by.

Priscillian could also be labelled as a polytheist, because he refers to the "threefold power of God," and the "three heavenly witnesses" which are both polytheistic, because the power of God is stated as located in and emanating from the Father (Ps 110:1 as replicated in many places in the NT). Heaven is the kingdom of "God the Father." Heaven's witness is God's witness. In summary, he falls into the same traps as the schoolmen of the middle ages in philosophizing the Trinity using non-biblical concepts (such as the Word of God requiring validation by Three Witnesses), doubtless because he wanted to promote himself in the eyes of men and the church.

 

[cjab]

This has some similarity to the totally discredited Karl Kunstle theory of Priscillian creating the verse. Grantley Robert McDonald discusses this theory properly.

You'll have to elaborate on why it is "totally discredited." I'm not a mind reader. However I'll concede that the idea of the Father Son and Holy Spirit bearing a three-fold witness on earth, as in 1 John 5:8, was becoming confounded with bearing a separate witness in or from heaven, as seen in De Cent., whose theology is Priscillian in character. The heavenly witness verse seems to have been given impetus by, and emerged from, this conflation by "Trinitarian orthodoxy" of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as bearing separate hypostases, per the Council of Alexandria in AD 362.

After all, if their heavenly hypostases are now separate and distinct, then so must be their "heavenly witness/testimonies." So in a major sense, the "heavenly witnesses" are a logical corollary to the formulation of orthodoxy by the Council of Alexandria.

 

[Steven Avery]

You'll have to elaborate on why it is "totally discredited."

Start here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/speculum-liber-de-divinis-scripturis.10899/#post-836040

And I have a page that adds some of the urls for Denk, Julicher, Babut and Kunstle.

 

[cjab]

Start here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/speculum-liber-de-divinis-scripturis.10899/#post-836040

And I have a page that adds some of the urls for Denk, Julicher, Babut and Kunstle.

Interesting that you should rely on Brooke, who is 100% persuaded of the Comma's inauthenticity.

He hardly disagrees with Künstle. He concludes at p.163 of his Commentary on the Johannine epistles:

"At present we cannot say more than that the insertion was certainly known in Africa in the fifth century. The connection between the Spanish and African texts still requires investigation. Though its acceptance as part of the text of the Epistle cannot be proved for any locality except Spain in the fourth century, it does not necessarily follow that it is of Spanish origin. In view of the clear evidence that Priscillian in 380 knew, or made the words part of his text, it is difficult to maintain an African origin for the gloss, which did лог form part of the text of Augustine, who died A.D. 430. On this point Jülicher's interesting review of Künstle's work (Gottingen: Anzeigen, 1905, pP. 930-935) perhaps hardly does justice to the strength of Künstle's position, though it rightly calls attention to some inaccuracies in his quotations and defects in his methods of presenting the evidence. Ziegler’s theory of the African origin of the gloss is now faced by great, if not insuperable, difficulties. But the subject needs further investigation by competent Latin scholars. There is no trace of the presence of the gloss in any Oriental version or in Greek writers, except under the influence of the Vulgate."

As for the arguments against Künstle, they are not that strong. М. Babut in his Priscillien et le Priscillianisme (Bibliotheque de l'École des hautes études, Sciences historiques et philologiques, 169, Paris, 1909), Appendix, iv. 3, p. 267

".... points out the great difficulties which met Künstle's suggestion that the insertion of the comma into the text of the Epistle is due to Priscillian himself: (1) His opponents never accuse him of having falsified the text of a Canonical Book. (2) To quote his own interpolation in his Apology would have been an inconceivable act of audacity. (3) Such a falsification could hardly have been accepted by all Catholic theologians, and, as Kiinstle has shown, the reading was universally accepted in the ninth century. (4) The verse is found in several orthodox works of the fifth century. Its acceptance must therefore have been almost immediate by Priscillian’s enemies."

But they aren't that great.

(1) Although Priscillian himself wasn't personally accused of subverting the biblical text, see the decrees of the Council of Toledo which inferrentially suggests that the Priscillianists were using corrupted texts. The Priscillianists themselves were also later accused by Leo I of exactly that. What would have prevented such allegations was that Spain was a long way from Rome, and the (anti-Arian) three heavenly witnesses was likely "orthodox" theology in the day. In favour of Priscillian perverting the biblical text was that there seems to be no record of Priscillian's exact variant anywhere else. It is further possible Priscillian used a corrupt variant already originated in Spain, such that he could have been guilty of complacency in knowingly using and promulgating corrupt texts.
(2) Priscillian was likely unaware that it was wrong to use corrupt texts, or else he was careless. He had a pretty ambivalent attitude to what was canonical.
(3) The evidence is clearly that the Comma wasn't accepted by all Catholic theologians, including Leo I.
(4) Priscillian didn't have many "enemies" as such (his real enemies were quite few). Moreover such as were his real enemies, i.e. his immediate opponents & accusers, were severely punished after his death. In fact Priscillian was seen as something of a martyr and the Priscillianists rehabilitated during the days of the Arian controversy. Also the definition of who was "orthodox" in those days was quite hazy. The Priscillianists were most likely deemed well within the "orthodox" church, rather than outside it (like the Arians). Jerome initially had an ambivalent attitude towards the Priscillianists and only much later excoriated them, especially their women.

As Booke Foss Wescott suggests in "The Episles of St. John" it wasn't unnatural during the stress of the Arian persecutions that the Comma found its way into the text from the margin.

 

[Steven Avery]

Interesting that you should rely on Brooke, who is 100% persuaded of the Comma's inauthenticity.

Obviously, those for authenticity will not accept Priscillian creation of the heavenly witnesses verse.

 

[Steven Avery]

Obviously, those for authenticity will not accept Priscillian creation of the heavenly witnesses verse.

We tend to laugh at the conflicting and changing theories of the rogue’s gallery of who formulated or fabricated the verse.

Vigilius Tapsensis

Victor of Vita (Carthage)

Jerome

Augustine

Priscillian

Ps.-Athanadius (into Geek)

Arians

Orthodox conta Arians

Christians who published Dionysius the Areopagite

Greek Scholium

Cyprian

Tertullian and the Montanists

Origen

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Where does any Trinitarian (contra "One-ness") writer specifically say, in the first six centuries, they are/were "hiding" or "erasing" the "heavenly witnesses" from/because/out of fear of the Sabellian's (One-ness believers) misusing it?

There are multiple examples of the Trinitarians using it specifically against the Sabellian's (One-ness believers) in your so-called "super evidences", but where do they unmistakably say they are/were, or that anyone should consciously conceal the Comma Johanneum from the One-ness believers? Or hide manuscripts from them for that specific reason?

The CE-Prologue doesn't say anything about Sabellian's.

So where is it?

Where did the theory come from?

Who first proposed it?

Is it concretely - an indisputable ancient theory? Or a modern one (fairyland connect the dots type theory) from the last four centuries?