Speculum: Liber de divinis scripturis

Second Council of Braga (circa. 572 A.D./C.E.)

Canons of the Second Council of Braga

Migne's Patrolgia Latina (PL 84:582)

Canon LV.

"Quid in altari offerri oporteat? Non oportet aliquid aliud in sanctuario offerri præter panem et vinum et aquam, quæ in typo Christi benedicuntur, quia dum in cruce penderet de corpore eius sanguis effluxit et aqua. Hæc tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu,
hæc hostia et oblatio Dei in odorem suavitatis."

"What must be offered on the altar? Nothing else must be offered in the sanctuary besides bread and wine and water, these are to be blessed as being in the type of Christ, because while he was hanging on the cross blood and water flowed from out of his body. These three are one in Christ Jesus, these are the sacrifices and the offering of God in the fragrance of sweetness."​

  1. Bread
  2. Wine
  3. Water

These three are one in Christ Jesus!

What an interesting method of typology!
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
What an interesting method of typology!​
Click to expand...
Evidently taking after the famed Priscillian in their emendation of scripture.

as John says: "There are three who testify on earth, the water, the
flesh (= bread), and the blood (= wine), 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."

Also not clear where "Nothing else must be offered in the sanctuary" comes from. I don't read anything concerning wordly sanctuaries in the NT: only a true tabernacle in heaven (Heb 8:2) of which Christ is the minister.
 
cjab said:
as John says: "There are three who testify on earth, the water, the
flesh (= bread), and the blood (= wine), 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."
Click to expand...

Do you think Priscillian changed a text that had:

as John says:
"There are three who testify on earth, the water, the flesh (= bread), and the blood (= wine) and these three are one in Jesus Christ."
 
Here's something interesting I found.

Response #4:​
​
[...]​
​
As to Priscillian, he was a fourth century bishop from Spain executed for heresy. Some of his tractates were rediscovered in the 19th century. I looked up the passage in Latin which Metzger says is possibly the first instance of the comma being attributed to the text of 1st John. However, here is what I found in Priscillian:​
​
Sicut Ioannes ait: tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra, aqua, caro et sanguis, et haec tria in unum sunt, et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Iesu Christo.​
Liber Apologeticus 4​
​
It is like John says, there are three things which bear witness on earth, the water, the flesh and the blood, and these three things are to one [purpose], and there are three things which bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word and the Spirit, and these three are one in Jesus Christ.​
​
But here is what the KJV reads:​
​
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.​
​
[as compared to NIV]: For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.​
​
As you can see from my translation, the KJV based on the TR does not have the same text as Priscillian. For one thing, Priscillian places the earthly witnesses first and the heavenly witnesses second (as a kind of explanation; see below). Secondly, he has water, flesh and blood as the three earthly witnesses, not the Spirit, water, and blood. Finally, his summation of the heavenly witnesses is that they are one "in Jesus Christ" – completely absent from the KJV/TR.​
​
In my opinion, Priscillian's prose has all the marks of a homiletic paraphrase, and a very natural one too: three witnesses, heavenly and earthly; earthly all directly related to Christ, heavenly all having the same message in Christ. This in not really what John says (nor does Priscillian really mean it to be); this is merely "similar" to what John says (that is the meaning as I translate sicut above: "It is like John says" is clearly different from "This is what John says"). In other words, even Priscillian's "set up" signals a paraphrase/homily/explanation (that is the function of the word sicut, "like", in the Latin here).​
​
It is possible that Priscillian is the originator of the homiletic idea (i.e., 3 balanced by 3 with both sets focused on Christ), and that over time this very nice and memorable application was "tweaked" by others to come up with the "standard" phraseology that ended up in late Latin texts of the Vulgate and from there made it into the TR. However, by carefully reading Priscillian's words in Latin or in English, it is very easy to tell that he most definitely was not reading this exact "comma" in his Greek (or more likely Latin) Bible. Had that been the case, the form of the comma we have now would not be so fundamentally different from his words then but would preserve the same order and the same elements since they would be reading from a common text. Indeed, the significant discrepancies guarantee that Priscillian is in fact not a witness to an alternative version (i.e., the comma), but rather a witness to (or possibly the originator of) a well-known homiletic paraphrase of this part of 1st John. The difference between his words and the TR comma show that this is not really even an interpretation (since it varies so significantly from what John actually does say), let alone a witness to the "original text". Rather it is a "sermon" loosely based upon the text. So much for sermons.​
​
In Jesus,​
​
Bob L.​
​
​
​
​
Interesting!​
​
This person says Latin sicut can be translated "like". Perhaps "as if". Which puts the entire passage in a whole different light.​
​

Sicut Ioannes ait​
​
"It's like John is saying" or "It is like John is saying"​
​
"It's as if John is saying" or "It is as if John is saying"​

​
Note: Some emphasis has been added by me above, to Bob's text.​
 
Last edited:
Sicut Ioannes ait: tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra, aqua, caro et sanguis, et haec tria in unum sunt,
et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Iesu Christo.

Notice the Latin "in" (the Latin equivalent of the Greek preposition εἰς "into") is preserved in both final clauses.

Aside from Priscillian's sicut "like" or "as if" qualification.
 
The polysemic fallacious approach to sicut in Priscillian is par for the contra course, note Robert Dean Lugenbill having the wrong verse numbers when discussing Cyprian up on the page.

Simply put, Cyprian was reading what we read today in a critical version of the Greek New Testament (or in the Latin Vulgate – his text is only differs very slightly from the Vulgate's 1st John 1:8b – not 1:7). Therefore Cyprian can in no way be adduced as a witness to the comma; in fact, since it apparently suited his purpose for 1st John 1:8b to refer to the Trinity .....
https://ichthys.com/mail-Greek-Text-Criticism.htm
Click to expand...

Interesting, though, I actually had not looked at that for five years.
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Here's something interesting I found.

{Bob] Response #4:​
​
[...]​
​
As to Priscillian, he was a fourth century bishop from Spain executed for heresy.​
Click to expand...
His selection for ordination was certainly unorthodox.

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
{Bob] In my opinion, Priscillian's prose has all the marks of a homiletic paraphrase, and a very natural one too: three witnesses, heavenly and earthly; earthly all directly related to Christ, heavenly all having the same message in Christ. This in not really what John says (nor does Priscillian really mean it to be); this is merely "similar" to what John says (that is the meaning as I translate sicut above: "It is like John says" is clearly different from "This is what John says"). In other words, even Priscillian's "set up" signals a paraphrase/homily/explanation (that is the function of the word sicut, "like", in the Latin here).​
Click to expand...
I read in Wiktionary the following entry "sicut (not comparable)".

Consider the well know phrase: "si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi"

Sicut seems to carry the connotation "identical to" or "exactly as."

So I don't think "similar," as in "comparable", is correct. I believe this is a typical Priscillianist distortion of scripture captured in the making. However that aqua, caro et sanguis comes are first in his text is significant. This is the rendition of 1 John 5:8 (albeit still misquoted), which is extended according to the Trinitarian doctrine of the day, i.e. the three heavenly witnesses, as found in De Cent., Cyprian and Tertullian, but in such as way as to make it appear as though John himself was saying it.

Note also the Synod of Braga, A.D. 563,
"2. If anyone introduces any names of the Godhead, besides those of the Holy Trinity, maintaining that in the Godhead there is a trinity of the Trinity, as the Gnostics and Priscillianists teach, let him be anathema."

This shows the Priscilliantists were obsessed with Trinities, amongst other things. It further suggests that many pseudo-gnostic early writings on the Trinity can be presumptively attributed either to Priscilliantists or to their empathizers.
 
cjab said:
His selection for ordination was certainly unorthodox.


I read in Wiktionary the following entry "sicut (not comparable)".

Consider the well know phrase: "si fueris Romae, Romano vivito more; si fueris alibi, vivito sicut ibi"

Sicut seems to carry the connotation "identical to" or "exactly as."

So I don't think "similar," as in "comparable", is correct. I believe this is a typical Priscillianist distortion of scripture captured in the making. However that aqua, caro et sanguis comes are first in his text is significant. This is the rendition of 1 John 5:8 (albeit still misquoted), which is extended according to the Trinitarian doctrine of the day, i.e. the three heavenly witnesses, as found in De Cent., Cyprian and Tertullian, but in such as way as to make it appear as though John himself was saying it.

Note also the Synod of Braga, A.D. 563,
"2. If anyone introduces any names of the Godhead, besides those of the Holy Trinity, maintaining that in the Godhead there is a trinity of the Trinity, as the Gnostics and Priscillianists teach, let him be anathema."

This shows the Priscilliantists were obsessed with Trinities, amongst other things. It further suggests that many pseudo-gnostic early writings on the Trinity can be presumptively attributed either to Priscilliantists or to their empathizers.
Click to expand...

Like most Latin words, sicut has multiple semantic domains. "Just as" is one of them, and "like" and "as if" are two others.

https://latin-dictionary.net/definition/34998/sicut

Your welcome to disagree. It's not a problem.
 
Steven Avery said:
Do you think Priscillian changed a text that had:

as John says:
"There are three who testify on earth, the water, the flesh (= bread), and the blood (= wine) and these three are one in Jesus Christ."
Click to expand...
I have no evidence that any such text existed before Priscillian. Until proven otherwise, Priscillian was either acting under a delusion or just making it up about what John said. As with De Cent. John was the favorite apostle for the gnostics to appeal to as to what was orthodox. As there were no bibles in those days, it was presumably difficult to know whom to credit as trustworthy. We don't have enough evidence to refute those who say that the Priscillianists corrupted canonical texts.
 
cjab said:
We don't have enough evidence to refute those who say that the Priscillianists corrupted canonical texts.
Click to expand...
Putting aside the Apocrypha issue.

No specific corruptions are claimed.

No history of such accusations during the 4th century troubles, when there was an incentive to pile on bogus accusations.

So there is nothing to refute from the time of Priscillian.

Later, it looks like “Priscillianist” became a wide-ranging moniker for “heresies I don’t like”. Look at ALL 15 or so Braga anathemas. E.g. vegetables with meat. Try to find them in Liber Apologeticus, or the opposition of Contra Varimadum.
 
Steven Avery said:
Putting aside the Apocrypha issue.

No specific corruptions are claimed.

No history of such accusations during the 4th century troubles, when there was an incentive to pile on bogus accusations.

So there is nothing to refute from the time of Priscillian.

Later, it looks like “Priscillianist” became a wide-ranging moniker for “heresies I don’t like”. Look at ALL 15 or so Braga anathemas. E.g. vegetables with meat. Try to find them in Liber Apologeticus.
Click to expand...
I agree the lack of specifics is a troubling point: it makes the councils that condemned him look slipshod. But there is enough information in the allegation of the second Council of Braga that the Priscillianists were obsessed with speculations as to Trinities to suggest that they were heavily involved in peddling corrupt forms of Trinitarianism. That is one association that will not die, however much you seek to discredit it.
 
cjab said:
I have no evidence that any such text existed before Priscillian. Until proven otherwise, Priscillian was either acting under a delusion or just making it up about what John said. As with De Cent. John was the favorite apostle for the gnostics to appeal to as to what was orthodox. As there were no bibles in those days, it was presumably difficult to know whom to credit as trustworthy. We don't have enough evidence to refute those who say that the Priscillianists corrupted canonical texts.
Click to expand...

Here's an interesting connection.

Was Potamius a follower of Priscillian?


Sulpicius Severus (circa. 363-425 A.D./C.E.)

Sulpici Severi Chronica

Liber Secundus

Chapter 51

51 (1) Ceterum Ithacius videns, quam invidiosum sibi apud episcopos foret, si accusator etiam postremis rerum capitalium iudiciis adstitisset - etenim iterari iudicium necesse erat - subtrahit se cognitioni, frustra callidus iam scelere perfecto. (2) ac tum per Maximum accusator apponitur Patricius quidam, fisci patronus. ita eo insistente Priscillianus capitis damnatus est, unaque cum eo Felicissimus et Armenius, qui nuper a catholicis, cum essent clerici, Priscillianum secuti desciverant. (3) Latronianus quoque et Euchrotia gladio perempti. Instantius, quem superius ab episcopis damnatum diximus, in Sylinancim insulam, quae ultra Britannias sita est, deportatus. (4) itum deinde in reliquos sequentibus iudiciis, damnatique Asarivus et Aurelius diaconus gladio, Tiberianus ademptis bonis in Sylinancim insulam datus. Tertullus, Potamius et Iohannes, tamquam viliores personae et digni misericordia, quia ante quaestionem se ac socios prodidissent, temporario exsilio intra Gallias relegati. (5) hoc fere modo homines luce indignissimi pessimo exemplo necati aut exsiliis multati; quod initio iure iudiciorum et egregio publico defensum postea Ithacius iurgiis sollicitatus, ad postremum convictus, in eos retorquebat, quorum id mandato et consiliis effecerat; solus tamen omnium episcopatu detrusus. (6) nam Ydacius, licet minus nocens, sponte se episcopatu abdicaverat; sapienter id et verecunde, nisi postea amissum locum repetere temptasset. (7) ceterum Priscilliano occiso, non solum non repressa est haeresis, quae illo auctore proruperat, sed confirmata latius propagata est. namque sectatores eius, qui eum prius ut sanctum honoraverant, postea ut martyrem colere coeperunt. (8) peremptorum corpora ad Hispanias relata magnisque obsequiis celebrata eorum funera; quin et iurare per Priscillianum summa religio putabatur. at inter nostros perpetuum discordiarum bellum exarserat, quod iam per quindecim annos foedis dissensionibus agitatum nullo modo sopiri poterat. (9) et nunc, cum maxime discordiis episcoporum omnia turbari ac misceri cernerentur cunctaque per eos odio aut gratia, metu, inconstantia, invidia, factione, libidine, avaritia, arrogantia, somno, desidia depravata, (10) postremo plures adversum paucos bene consulentes insanis consiliis et pertinacibus studiis certabant; inter haec plebs Dei et optimus unus quisque probro atque ludibrio habebatur.

https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/sulpiciusseveruschron2.html

Sulpicius Severus (circa. 363-425 A.D./C.E.)

“Sacred History” (Or: “Chronicon”)

Translated by Alexander Roberts, 1894

Chapter 51.

“But Ithacius, seeing how much ill-will it would excite against him among the bishops, if he should stand forth as accuser also at the last trial on a capital charge (for it was requisite that the trial should be repeated), withdrew from the prosecution. His cunning, however, in thus acting was in vain, as the mischief was already accomplished. Well, a certain Patricius, an advocate connected with the treasury, was then appointed accuser by Maximus. Accordingly, under him as prosecutor, Priscillian was condemned to death, and along with him, Felicissimus and Armenius, who, when they were clerics, had lately adopted the cause of Priscillian, and revolted from the Catholics. Latronianus, too, and Euchrotia were beheaded. Instantius, who, as we have said above, had been condemned by the bishops, was transported to the island of Sylina which lies beyond Britain. A process was then instituted against the others in trials which followed, and Asarivus, and Aurelius the deacon, were condemned to be beheaded, while Tiberianus was deprived of his goods, and banished to the island of Sylina. Tertullus, Potamius, and Joannes, as being persons of less consideration, and worthy of some merciful treatment, inasmuch as before the trial they had made a confession, both as to themselves and their confederates, were sentenced to a temporary banishment into Gaul. In this sort of way, men who were most unworthy of the light of day, were, in order that they might serve as a terrible example to others, either put to death or punished with exile. That conduct which he had at first defended by his right of appeal to the tribunals, and by regard to the public good, Ithacius, harassed with invectives, and at last overcome, threw the blame of upon those, by whose direction and counsels he had effected his object. Yet he was the only one of all of them who was thrust out of the episcopate. For Ydacius, although less guilty, had voluntarily resigned his bishopric: that was wisely and respectfully done, had he not afterward spoiled the credit of such a step by endeavoring to recover the position which had been lost. Well, after the death of Priscillian, not only was the heresy not suppressed, which, under him, as its author, had burst forth, but acquiring strength, it became more widely spread. For his followers who had previously honored him as a saint, subsequently began to reverence him as a martyr. The bodies of those who had been put to death were conveyed to Spain, and their funerals were celebrated with great pomp. Nay, it came to be thought the highest exercise of religion to swear by Priscillian. But between them and our friends, a perpetual war of quarreling has been kept up. And that conflict, after being sustained for fifteen years with horrible dissension, could not by any means be set at rest. And now all things were seen to be disturbed and confused by the discord, especially of the bishops, while everything was corrupted by them through their hatred, partiality, fear, faithlessness, envy, factiousness, lust, avarice, pride, sleepiness, and inactivity. In a word, a large number were striving with insane plans and obstinate inclinations against a few giving wise counsel: while, in the meantime, the people of God,
and all the excellent of the earth were exposed to mockery and insult.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/35052.htm
​
The only extant manuscript of this work is below. You can veiw the passage itself which mentions Potamius.

Pal. Lat. 825 (circa. 11th century C.E.)

Folio 28v = Chapter 51

Use the bottom scroll bar to move side ways to get to Folio 28v (last chapter at the end of the codex)

You can see a marginal note from a much later hand: II, 51 (Book 2, Chapter 51)

The big black dot in the margin, is the same line where “Potamius” is mentioned.

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/bav_pal_lat_825​
 
Steven Avery said:
Later, it looks like “Priscillianist” became a wide-ranging moniker for “heresies I don’t like”. Look at ALL 15 or so Braga anathemas. E.g. vegetables with meat. Try to find them in Liber Apologeticus, or the opposition of Contra Varimadum.
Click to expand...

Priscillian of Avila: Heretic or Early Reformer? (2006)
Brian H. Wagner
https://faithconnector.s3.amazonaws.com/chafer/files/v12n2_6priscillian_of_avila.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/6357202/Priscillian_of_Avila_Heretic_or_Early_Reformer

Brian H. Wagner
https://www.sfbc.edu/brian-wagner-ph-d/

Brian Wagner had made the same point as I make above, how handy-dandy was the Priscillianist accusation.

Of course, like the label "Manichaeism” which was falsely attached to Priscillianists, the label “Priscillian” was falsely attached to any in that region who were meeting apart from the Catholics. p. 95
Click to expand...

Then there is the material in The Pilgrim Church (1931) by:

Edmund Hamer Broadbent (1861-1945)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Hamer_Broadbent
 
Steven Avery said:
This does help confirm that Potamius was writing of the heavenly witnesses verse.
Thanks!
Click to expand...

Your not ignorant of the context and fact that Potamius was giving "the underlying figurative meaning" of 1 John 5:8 (Clause-D, KJV-numbering) and applied and quoted Deuteronomy 19.5 "three witnesses" to 1 John 5:8 (Clause-D, KJV-numbering).

You need to informyour readers about the context of Potamius saying:



Potmaius of Lisbon (circa. 300?-360 A.D./C.E.)

“Letter concerning the Substance of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Chapter 2:1-15

“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”?”​
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Priscillian of Avila: Heretic or Early Reformer? (2006)
Brian H. Wagner
https://faithconnector.s3.amazonaws.com/chafer/files/v12n2_6priscillian_of_avila.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/6357202/Priscillian_of_Avila_Heretic_or_Early_Reformer
Click to expand...

Brian Wagner gives a very interesting take in his conclusion:

It is evident that Priscillian was at first united with catholic orthodoxy and desired to remain connected with such, as seen in his appeals to Damasus of Rome and Ambrose of Milan. One can only conjecture what may have been the outcome for evangelicalism in fifth-century Spain, if the more favorable Emperor Gratian had not died, if Martin of Tours' petitions had been successful in staying Priscillian's execution, or if Ithacius and Ydacius and the Council at Sargossa had united with Priscillian and the bishops supporting him. Spain may have perhaps become an evangelical nation, an independent witness of biblical Christianity, separate from the sacramental gospel of Rome.

And yet. perhaps it became just that, for two hundred years at least. Though the founder of the movement had been martyred and the other main leaders either executed or exiled, Priscillianism, and the independent evangelicalism that it may have represented, spread throughout Spain. The council of Toledo issued its last anathema specifically against the Priscillianists in 447. It read, “Si quis in his erroribus, Priscilliani sectam sequitur vel profitetur, ut aliud in salutare baptismi contra sedem sancti Petri faciat. Anathema sit.”35 This is roughly translated as follows: “Whoever follows the path in these errors of Priscillian. or professes to, in order that he may make another baptism for salvation, contrary to the seat of Saint Peter, let him be Anathema.” This not only shows how threatened Roman Catholicism in Spain felt by the still young Priscillianist movement, but it also shows that the Priscillianists were most likely baptizing converts from Catholicism. Such baptisms may point to the Priscillianists as spiritual forefathers of modem Baptists, Brethren, Pentecostals and other nonsacramental congregations within Christendom.

34 Severus History, chap. 51.

35 Stephen McKenna, Paganism and Pagan Survivals in Spain up to the Fall of the Visigothic Kingdom (The Library of Iberian Resources Online), http://libro.uca.edumckennapagan3.htm. Stephen McKenna paraphrases this as a condemnation of “those who follow the teaching of Priscillian and who seek for salvation ‘in opposition to the chair of St. Peter.’” However, he leaves out any
mention of baptism which is clearly pointed to in this curse. - p. 97-98
Click to expand...
 
Steven Avery said:
This does help confirm that Potamius was writing of the heavenly witnesses verse.
Thanks!
Click to expand...

He wrote a clause, from a verse!

1 John 5:8 Clause-D "et tres unum sunt".

NOTE: I have removed my accusation, and apologize for not reading his post properly before replying, and I have deleted the offending content.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top