heavenly witnesses discussions on the Ehrman Blog and forum - Cyprian and Jerome and more

[Steven Avery]

Ehrman on the Heavenly Witnesses (he contradicts himself as to its pseudo-Trinitarian nature).

How the Trinity Got Into the New Testament: Part 2
https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trinity-got-into-the-new-testament-part-2/

EXTRACT (find contradictory one)

It is a mysterious passage, but unequivocal in its support of the tradition teachings of the church on the “triune God who is one.” Without this verse, the doctrine of the Trinity must be inferred from a range of passages combined together to show that Christ is God, as is the Spirit and the Father, and that there is, nonetheless, only one God. This passage, however, states the doctrine directly and succinctly.

 

[Steven Avery]

Erasmus Promise with Grantley

BDEhrman January 10, 2021 at 5:09 pm - Reply
My view is that this is not a reference to the Trinity per so. The doctrine of the Trinity is not simply the names of the three beings, but an understanding of how they relate to one another: they are three literally distinct persons of the Godhead, all of the same substance, and the three are one Matthew gives no hint that this is what he has in mind… Later writers for example referred to the Father, the son, the holy spirit, and the angels — but that doesn’t mean they thought they were all equal or one; so the mention of the three in Matthew is striking, but not necessarily an indication that he held to the idea of a trinity per se.

Grantley May 22, 2021 at 9:02 am - Reply
I hate to be a party-pooper, but there is really no evidence that Erasmus ever made such a promise. It makes no difference if Bruce Metzger expressed himself in a deliberately ambiguous way. The story is wrong, and it’s time to give it up.
Erasmus’ English opponent Edward Lee accused Erasmus of lazy editing, but Erasmus replied that if Lee could produce a Greek manuscript containing the Johannine comma, *and* if he could prove that Erasmus had seen this manuscript and ignored this detail, then Lee would have reason to accuse him of indolence. This is not the same as challenging Lee to produce a manuscript containing the comma. Erasmus clearly believed that no such manuscript existed.
This story got changed a bit in the telling. It is first expressed in its full form by the Dutch clergyman David Martin (1722), and the dramatic story of the “rash wager” gradually gained ground.

Grantley May 22, 2021 at 9:03 am - Reply
As one of the previous comments noted, I showed in my book Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016) that the manuscript from which Erasmus took the comma (GA miniscule 61, aka Codex Montfortianus) was owned at one stage by the English Franciscan minister provincial, Francis Frowyk, who visited Erasmus at Leuven in August 1517. In a letter to Cuthbert Tunstall, Erasmus describes Frowyk’s visit to and all the Greek books that the friar brought with him from Italy, but the letter does not mention Montfortianus. Indeed, if Erasmus had seen Montfortianus at Leuven in 1517, he probably would have included the comma in the second edition of his NT (1519).
The manuscript was subsequently acquired by the young English Hellenist and physician John Clement, protégé of Thomas More and Thomas Linacre, who stayed in Leuven perfecting his Greek with Juan Luis Vives for some months in 1520, before setting out for Italy. Erasmus mentions Clement several times in his correspondence at this time, and clearly met with him often. It was likely Clement who brought Montfortianus to Erasmus’ attention while he was preparing the third edition of the NT.

BDEhrman May 22, 2021 at 3:43 pm - Reply
Thanks. That’s very helpful. I’m always a bit reluctant to say what an editor *would* have done, but I have no problem thinking you’re probably right.

Grantley May 23, 2021 at 12:03 am - Reply
Dear Prof. Ehrman,
Thanks for your response! I appreciate it, especially your comments about determining editors’ motives.
There is more to say about Montfortianus which bears on the story of the “wager”.
The scribe of Montfortianus copied variants from the first edition of Erasmus’s NT into the margins of the Apocalypse, but it is not clear whether the body text was copied before or after 1516. We cannot say with certainty that Montfortianus was copied by an enemy to trick Erasmus, or by a friend to provide him with a manuscript that would free him from those critics who demanded the restoration of the Johannine comma. I suspect that if Montfortianus had been confected to support Edward Lee’s criticisms of Erasmus, it would contain more readings that supported Lee’s arguments.
As it is, the text of the Catholic Epistles closely reflects that of its archetype, GA 326, which has been in the library of Lincoln College, Oxford, since 1483. The watermarks of the paper of Montfortianus show that it was copied some time around 1500. We are probably not far wrong in concluding that it was copied at Oxford some time between 1500 and 1520.

Grantley May 23, 2021 at 12:09 am - Reply
Much as I would like to believe that Montfortianus was created deliberately to trump Erasmus, the codicological and historical evidence just doesn’t sustain this conclusion. Rather, I suspect that the scribe (Frowyk?) simply wanted to create a Greek text (for his own use?) that reflected familiar readings in the Vulgate, including the Johannine comma, and adapted the text of GA 326 accordingly. Montfortianus contains further evidence of the scribe’s attempts to translate Latin into Greek (including non-biblical material), so it was not beyond him to translate the comma from Latin into Greek and insert it into his text.
The story of the “rash wager” may seem inconsequential, but conservative apologists have seized on the presence of this story in the writings critical scholars, including Profs. Metzger and Ehrman, to “prove” to their internet followers that serious scholars are pushing untruths about the bible. We shouldn’t give them any evidence for such harmful claims, which damage the credibility of the field, at least amongst some readers.

BDEhrman May 23, 2021 at 9:05 pm - Reply
Wow. Really? I had no idea. And especially no idea that conservative apologists would take on Bruce Metzger! Really?? For many years he was a patron saint of their community.

 

[Steven Avery]

Erasmus quote on emending Jerome text
And my post on Erasmus Promise


stevenavery June 8, 2021 at 9:03 pm - Reply

Hi Ehrman blog,
Robertus above, quoting Erasmus:
“My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense.”
Fantastic quote.
Checking, it is from Epistle 273, and is quoted on the net some.
However, a distinction should be made clear. Erasmus was emending Jerome’s text, to improve the Latin.
His fourth edition of 1527 had the two Latin texts. Bold. And it would be interesting to see 10+ major variants where his Latin differed from the Vulgate in that edition. Has that scholarship been done?
That does not mean that Erasmus put any effort into a tabula rasa Greek to Latin translation. (I think that is the gist of your post.) Erasmus still started with the Vulgate text and made the improvements. At least, that is how it all sounds to me! A fresh translation would be radically different.
Here is an interesting section where Erasmus talked to Martin Dorp about the Latin text:
The Oxford Reformers: John Colet, Erasmus, and Thomas More (1869)
Frederic Seebohm
https://books.google.com/books?id=yvsPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA317
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA

stevenavery June 9, 2021 at 2:01 am - Reply

Grantley McDonald
“This story got changed a bit in the telling. It is first expressed in its full form by the Dutch clergyman David Martin (1722), and the dramatic story of the “rash wager” gradually gained ground.”

“presented the first fully developed narration of the myth” –
Biblical Criticism in Early Modern England p. 236

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

David Martin was not the full form, no promise.
The Genuineness of the Text (1722)
https://books.google.com/books?id=qbIHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA84

“Thus when Ley and Stunica had wrote against him upon his leaving it out of his two Greek Editions, he gives no other answer, but that he follow’d his Manuscripts closely, and that if they would shew him one which had the passage, he would streight put out another Edition, in which it should be inserted.”

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

The full form was by the hard-drinking skeptic, Richard Porson:

Letters to Mr. Archdeacon Travis (1790)
https://books.google.com/books?id=SUg7AAAAcAAJ&pg=PR1

“1516 and 1519 Erasmus published his first and second editions … having promised Lee to insert them in his text, if they were found in a single Greek MS. he was soon informed of the existence of such a MS. in England, and consequently inserted 1 John V. 7. in his third edition, 1522.”

And thus Horne, Tregelles, Scrivener and others used “promise”.

 

[Steven Avery]

Ehrman - I’d have to see the quotations.

matthew July 10, 2021 at 10:57 pm - Reply

Dr. Ehrman, could you possibly have a look at this video and respond to Pastor Steve? He does mention you in the video (“Ehrman has fallen off the train”) at 1:14. From what I gather, the “comma” cannot be found in any Greek manuscript prior to the 14th century. Is there any merit to his argument? I’m new to the blog, and very excited to be a part of the community!

BDEhrman July 11, 2021 at 6:28 am - Reply
I”m not able to watch the video, but I”d be happy to respond to any of his arguments if you want to summarize it.

matthew July 11, 2021 at 5:26 pm - Reply
Regarding 1 John 5:7, Pastor Steve goes on to refer the viewers to a quote from John Gill: “It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle.”
I just wonder if you might know whether or not there is any validity to these claims. Thanks for your time.
-matt

BDEhrman July 12, 2021 at 11:12 am - Reply

I’d have to see the quotations. It is almost certainly not cited by these church fqthers as a part of the epistle of John. You need to look closely at what they actually say. Does Athanasius attribute the line to 1 John? WHere?

 

[Steven Avery]

Athanasius, Cyprian and Jerome

https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trinity-got-into-the-new-testament-part-2/

stevenavery July 13, 2021 at 10:19 pm - Reply

matthew – good questions.

Steve Waldron runs over a lot of info, I will only cover your question about John Gill and Athanasius

Die pseud-athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium is one of the Greek evidences for the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses. Annette von Stockhausen shared:

“My idea was that it’s a writing probably meant and composed as an introductory text of an early collection of works of Athanasius (ep.Aeg.Lib. and Ar I-III) that was maybe compiled in Alexandria. It’s more 5th century than 4th century (but I have no “real” indications for that, I must admit) and I tentatively proposed the young Cyrill of Alexandria as author (also: no hard evidence, but the feeling that Cyrill and Alexandria could be fitting for the text).” .. correspondence
Here is the Greek text translated:

“But the absolving and quickening and sanctifying laver, without which no one shall see the kingdom of heaven—is it not given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name? And in addition to all these things, John says, ‘And the Three are One.”

The disputed text in St. John
Henry Thomas Armfield
https://books.google.com/books?id=5eQCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA56

The textual critics have handled this poorly.

Cyprian, Jerome and other evidences deserve a separate discussion.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/
Heavenly Witnesses
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?forums/heavenly-witnesses.3/

stevenavery July 17, 2021 at 1:19 am - Reply

There are two evidences that need special attention.

Cyprian – Unity of the Church 1.6, quoted John 10:30 and:

The Lord says, “I and the Father are one”
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
“And these three are one.”

The critics often try to pretend that Cyprian was involved in an invisible allegorization of the earthly witnesses. An absurd position, but common today. Scrivener at least said it was “surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read v. 7 in his copies”. Franz Pieper is excellent as well.

The second special reference is the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, Jerome writing to Eustochium. This Prologue discusses how the heavenly witnesses was dropped because the doctrine was discomfiting. The response has been to try to declare this writing a “forgery”, an attempt based on nothing substantive, except the supposed lateness of the Prologue. However, Codex Fuldensis, dated 546 AD, was published by Ranke c. 1850, and has the Prologue. Hmmm
Jerome was working with Greek and Latin mss. way back in the Ante-Nicene era.

Thanks!

BDEhrman July 18, 2021 at 1:20 pm - Reply
You will notice he doesn’t quote the entire verse. That is why his quotation is not evidence that he found “the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one” — he is referring to the original form of the text and INTERPRETING it as referring to the father, son and spirit, not READING the divine beings in the manuscript he’s quoting.

stevenavery July 18, 2021 at 6:40 pm - Reply

Hi Professor Ehrman,

This sounds like a very unusual explanation, because it involves invisible allegorizing. That is, Cyprian is making a hugggee mental leap, and transference, without telling his readers. They are left in the dark.

So, can you give other examples of invisible allegorizing ? Where the writer makes a flying leap jump of allegorizing without any explanation to his readers?

Or is that unique to Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses.
In which case it would be classic special pleading.

Franz Pieper understood this perfectly:
“Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. ‘The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’ That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one’, but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.”

Similarly Scrivener:
“surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read v. 7 in his copies”.

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

BDEhrman July 19, 2021 at 1:38 pm - Reply
Actually, that reading of 1 John 5:7 was very common. It led to the alteration being inserted into the text itself. THe only way to know if an author found the longer reading in a ms is if he quotes it as *part of the text” saying that he found it there. It is hugely important that they don’t do so in the early centuries, ever.

stevenavery July 18, 2021 at 8:39 pm - Reply

Hi Professor Ehrman,

This sounds like an unusual circular reasoning explanation, because it involves invisible allegorizing. That is, Cyprian is making a hugggee mental leap, and transference, without telling his readers. They are left in the dark.

So, can you give other examples of invisible allegorizing ?

Where the writer makes a flying leap jump of allegorizing without any explanation to his readers?
Or is that unusual explanation unique to Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses?

In which case it would be classic special pleading.
A one-time explanation of convenience.

The Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931) understood this perfectly:

“Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. ‘The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one.’ That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one’, but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.”
Similarly Scrivener “safer and more candid…”.

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

BDEhrman July 19, 2021 at 1:56 pm - Reply
I”m not sure what you mean by invisible allegorizing. THere was a common interpretation that the Spirit, the water, and the blood who “are one” was actually referring to the trinity. A scribe later inserted the interpretation in the passage to remove any ambiguity. THis is not an unusual view, it’s simply the consensus conclusion of textual scholarship One of the very important keys to this view is precisely that no one, including Cyprian, quotes the entire passage the way it came to be worded in the Latin, and then, eventually, in a later edition of Erasmus, and from there in the KJV. If they mention the FAther, the Word, and the Spirit it is as an interpretation of the passage, not as a quotation of it. Since the evidence is so strongly behind this consensus, any counter argument needs to produce an example of a church father who quotes the entire passage in the longer form known from the KJV. No one can do so because no such quotation exists. So sorry — but, well… (Have you read the full discussions of commentators such as Raymond Brown, e.g.? Otto Pieper and Scrivener simply don’t quote Cyprian quoting the full passage. Look and see!)

stevenavery July 19, 2021 at 9:40 pm - Reply

How about “unexplained, unconnected allegorizing, invisible to the reader.”

Any other examples? Or only Cyprian.

Prof Ehrman
There was a common interpretation that the Spirit, the water, and the blood who “are one” was actually referring to the trinity.

Bart, any specific evidence for this “common interpretation” beyond circularity and special pleading?

Yes, I have read Raymond Brown.
cautious, dancing, equivocal, humorous:
“good chance” “need not represent”

“There is a good chance that Cyprian’s second citation, like the first, is Johannine and comes from the OL text of I John 5:8, which says, “And these three are one,” in reference to the Spirit, the water, and the blood. His application of It to the divine trinitarian figures need not represent a knowledge of the Comma,28

28 Somewhat favorable to Cyprian’s knowledge of the Comma is that he knew other Latin additions to the Greek text of I John ….”

20th century – Friedrich Buchsel (1933), Franz Pieper (1950), Edward Freer Hills (1956), and Walter Thiele (1959) believed that Cyprian was quoting the heavenly witnesses from his Bible. Thiele is an Old Latin expert.

So, can you allow the easiest interpretation … reference to the heavenly witnesses?
Are you trapped by a tyranny of the perceived consensus?

BDEhrman July 20, 2021 at 1:39 pm - Reply
Nope, I”m just trapped by looking at the evidence. The verse in the short form is interpreted that way by authors like Cyprian, but they never acdtually quote the verse in that long form.
Look I really have NOTHING at stake in this. IT makes zero difference to me, my life, my beliefs, or much of anything. YOu will notice that the scholars you are citing were from the 19th century on up to the 1950s. There’s a reason scholars who have examined all the evidence since them almost never have this view, unless they are fundamentalist CHristians who believe in the infallibility of the KJV.

Jerome put on its own thread
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...tnesses-jeromes-prologue-to-bart-ehrman.2034/

BDEhrman July 22, 2021 at 4:23 am - Reply
I haven’t looked at the passage in Jerome or studied the manuscript tradition of his Prologue. What does Raymond Brown say about it?

stevenavery July 22, 2021 at 10:10 pm - Reply

The paragraph from Raymond Brown:

“To the period before 550 belongs a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, falsely attributed to Jerome, which is preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31). Although the Codex itself does not contain the Comma, the Prologue states that the Comma is genuine but has been omitted by unfaithful translators. The Prologue has been attributed to Vincent of Lerins (d. 450) and to Peregrinus (Künstle, Ayuso Marazuela), the fifth-century Spanish editor of the Vg. In any case, Jerome’s authority was such that this statement, spuriously attributed to him, helped to win acceptance for the Comma. . (Epistles of John, 1982 p. 782-783)”

The Peregrinus idea was countered by John Chapman in 1908, “dispose of this notion”. Grantley McDonald in Raising the Ghost of Arius says it was “refuted”. He says “Serious doubts attend the authenticity” yet he never gives any arguments against authenticity.

Jean Martianay (1647-1717) had tried to give reasons for the Prologue to be non-Jerome, his arguments were shredded by David Martin, the French Huguenot writer. Antoine Eugène Genoud (1792-1849) saw those attempts as “frivoles”.

There are no strong arguments against authenticity. Especially after the Fuldensis discovery which eliminated the argument of appearing in late mss.

In recent years there has been an attempt to say that Jerome only translated the Gospels (and maybe Acts) but this has great difficulties, especially since Jerome asserted translation of the full NT in multiple quotes.

And there is the circular argument … based on the modern textcrit “consensus” that there could not have been such manuscripts .. circular to the max!

 

[Steven Avery]

Potamius

A Heresy that May Not Sound Heretical to You: Arius of Alexandria
https://ehrmanblog.org/a-heresy-tha...al-to-you-arius-of-alexandria/#comment-120580

stevenavery June 4, 2021 at 7:00 pm - Reply
Hi Ehrman forum,
Potamius of Lisbon, in the mid-4th century, was involved in the Arian controversies.
Portamius repeatedly referenced the heavenly witnesses verse, writing of “the three are one”, from the writings of John, in the direct context of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (recently discovered for our analysis, although first published in 1908.)
1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
We have four extant uses from Potamius:
Epistula ad Athanasium 1x
Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti 3x
And there was correspondence with ** Athanasius ** and Potamius, in both directions.
These four references from Potamius should help eliminate any idea that the heavenly witnesses verse was not circulating in Bibles during the Arian controversies of the 4th century.
The four quotes and the Potamius background, is at:
Pure Bible Forum
Potamius of Lisbon
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/potamius-of-lisbon.1115/#post-7287
This can also help explain why the verse was dodgy for various doctrinal viewpoints, including the Orthodox as well as Arians. And the church writers might prefer to use the manuscripts with only the earthly witnesses. As written in the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles by Jerome.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

BDEhrman June 6, 2021 at 1:02 pm - Reply


Thanks for this. I haven’t looked at this at any length, but isn’t Potamius quoting 1 John 5:7 WITHOUT the Johannine comma? As you know, without the comma, the text says, “There three that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three are one.” In his quotations, he doesn’t quote the comma, does he? He only quotes the statement “these three are one”? That would suggest that he is *interpreting* 1 John 5:7 (without the comma) to apply to the Trinity; but it wouldn’t suggest that he found the comma itself (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one”) in the text of his Bible. I believe the first indication that the comma is actually part of the *text* of 1 John conesat the end of the fourth century in the writings of Priscillian, also based on an interpretation of the original text of the passage.

stevenavery June 6, 2021 at 3:33 pm - Reply
Hi Prof Ehrman
Thanks for responding. Good job!
Here is the problem with your interpretation. First, we know from Priscillian that the heavenly witnesses was in the Latin Bible of the day, even the locale is the Iberian Peninsula for both men. Both Potamius and Priscillian say specifically that they are quoting John, as do many references in De Trinitate, thought by some to be around the same time, pointing to Eusebius of Vercelli.
There are numerous other confirmations of the Latin lines having the verse from early days, such as Cyprian, and the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome and the hundreds of orthodox at the Council of Carthage.
So why do we start theorizing the very difficult idea of invisible allegorizing? In such an allegorizing, the reader really has no idea how somebody went from point A to point Z. Allegorizing is generally done with the allegory spelled out … “water means the Father, spirit means the Word/Son, blood means the Holy Spirit”. Explanatory allegorizing.
And I believe the theory of invisible allegorizing was invented to hand-wave the evidences that point to heavenly witnesses authenticity.
Your thoughts welcome, iron sharpeneth!
Steven Avery
Dutchess Couny, NY

BDEhrman June 8, 2021 at 11:20 am - Reply
No, Cyprian does not indicate that the verse was in his Bible Priscillian is living decades after Potamius and so cannot be used for what the text said in the earlier period. The Vulgate is also later as is the Council of Carthage. I don’t recall that the Council said anything about the Comma. And so we’re back where we were. Priscillian is our earliest witness. You can see full discussions in, e.g., Raymond Brown’s majesterial commentary on the Johnannine epistles, or in more compact from in Metzger’s Textual Commentary on the Greek NT.

stevenavery June 10, 2021 at 8:40 am - Reply
Hi Ehrman blog,
Raymond Brown – Epistles of John, Anchor Bible, 1982
“….Priscillian, who is the first clear witness to the Comma.”
Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman (Text of the NT – 4th ed, 2005, p. 147=148)
The oldest known citation of the Comma is in a fourth-century Latin treatise entitled Liber apologeticus (Chapter 4), attributed either to Priscillian or to his follower, Bishop Instantius of Spain.
Ian Howard Marshall, Epistles of John, 1978
“.. attested by a number of Latin writers, the earliest certain reference being in the Liber Apologeticus of the Spanish writer Priscillian (ob. c. 385) or his follower Instantius.”
Grantley Robert McDonald – Raising the Ghost of Arius
“… profession of faith—the Liber apologeticus (c. 380) of Priscillian, a Spanish bishop executed in 385 on charges of sorcery and heresy—that we first find the comma cited unambiguously.”
Three of these four do not mention Potamius, Grantley only en passant.
So there is no reason that Priscillian becomes the terminus post quem for the heavenly witnesses being in the Latin Bibles! Scholarship often needs updating.
The six references in De Trinitate also come into play, five often theorized around the time of Potamius. Also the Expositio Fidei Chatolice.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

BDEhrman June 10, 2021 at 8:36 pm - Reply
That’s because Potamius does not indicate he found the verse in manuscripts of his Bible, as I pointed out.. These authors are interested in seeing when it first appears.disabledupes{417c46b1462efe37aa12a89c087a0667}disabledupes

stevenavery June 14, 2021 at 8:30 pm - Reply
Potamius says that he was reading from John, which would be his Bible,e g.:
Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
3. With good reason John asserts: ‘and the three of them are one’
‘Substance’ is the expression of a single entity.
The context is clear, and remember, Prof Ehrman, you showed a lot of skepticism about invisible allegorizing theories.
========
Bart Ehrman
https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trinity-got-into-the-new-testament/
If you think spirit water and blood do not mean spirit water and blood, but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then I suppose you could see a trinity there. The water and blood show up elsewhere in 1 John (and John’s Gospel) and do not mean Father, Son, or Spirit, but … water and blood.
… I don’t know of any place where “water’” is a symbol for God. In the OT, for example, water is often the entity *opposed* to God, that God has to overcome for the salvation of his people. (Genesis 1 — he overcomes water by putting in the firmament; 6-9 water threatens the human race; exodus, the sea must be conquered for salvation , etc.)
========
Maybe we are in agreement that Potamius should receive the simple, clear reading.

BDEhrman June 15, 2021 at 5:25 pm - Reply

Yes, he is reading from 1 John. That’s what I”ve been saying. But he’s not quoting the Johannine comma. He’s quoting the passage that talks about the Spirit, the water, and the blood. “These three are one.” I feel a bit like we’re going around in circles here!

 

[Steven Avery]

There is much less activity on the forum than the blog on the heavenly witnesses

Here is one

https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-ma...-werent-in-the-original-new-testament/#p18998

 

[Steven Avery]

Later I will put this up on Facebook PureBible

The discussions with Bart Ehrman on the heavenly witnesses can be seen on the PBF:

heavenly witnesses discussions on the Ehrman Blog and forum - Cyprian and Jerome and more
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...g-and-forum-cyprian-and-jerome-and-more.2028/

Posts 5 and 6 are about Athanasius, Cyprian, Jerome and Potamius. There is a $4 a month charity pay thing, however you can go for simply one or two months if you want to look around fully.

 

[Steven Avery]

https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trinity-got-into-the-new-testament-part-2/

stevenavery September 24, 2021 at 7:08 pm - Reply


The textual writers seem to be stuck on the idea of Priscillian as the first full heavenly witnesses evidence. Since his quote is quirky, and he was executed for sorcery or magic, this allows a type of hand-waving dismissal.

Similarly, earlier references using the heavenly witnesses like Cyprian and Potamius (4 times, including one to Athanasius) are dismissed on the weak grounds that they did not spell out the full verse. This is a type of negative special pleading, since partial references are common in the textual apparatus.

The Ambrosian ms., with the Muratonian canon, has a work Confessio fidei Catholicae, where the author is likely Isaac the Jew, writing around 370, connected with the AD 366 election dispute between Damasus and Urbanus.

[Exposition of our Universal Faith]
As the Evangelist testifies, that it is written, “there are three, that are witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus.”
… sicut evangelista testatur, quia scriptum est:”Tres sunt, qui dicunt testimonium in caelo : pater, verbum et spiritus, et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.”
Expositio Fidei Catholicae (CCSL 9:347, Lines 1-26)

This identification was explained by Dom Germain Morin, and affirmed by Cuthbert Hamilton Turner and Theodor Zahn, and a superb Review by Andrew Eubank Burn.

Lewis Ayres of Durham affirms this authorship in:

Augustine and the Trinity, 2014
https://books.google.com/books?id=LpyG7YnkqokC&pg=PA99
p. 99-100.

While neither writing can be dated precisely, and both connect to Damasus, the quotation from Isaac the Jew is likely earlier than that of Priscillian.

 

[Steven Avery]

https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trinity-got-into-the-new-testament/

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Fascinating.
Let’s examine the basic theory here!
“doctrine of the Trinity … three distinct persons … all of whom are completely and equally God … existed forever … same essence/substance. ..actually one .. three persons.”

A lot of conjectural extrapolation is needed to make the heavenly witnesses fit the above. =====

In the first centuries the heavenly witnesses could easily be rejected as Sabellian, non-Trinitarian.
As pointed out by various scholars, including Edward Freer Hills (1912-1981).

Hills Revisited (2003) Jon Whitmer:
And since the Sabellian heresy was especially extensive among the Greek-speaking Church, this theory explains why the Johannine Comma might not have continued in the Greek NT, while being “preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great.” – Edward F. Hills, The King Janies Version Defended ” –

Full longer Edward Freer Hills section:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...uted-to-the-greek-ms-line-drop.671/#post-8218

=======

Note this from Eusebius of Caesarea:

τὸ δὲ αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ λόγου πατέρα, καὶ υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ λόγον, τῆς Σαβελλίου κακοδοξίας ἦν γνώρισμα, 3.4.1 ὡς αὖ πάλιν καὶ τὸ λέγειν τὰ τρία ἓν εἶναι, τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα· Σαβελλίου γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο.

“[To say] that the Father is the same as the Word inside him, and that his Son is the Word inside him is the mark of the heresy of Sabellius. So again also the saying that the Three are One, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for this is also of Sabellius.”

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 AD), De Ecclesiastica Theologia Book 3 Chapter III to Chapter IV
Migne Graeca, PG 24 [1001D to 1004A]

Frederick Nolan theorized his opposition to “three are one” in 1815.

 

[Steven Avery]

How the Trinity Got Into the New Testament: Part 2 | The Bart Ehrman Blog

I continue now with the story of how the doctrine of the Trinity as stated in 1 John 5:7 (the only passage in the entire Bible that states that there are three divine figures and “these three are one”) was actually not originally part of 1 John – or the…

ehrmanblog.org

Prof. Lewis O. Ayres of Durham agrees:

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

Dear Steven,
I think you are right. The dates there are all rather shaky, but it does look as if the fixation of Priscillian is unwarranted. Of course, this might only make a difference of 10-15 years in the citation of 1John 5.7, but it is a difference!
Best,
Lewis

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

So it is time to change the scholarship!


The heavenly witnesses are quoted in full before Priscillian.


There are additional quotes in that time period, of the full verse, however one is well known (Ithacius Clarus in Contra Varimadum)


And the other has authorship uncertain. De Trinitate Books 1-7 – ascribed to Eusebius Vercelli. However, the Eusebius as author citation is uncertain, and not accepted in a paper by Junghoo Kwan.


Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA

 

[Steven Avery]

Eusebius material placed instead in the forum after it vanished from moderation queue.

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

Ehrman Forum

heavenly witnesses (1 John 5:7) - rethinking the Trinitarian-Arian-Sabellian issues in the Ante-Nicene church
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-re...n-sabellian-issues-in-the-ante-nicene-church/

This relates to a blog post .

How the Trinity Got Into the New Testament
Bart Ehrman - Jan 7, 2021
https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trinity-got-into-the-new-testament/

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

Let’s examine the basic theory here!

“doctrine of the Trinity … three distinct persons … all of whom are completely and equally God … existed forever … same essence/substance. ..actually one .. three persons.”

A lot of conjectural extrapolation is needed to make the heavenly witnesses fit the above!

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

In the first centuries the heavenly witnesses could easily be rejected as Sabellian and non-Trinitarian. As pointed out by various scholars, including Edward Freer Hills (1912-1981). Also Thomas Smith, Frederick Nolan and Edward Burton were among those who emphasized these doctrinal issues.

Hills Revisited (2003) Jon Whitmer:
And since the Sabellian heresy was especially extensive among the Greek-speaking Church, this theory explains why the Johannine Comma might not have continued in the Greek NT, while being “preserved in the Latin texts of Africa and Spain, where the influence of Sabellianism was probably not so great.” – Edward F. Hills, The King Janies Version Defended ” –

The full, longer Edward Freer Hills section:
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/scholars-theorizing-that-the-sabellian-controversies-contributed-to-the-greek-ms-line-drop.671/#post-8218https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...uted-to-the-greek-ms-line-drop.671/#post-8218

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

Note this from Eusebius of Caesarea, the church historian from the 4th century.

τὸ δὲ αὐτὸν εἶναι τοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ λόγου πατέρα, καὶ υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τὸν ἐν αὐτῷ λόγον, τῆς Σαβελλίου κακοδοξίας ἦν γνώρισμα, 3.4.1 ὡς αὖ πάλιν καὶ τὸ λέγειν τὰ τρία ἓν εἶναι, τὸν πατέρα καὶ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα· Σαβελλίου γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο.

“[To say] that the Father is the same as the Word inside him, and that his Son is the Word inside him is the mark of the heresy of Sabellius. So again also the saying that the Three are One, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; for this is also of Sabellius.”

Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 AD), De Ecclesiastica Theologia Book 3 Chapter III to Chapter IV
Migne Graeca, PG 24 [1001D to 1004A]

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

This quote only came to English recently, and into discussions about the heavenly witnesses text.

It is sensible to understand that the heavenly witnesses text is authentic New Testament scripture. And it dropped out of most of the Greek line under the doctrinal pressures of the day, likely combined with homoeoteleuton to create the split line. And the theories that claim the heavenly witnesses as an "interpolation" have very great difficulties.

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

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA

THIS WAS NOT PUT IN THE OP

The general view of Eusebius as an opponent of Marcellus is given in:

Constantine and Eusebius (1981)
Timothy David Barnes
https://books.google.com/books?id=LGDjJK-JeSwC&pg=PA264

And building on Barnes and looking at Daniel, there is more on Eusebius and Marcellus here:

The Eastern Christian Exegetical Tradition of Daniel's Vision of the Ancient of Days (1999)
Gretchen McKay
https://www.academia.edu/4000537/Th...tion_of_Daniels_Vision_of_the_Ancient_of_Days

======

Frederick Nolan (1784-1864) discussed the Eusebius opposition to “the three are one” in 1815. Nolan theorized that both sides in the Sabellian controversies were discomfited by the text, and that discomfit contributed to its dropping from the Greek line. A good summary of Nolan's viewpoint is given here:

A reply to the “End of Religious Controversy (1821)
Richard Grier
https://books.google.com/books?id=HGBjAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA47

Nolan is here:

An Inquiry Into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or received text of the New Testament (1815)
Frederick Nolan
https://books.google.com/books?id=FF4UAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA528

======

Jerome also discussed how the heavenly witnesses text would be deliberately dropped, in the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.

 

[Steven Avery]

Bart Ehrman
"The question of Priscillian is interesting, but I don’t think it’s the key issue in deciding if the passage was original or not."
https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trinity-got-into-the-new-testament-part-2/

 

[Steven Avery]

Bart Ehrman
The question of Priscillian is interesting, but I don’t think it’s the key issue in deciding if the passage was original or not.

True.
How you understand evidences like the:

Cyprian usages (along with others Ante-Nicene, like Hundredfold Martyrs, Tertullian)

Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles of Jerome (see above)

Council of Carthage with over 400 bishops affirming the verse from throughout the Mediteranean region
the solecism in the short text as affirmed by leading Greek experts

Including Eugenius Bulgaris (1716-1806) and Georgios Babiniotis (world-class Greek linguist)
(along with other powerful grammatical and stylistic and internal evidences)

Also Potamius, Isaac the Jew and the first books of De Trinitate around AD 350 would be more significant.

However, it would be helpful if the Prisciallian scholarship would change to match the facts on the ground . Prisicillian does not give us the first extant full verse usage.

Another issue is that the verse is not really Trinitarian in any orthodox sense, and was likely discomfiting during the Sabellian controversies. That has been discussed, along with a very fascinating Eusebius quote to Marcellus about “the three are one”, on the Forum post here.

Ehrman Forum
heavenly witnesses (1 John 5:7) – rethinking the Trinitarian-Arian-Sabellian issues in the Ante-Nicene church
https://ehrmanblog.org/forum/the-re...n-sabellian-issues-in-the-ante-nicene-church/

Now I realize that it is very difficult to have anyone really raised in the textual criticism milieu to reexamine these evidences.

Another difficulty is that skeptics and atheists have a low view of the actual New Testament text, so John writing a grating solecism is of little significance to them. Although to a Bible believer that would be a definite sign of non-authenticity for the solecism text.

Please note that this solecism issue in the Johannine writings was actually discussed by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 4th century!

Fun to hash this out here!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

 

[Steven Avery]

stevenavery October 12, 2021 at 9:04 am - Reply
https://ehrmanblog.org/how-the-trin...d0d524959be5f69f174e8aa1c81078#comment-127388

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Hi,
Cyprian – Unity of the Church 1.6, quoted John 10:30 and:
The Lord says, “I and the Father are one”
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
“And these three are one.”
On Cyprian, and the theory that he was allegorizing the earthly witnesses, I would like to lay out a short quote from Henry Thomas Armfield (1836-1898):
The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield
https://archive.org/details/threewitnessesdi00armf/page/104/mode/2up
– p. 105-106
Confesses what ? we may well ask in our turn:—the truth (so we are to believe) of a certain
*** mystical interpretation which he has not given or alluded to, a verse which he has not quoted! ***
In a sense, this is the height of a special pleading absurdity, which has become popular, sans real examination. There simply is no such thing as invisible allegory. It does not exist.
Remember, if the Cyprian citation is acknowledged, all the theories of the heaven witnesses as an orthodox interpolation against the Arians goes right out the window. So there is resistance.
======
btw, there is also a wonderful Latin quote on this topic, from John Mill (1534-1707). And an analysis of the Cyprian quotation and allegorization style by Franz Anton Knittel (1721-1792).
======
In response to Cyprian, Bart Ehrman wrote above:
“There was a common interpretation that the Spirit, the water, and the blood who “are one” was actually referring to the trinity.”
There is no evidence of this in the Ante-Nicene era. None.
Unless you count the special pleading of Cyprian doing an invisible allegory.
Why it arose in the 400s is an interesting question, for another time.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA

Click to Edit – 35 seconds