Athanasius - Disputation with Arius - two Ps.-Athanasius

[Steven Avery]

Grantley never gives the full English text for context.

Grantley likes to call it "spurious", but that ignores the fact that it likely was early, e.g. fifth century, and may have been based on actual events.

Very easy to get confused since Ps.-Athanasius is used for 2 totally different writings, one Greek, one Latin.

Grantley has a claim that it is verse 8, which simply does not fit the text.
BCEME - p. 211
In favour of the authenticity of the comma, Mill could adduce the pseudo-Athanasian Disputation against Arius. But as Emlyn stated, it is unclear whether this passage refers to v. 7 or 8, and whether the pseudonymous author was from the eastern or western church.369
369 Emlyn 1715, 10, 22–23; cf. PG 28:50: ‘Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν Ἰωάννης φάσκει· Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.’ Further, see Stockhausen 2010.

Charles Forster has a defense of this as from Athanasius, 4th century.

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

BCEME p. 82
Hessels also noted that Erasmus had daringly excluded the prologue to the Catholic Epistles, the most important early witness to the authenticity of the passage, from his edition of Jerome’s works. Hessels listed a number of Latin writers who cited the passage, such as pseudo-Hyginus, the author of Against Varimadus, Fulgentius, and pseudo-Athanasius.

There are TWO pseudo-Athanasius

p. 153
Simon denied John Fell’s assertion (1682) that Cyprian quoted the comma in De unitate ecclesiae.130 If Augustine did not know the comma, it was reasonable to assume that his earlier compatriot was likewise unfamiliar with the text. Simon also suggested that the Trinitarian interpretation of the words ‘these three are one’ in the pseudonymous Disputation of Athanasius against Arius at the Council of Nicaea may have prompted scribes to insert the comma into the body text in some Greek manuscripts, which have since been lost.

p. 160
In particular, Newton identified the doctrine of the Trinity as a corruption of primitive Christianity that arose out of the dispute between Arius and Athanasius. (apparently this is not the work itself)

Stockhausen, Anette von. ‘Die pseud-athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit “arianischer” Theologie in Dialogform.’ In Von Arius zum Athanasianum. Studien zur Edition der ‘Athanasius Werke’. Ed. Anette von Stockhausen and Hanns Christof Brennecke. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010: 133–155.

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

Bibliography
Pseudo-Athanasius. Enarratio pseudo-Athanasiana in Symbolum. Ed. Giuseppe Bianchini. Verona: Berno, 1732.

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

p. 83
Lucas noted that it occurs in many Latin manuscripts, in the Complutensian edition, and is also defended by the prologue to the Catholic Epistles by ‘Jerome’ and the letter by ‘pope Hyginus’. (Lucas was evidently unaware that both documents are forgeries. The latter was a forgery based on pseudo-Athanasius’ Against Varimadus, which first appears in a collection of ninth-century attributed to the fictional ‘Isidorus Mercator’.) 50

50 Pseudo-Hyginus, De fide et reliquis causis, included in Isidori Mercatoris collectio decretalium, PL 130:109; Thiele 1956–1969, 365.

 

[Steven Avery]

ANY ENGLISH TEXT? -
Lots of diversion and confusion, where is this evidence discussed directly.

RGA
p. 24-25
There is also a little evidence that the verse was interpreted in this way by the Greek Fathers, such as in the spurious Disputation of Athanasius against Arius at the Council of Nicaea, in which the Trinitarian formulation used in the liturgy of baptism is associated with the phrase “and these three are one.”26

26 Ps.-Athanasius, Disputatio contra Arium 44.18, PG 28:500: “Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παρεκτικόν, καὶ ζωοποιόν, καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρόν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισμακαρίᾳ ὀνομασίᾳ δίδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς; Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν Ἰωάννης φάσκει· «Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.»”

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

This Ps.-Athanasius is De Trinitate

p.50
69 Ps.-Athanasius/ps.-Eusebius Vercellensis, De Trinitate I, CCSL 9:14 (cf. PL 62:243):
“[…] Ergo quamuis in superioribus exemplis scribturarum tacita sint nomina personarum, tamen unitum nomen diuinitatis per omnia est in his demonstratum sicut et in hoc argumento ueritatis, in quo nomina personarum euidenter sunt ostensa et unitum nomen naturale cluse est declaratum, dicente Iohanne euangelista in epistula sua: Tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in cælo, pater et uerbum et spiritus, et in Christo Iesu unum sunt, non tamen unus est, quia non est eorum una persona.”

Ps.-Athanasius/ps.-Eusebius Vercellensis, De Trinitate I, CCSL 9:19 (cf. PL 62:246):
“Iam audisti superius euangelistam Iohannem in epistula sua tam absolute testantem: Tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in cælo, pater et uerbum et spiritus, et in Christo Iesu unum sunt.”
Ps.-Athanasius, De Trinitate X, CCSL 9:145 (cf. PL 62:297):

“Vnde et Iohannes in epistula sua ait: Tres sunt qui testimonium dicunt in cælo, pater, uerbum et spiritus: et in Christo Iesu unum sunt; non tamen unus est, quia non est eorum una persona.”
This section from book X appears to be a simple borrowing from the first section cited from book I.

p. 56
It seems that the relevant passage in the decretal of ps.-Hyginus is based on one of two other pseudonymous writings: ps.-Athanasius’ Against Varimadus, or a letter claiming to have been addressed by Pope John II to bishop Valerius, but in fact cobbled together from materials taken from Against Varimadus.82

p. 191-192
Simon also suggested that the Trinitarian interpretation of the words “these three are one” in the spurious Disputation of Athanasius against Arius at the Council of Nicaea may have occasioned the insertion of the comma into the body text in some Greek manuscripts, an explanation he finds more plausible than Erasmus’ suggestion that Greek manuscripts had been corrected against Latin ones. (Simon apparently failed to realise that Erasmus was speaking merely of Montfortianus, not a widespread program of textual reform of the Greek text.)102

102 Simon, 1698a, 213-214:
“Cela me paroît bien plus probable que le sentiment d’Erasme, quia [214] crû que les Exemplaires Grecs où on lit le témoignage du Père, du Fils & du Saint Esprit, ont été reformés sur les Exemplaires Latins. S’il n’avait parlé que des Exemplaires Grecs qui ont été écrits par des Latins, & qui ont servy à leur usage, sa proposition aurait plus de vraisemblance. Mais il est contre toute apparence de verité, que les Grecs, depuis même leur reünion avec les Latins, ayent reformé leurs Exemplaires du Nouveau Testament sur ceux des Latins. Il paroît au contraire que ceux qu’ils ont décrits depuis ce temps-là ne contiennent point ce témoignage.”
The published English translation at this point is misleading.
See also de Jonge’s note in ASD IX.2:259, l. 542.

p. 10

A Critical History of the Text of the New Testament
https://books.google.com/books?id=nYzPAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA10

However, Erasmus was concerned about wide-spread Latinization.

Florentine Council, Vaticanus and Latinization - Erasmus, Brugensis and more -
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-latinization-erasmus-brugensis-and-more.269/

Erasmus says that the Vaticanus omission affected his heavenly witnesses decision - latinization
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...eavenly-witnesses-decision-latinization.1634/

 

[Steven Avery]

TWOGIG
Athanasius - c. AD 330 - Disputatio Contra Arium (circa 400 AD)

[Martin: Early Date] The Orthodox, represented in this Dialogue under the name of Athanasius, demands of the Arian, represented by the name Arius, whether by saying the Emperor Constatine reigns by Sea and Land, they did not thereby say that the Son Constantius did not reign there also. The Arian answers, it would be very dangerous to say that Constantius does not reign with Constantine his Father. It appears plainly from all this, that this Dialogue must have been composed whilst the Emperor [PAGE 138] Constantine was living, and at the time Constantius was sent into the East, where he made himself famous by the victories he gain'd over the enemies of the State, about the year 336 somewhat before the death of the great Constantine, which fell out on the 22nd of May, 337 which evidently proves that this Dialogue must have been written about the year of our Lord 336 and wrote withal in the East, where Constantius was that year.
(Martin, The genuineness of the text of the first Epistle of Saint John 5:7, 1722, p. 137-138)

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


[John Mill] For only then did the author of the Disputatio in Concilio Nicaeno Habita (“Debate Held at the Council of Nicaea”), under the name of Athanasius, cite this text [1 John 5:7]. But from where, you will ask, did this writer know what had remained hidden from the other Greeks for several centuries? From older Greek codices, uncorrupted and complete. For just as the scattering of the Christians of Asia seems to have brought it about that many codices with this comma missing were read in Greece and various other places, so, without any doubt, did some intact codices, brought to foreign countries during the same period, remain hidden in private people’ homes.
(John Mill, The New Testament, with the variant readings MSS. copies and version, edition, manuscripts and writings of the Church Fathers, 1710, p. 585; Translated by Sara Van der Pas, correspondence, August 2020)

 

[Steven Avery]

[Stockhausen: Dialogue Dated circa 350]
Another interesting text can be found in Chap. 22.94 Athanasius makes clear in his argument that the Son is also ”true God,” and that John 17:3, in this sense, is an example. Arius wanted to understand the verse in such a way that only God is “true God", but the Son is not, so that “and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent” (καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν) is no longer part of the intent of “that they might know thee, the only true God” (ἵνα γινώσκωσι σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν), that so the “and” (καί) is not an additive “even" “also” (καί). Athanasius then tells Arius that it is a συνδεσμός, so that the two parts of the sentence are to be considered together and in no way separate. And to clarify his argument, he now cites the following comparison:”When someone tells his neighbor about Constantine, he says: Know the only Augustus and autocrat of the earth and of the sea, the Emperor Constantine and his son Constantius! Does he confess then the son together with the father? Yes or no?"95 Whereupon Arius answers: ”There is no small danger in saying that Constantius does not rule with his father Constantine, by subsuming him under him."96 And then Athanasius counters:”With Constantine and Constantius you see the greatest danger, but with Jesus Christ and his father you are not afraid if you are so extreme. You have to apply such worship to the Lord, as well as to the said Constantine. You do not steal anything from his son Constantius, that is, that he is Augustus, and everything that was previously said about his father, that nowhere else do you recognize the unity of dignity than through him."97 Bernhard Voss 98 considered whether it could not be deduced from this that the dialogue arose very early and that there is thus real contemporary knowledge. [Voss, The dialogue in early Christian literature, 1970, p. 333, fn. 50] This [337 AD] seems unlikely to me, since here in principle a situation is made clear in which of the three Constantine (d. 327) sons only Konstantius is left, since only and especially he is led in the father-son comparison, so this comparison atmthe earliest after the year 350 can be formulated. It seems to me, therefore, rather scholarly knowledge, which is attached here by the author: That of the Constantine sons ultimately only the surviving Konstantius has played an important role in the history of the Church. Such scholarly knowledge of the author can also be observed in some other places: Thus, in Chap. 20 another comparison with the emperor led, in Ch. 25 f. a very detailed comparison of the house construction and also in chap. *** Finally, a comparison of the calendar calculation based on the lunar cycle.
(Stockhausen, Die pseud-athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium, 2010, p. 149-150)

Contemporary Work Referenced : Clementine Homilies (circa 300-320 AD)
The author knew the pseudo-clementines. What version he had in mind is not very sure. 31 (480 C) He refers to Klemens. (Voss, The dialogue in early Christian literature, 1970, p. 333, fn. 50)

 

[Steven Avery]

Disputatio In MSS of Athanasius Works

[Stockhausen: Disputatio part of Earliest MSS Corpus] The Disputatio contra Arium is in the context of the so-called x-collection... The x-collection is an independent, well-defined compilation of writings of Athanasius, whose special feature is that it contains a table of contents and excerpts from a letter from Photios to his brother Tarasios on the writings of Athanasius and that in addition to their composition (in contrast, especially to the y-collection, but also to the b-tradition) is handed down very homogeneous. It contains the following Athanasian and pseudo-Ashanasian scriptures: Oratio contra gentes (CPG 2090), Oratio de incarnatione verbi (CPG (2091), †Disputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250), Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae (CPG 2092), Orationes contra Arianos I–III (CPG 2093), †De incarnatione et contra Arianos (CPG 2806), Epistula encyclica (CPG 2124), Epistulae ad Serapionem I–II (CPG 2094), †Epistula catholica (CPG 2241), †Refutatio hypocriseos Meletii et Eusebii (CPG 2242), Epistula ad Epictetum (CPG 2095), †Contra Apolinarem II–I (CPG 2231), In illud: qui dixerit verbum in filium (CPG 2096), †De passione et cruce domini (CPG 2247), Epistula ad Marcellinum (CPG 2097), De virginitate (CPG 2248) und †Testimonia e scriptura (CPG 2240). As can be seen in this list, the disputatio contra arium is not at the very beginning of the collection. But as it comes to stand in accordance with the writings of Contra gentes and De incarnatione (which does not deal with the question of Arian), it functions as an introduction to the ”anti-Arianic” writings of Athanasius, which are summarized in this collection, in so far as the disputatio contra Arianos, that it reproduces a discussion between Athanasius and Arius at the Synod of Nicaea itself, which binds Athanasius' writings to be classified thematically and chronologically according to the Synod of Nicaea, and illuminates the background of the dispute.
(Stockhausen, Die pseud-athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium, 2010, p. 138-141)

Codex Patmiacus A 4 membr. s. X. [10th century]
contra gentes M 25,69,23 [Refutation of the Gentiles]
de incarnatione M 25,96D [On the incarnation of Christ]
disputatio cum Ario M 28.440.1 [Dialogue with Arius]
ep. ad. episc. Aeg. M 25.537.1 [Letter to the Bishop of Egypt and Libya]
contra gentes M 25.53.40 [Refutation of the Gentiles - continued]
I, II c. Arian. M 26.12 [Against the Arians, Book 1 and 2]
(Opitz, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius, vol 23, 1935, p. 9-10)

Codex Genuensis 5, membr. s. X/XI. [10th 11th century]
de incaratione M 25.197.10 [On the incarnation of Christ]
disputatio cum Ario M 28.440 [Dialogue with Arius]
epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Lybae; M 25.537 [Letter to the Bishop of Egypt and Libya]
(Opitz, Untersuchungen zur Überlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius, vol 23, 1935, p. 11-12)

 

[Steven Avery]

Epistula ad episcopum Persarum (350-550 AD)
[Forster] Now the following passage is his [Athanasius] definition of the doctrine of the Trinity, addressed to the heathen Persians: and drawn up, he tells them,”according to Scripture”(κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον).
(Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witness, 1867, p. 89)

HIT:
● [Letter to the Bishop of the Persians] Therefore, to us there is one God, from whom are all things; A perfect Trinity [Three persons], consubstantial, of equal power, of equal glory; The Father [who is the source] of all good things, from whom the Son has been begotten, from whom the Holy Spirit is proceeding according to scriptures [that which has been written]; One Godhead making himself known in three hypostasis.
(Athanasius, Letter to the Bishop of the Persians; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis.)

○ Greek: Εἷς γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῖν, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα· Τριὰς τελεία, ὁμοούσιος, ἰσοδύναμος, ἰσοκλεής· Πατὴρ ἡ πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν πηγὴ, ἐξ οὗ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐγεννήθη, ἐξ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον· Μία θεότης ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσι γνωριζομένη.
(Athanasius, Epistula ad episcopum Persarum; Migne Graeca, PG 28.1568B)

Comment:
[Forster] By his own words,”according to the Scripture” (κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον), St. Athanasius here tells us that he is copying Scripture. And the Scripture copied from, in his concluding words, is, self-evidently, 1 John v. 7, where alone the three-one doctrine is so stated.
(Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witness, 1867, p. 89)

 

[Steven Avery]

Issues Involved with Discourse, Author and Dating

Charles Forster - style is Athanasius - like he does with Synopsis of Sacred Scripture

Annette van Stockhousen

Pope - ΠΑΡΑ' Lit., “Papa”,
πάπας
https://forums.carm.org/threads/jer...ulgate-new-testament.10317/page-9#post-786046

Holy Spirit doctrine - consubstantial - thought there was a post on that question

Apparatus entry

 

[Steven Avery]

TWOGG's so-called translation simply rips off Porson's rough paraphrase.

========================================
English Texts Compared
========================================

The Classical Journal, Vol 36 (1828) - (originally 1790)
Richard Porson
http://books.google.com/books?id=uNOLTFNl2_IC&pg=PA199

“Why do the Seraphim, that Isaiah heard cry,. Holy, Holy, Holy, neither exceed this number, nor fall short of it ? Certainly because it is not lawful for any besides the Trinity to be thus honored. Why did Moses teach the people to bend their neck and their knees three times on the earth, but to denote the worship of the Trinity in oue Godhead? The divine Elijah raises the dead at the third breathing, to show that no man can be worthy of eternal life, who shall not first receive with reverential faith a coequal and substantial Trinity, which like tire consumes deadly sins. Neither could Paul otherwise have ascended to the third heaven, unless he had possessed in his heart the indelible and consubstantial faith of the Trinity Likewise is not the remission of sins procured by that quickening and sanctifying ablution, without which no man shall see the kingdom of heaven ? an ablution given to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name. And besides all these, John says. And the three are one." [or rather, “ are the one.”]

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

The Witness of God is Greater
[Athanasius responds] You have been deceived. At which time Isaiah saw the glory of the Lord, and the army of the holy forces, what did he say voicing loudly in the divine hymns? Not,”Holy, Holy, Holy?”Because neither they sing rising upwards this number, nor lowering downwards going down by lowering the praise? At all events it is not lawful (or, right) to give honour to something outside the Trinity, and also not to reduce a bit the hymn, because of the holy and blessed divinity of the Trinity, being self-contained in unity. Why did Moses teach the people to bend their neck and their knees three times on the earth, to worship? but to denote the worship of the Trinity in one Godhead? But even the divine Elijah raises the dead at the third breathing, to shew that no man can be worthy of eternal life, thus, if first only is received the coequal and consubstantial and life-giving Trinity, through reverential faith in the soul. which by the sentence of fire consumes all [kinds of] deadly sins [transgressions], which are killing the soul, and is making alive the eternal life that have obtained it. Neither could Paul otherwise have ascended to the third heaven, unless he had possessed in his heart the indelible and consubstantial faith of the Trinity. God willing to show through this, no one could be able of being driven into the kingdom of heaven, that didn’t happen by the faith that inhabited within Paul. Likewise isn’t it the remission of sins procured by that quickening and sanctifying ablution [baptism], without which no man shall see the kingdom of heaven, [a baptism] given to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name? And besides all these, John says:”And the three are the one”. (1 John 5:7)

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

In my English summary I have it as:

Athanasius Contra Arian - c. AD 330 - Disputatio Contra Arium (circa 400 AD)

[Athanasius responds]
Likewise isn’t it the remission of sins procured by that quickening and sanctifying ablution [baptism], without which no man shall see the kingdom of heaven, [a baptism] given to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name? And besides all these, John says: ”And the three are the one”.
(Richard Porson, Letters to Travis, 1790 p. 214 and 1828 p. 199)
(Disputation Contra Arium 44; Migne Graeca, PG 28.499-500)

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

KJVToday
http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/the-father-the-word-and-the-holy-ghost-in-1-john-57

Disputatio Contra Arium:

"Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παρεκτικὸν, καὶ ζωοποιὸν, καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρὸν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισμακαρίᾳ ὀνομασίᾳ δίδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς; Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν Ἰωάννης φάσκει· «Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.»"

"But also, is not that sin-remitting, life-giving and sanctifying washing [baptism], without which, no one shall see the kingdom of heaven, given to the faithful in the Thrice-Blessed Name? In addition to all these, John affirms, 'and these three are one.'" (Translation by KJV Today)

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

 

[Steven Avery]

CARM - TNC Quibbles
https://forums.carm.org/threads/ter...ontanus-and-prophecy.10569/page-5#post-808707

Disputatio Contra Arium

To counter the deliberate campaign of disinformation and counterfactual nonsense about the Comma by Mr Avery, it should be made clear that:

1. The earliest manuscripts for Disputation, Pseudographic Athanasius, date from the ninth or tenth centuries A.D. Which is extremely late in the game and therefore very unreliable.

2. This work, contrary to the title given in the manuscripts, is not even set at Nicea, but on the road wandering about, which then gets turned into a fictional dialogue that ends up with Arius being converted to the Athanasian faith, contrary to the facts of history.

 

[Steven Avery]

Athanasius works translated into Armenian 4th Century

• Mesrop Mashtots (362–440 AD), also known as Mesrob the Vartabed, was an early medieval Armenian linguist, composer, theologian, statesman and hymnologist. He is best known for inventing the Armenian alphabet c. 405 AD, which was a fundamental step in strengthening Armenian national identity.[2] He was also the creator of the Caucasian Albanian and Georgian alphabets, according to a number of scholars.[3][4][5][6][7] Mesrop Mashtots was born in a noble family ("from the house of an azat”according to Anania Shirakatsi) in the settlement of Hatsekats in Taron[8] (identified as the village of Hac'ik in the Mush plain),[9] and died in Vagharshapat. He was the son of a man named Vardan.[10] Koryun, his pupil and biographer, tells us that Mashtots (in his work he does not mention the name Mesrop) received a good education, and was versed in the Greek and Persian languages.[8] On account of his piety and learning Mesrop was appointed secretary to King Khosrov IV. His duty was to write in Greek and Persian characters the decrees and edicts of the sovereign. Leaving the court for the service of God, he took holy orders, and withdrew to a monastery with a few chosen companions. There, says Koryun, he practiced great austerities, enduring hunger and thirst, cold and poverty. He lived on vegetables, wore a hair shirt, slept upon the ground, and often spent whole nights in prayer and the study of the Holy Scriptures. This life he continued for a few years. Mesrop, as noted, had spent some time in a monastery preparing for a missionary life. With the support of Prince Shampith, he preached the Gospel in the district of Goghtn near the river Araxes, converting many heretics and pagans. However, he experienced great difficulty in instructing the people, for the Armenians had no alphabet of their own, instead using Greek, Persian, and Syriac scripts, none of which was well suited for representing the many complex sounds of their native tongue. Again, the Holy Scriptures and the liturgy, being written in Syriac, were, to a large extent, unintelligible to the faithful. Hence the constant need of translators and interpreters to explain the Word of God to the people. Mesrop, desirous to remedy this state of things, resolved to invent a national alphabet, in which undertaking Isaac and King Vramshapuh promised to assist him. It is hard to determine exactly what part Mesrop had in the fixing of the new alphabet. According to his Armenian biographers, he consulted Daniel, a bishop of Mesopotamia, and Rufinus, a monk of Samosata, on the matter. With their help and that of Isaac and the king, he was able to give a definite form to the alphabet, which he probably adapted from the Greek. Others, like Lenormant, think it derived from the Avestan. Mesrop's alphabet consisted of thirty-six letters; two more (long O and F) were added in the twelfth century. Anxious that others should profit by his discovery, and encouraged by the patriarch and the king, Mesrop founded numerous schools in different parts of the country, in which the youth were taught the new alphabet. But his activity was not confined to Eastern Armenia. Provided with letters from Isaac he went to Constantinople and obtained from the Emperor Theodosius the Younger permission to preach and teach in his Armenian possessions. Having returned to Eastern Armenia to report on his missions to the patriarch, his first thought was to provide religious literature for his countrymen. Having gathered around him numerous disciples, he sent some to Edessa, Constantinople, Athens, Antioch, Alexandria, and other centres of learning, to study the Greek language and bring back the masterpieces of Greek literature. The first monument of this Armenian literature is the version of the Holy Scriptures. Isaac, says Moses of Chorene, made a translation of the Bible from the Syriac text about 411. This work must have been considered imperfect, for soon afterwards John of Egheghiatz and Joseph of Baghin were sent to Edessa to translate the Scriptures. They journeyed as far as Constantinople, and brought back with them authentic copies of the Greek text. With the help of other copies obtained from Alexandria the Bible was translated again from the Greek according to the text of the Septuagint and Origen's Hexapla. This version, now in use in the Armenian Church, was completed about 434. The decrees of the first three councils — Nicæa, Constantinople, and Ephesus — and the national liturgy (so far written in Syriac) were also translated into Armenian, the latter being revised on the liturgy of St. Basil, though retaining characteristics of its own. Many works of the Greek Fathers also passed into Armenian. The loss of the Greek originals has given some of these versions a special importance. Saint Mashtots is buried at a chapel in Oshakan, a historical village 8 km (5.0 miles) southwest from the town of Ashtarak.
(Mesrop Mashtots. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesrop_Mashtots>)

• [Armenian Title of Work] Dialogue on the Council of Nicea against Arius, in the year 310 of the divine incarnation, in the days of the pious emperor Constantine and the blessed Pope Sylvester and of the episcopacy of Byzantium of Alexander.
(Casey, Armenian Manuscripts of St. Athanasius, 1931, p. 47)

p. 46-47 .. this can have its own PBF page!

• [Casey’s Summation of Armenian Manuscript Corpus] In spite of some uncertainties the evidence before us suggests the following history of the Armenian version of Athanasius.

* At various times between the fifth and eighth centuries works of a dogmatic and edifying character attributed to Athanasius were rendered into Armenian.
(Casey, Armenian Manuscripts of St. Athanasius, 1931, p. 58)

• [Armenian manuscript - 5th century colophon for Athanasius works including “Disputatio” reads] End of the Seventeen works of St. Athanasius translated by our first translators [Mesrop (362-440 AD) and his school] from Greek into the Armenian language.
(Casey, Armenian Manuscripts of St. Athanasius, 1931, p. 53)

• [Armenian manuscript - 8th century colophon reads] End of the five treatises of St. Athanasius which were translated of late by Stephen bishop of Siunik. He completed what was ordered by thee, O sublime, thrice blessed doctor of like name and favor with the great son of a barren woman. (fn. 21: The person here referred to as the instigator of Stephen's translation is undoubtedly John Odznetzi, Armenian Catholicos, A.D. 717-728. It is possible that the translations were made as part of the preparations for the synod of Managkert, A.D. 726)
(Casey, Armenian Manuscripts of St. Athanasius, 1931, p. 51-53)

Armenian Manuscripts of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (1931)
Robert Pierce Casey (1897-1959)

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507897

Robert Pierce Casey
https://www.amacad.org/person/robert-pierce-casey

Stepanos Orbelian (c. 1250-1260 – 1303)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepanos_Orbelian

Mesrop Mashtots (362 – February 17, 440 AD)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesrop_Mashtots

John Odnetzi (8th century)
https://books.google.com/books?id=uJUsAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA223

Synod of Managkert - p. 64

 

[Steven Avery]

Armenian Manuscripts of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (1931)
Robert P. Casey
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507897

 

[Steven Avery]

Disputatio Contra Arium (circa 350-400 AD)

• [Rigolio : Overview & Aspects]
24. Ps. Athanasius, Disputatio Contra Arium. Date of composition: late fourth cent. The Disputatio is an extensive dialogue arguing against Arian doctrine that, in the current edition, features Athanasius and.Arius as speakers. The text opens with a narrative section that, presented as if written by Athanasius in first person, sets the scene and explains the occasion of the dialogue (1-3). The rest of the [PAGE 116] text consists entirely of the exchanges between the two speakers, and unexpectedly ends with Arius' abjuration of his belief and conversion to Nicene doctrine (45-46). 275 The narrative introduction, scene setting and Arius' eventual conversion make the Disputatio significantly different from the other surviving Pseudo-Athanasius dialogues in that they do not feature a narrative voice or an elaborate scene setting. ... A remarkable feature of the Disputatio is that its author appears especially concerning with the format of the debate. Athanasius takes the lead in suggesting [PAGE 117] and implementing the format that the speakers have agreed on. ...In addition, according to the same scholar [Stockhausen], the author of the Disputatio may have been aware of Athanasius' Orations against the Arians, but the polite tone of the dialogue marks the distance from the aggressiveness of the Orations. 279 ... At the same time, Von Stockhausen suggests that significant features of the Disputation should be understood in the tradition of the Socratic dialogue. As the prologue makes clear, the dialogue is presented as taking place while the main character is walking together with a group of followers, a description that suggests a circle of philosophers having a conversation while walking; the reference to the weakness of Athanasius' body (ἀσθένεια) may likewise be a literary element. In the first part of the conversation at least, the questions asked by Athanasius are short and often expect a yes or no answer. Despite his initial designation as an "anthropomorphic beast” at the beginning of the dialogue (3-441B), Arius strikes one simply as a less expert theologian, and his behavior has been compared to that of a junior speaker in a Socratic dialogue.
(24. Ps. Athanasius, Disputatio Contra Arium; Rigolio,Alberto - Christians in Conversation, 2019, p. 115-117)
https://books.google.com/books?id=UuCGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT118

• [Andrist: 4th Century Genre Dialogue]
All these dialogues begin ex abrupto and do not present any literary context; all of them are found in the tradition of Athanasius, even though they are sometimes attributed to other authors, such as Maximus Confessor; and all of them [PAGE 46] can be dated in the last decade of the fourth or the first half of the fifth century. Moreover, there are reasons to envisage that these techniques of writing dialogues concentrating on arguments and ideas might ultimately be related to the School of Didymus in Alexandria and more or less directly reflect an academic way of debating in this intellectual circle.8 This tendency to ‘depersonalise’ the characters in literary dialogues seems to have enjoyed some success in scholarly circles of the time, as exemplified by two other contemporary texts. This tendency to ‘depersonalise’ the characters in literary dialogues seems to have enjoyed some success in scholarly circles of the time, as exemplified by two other contemporary texts.
(Andrist, “Literary Distance and Complexity in Late Antique,and Early Byzantine Greek Dialogues Adversus Iudaeos (late 4th - early 9th c.)”, 2017, p. 45-46)

• [Andrist: Unique Aspects of Disputatio]
3. (= IX)”Disputatio contra Arium”(=“Dialogus in synodo Nicaena", CPG 2250): So far, this dialogue is the least researched within the texts discussed here and most difficult to date (but see now from Stockhausen 2010). It is characterized above all by its rather long, partly scenic structure Introduction, according to which Arius is refuted by Athanasius. Especially in Greek tradition, this dialogue often circulates without the others Texts. In the Armenian tradition it is occasionally in two dialogues divided and sometimes found together with ”dial. Athan. et.Zacch.”
(Andrist, Pseudathanasianische Dialoge, 2011, p. 356)

• [David Martin : 1 Jn 5:7 in Context of Dialogue]
From page 145 to the middle of page 147 the Orthodox Author, who defends the Divinity of the Holy Ghost against the Arian, after having established at large in this Dialogue the eternal and consubstantial Divinity of the Son, and proved by divers Texts of Scripture [PAGE 140] these two fundamental truths, that.the Son is God with the Father, and that the Holy Ghost is like manner God (with the Father and the Son), concludes the mystery of the Trinity (on page 147) with some reflections upon Moses, Elias, and St. Paul. He says, ”that this Apostle [Paul] was therefore carried up into the third Heaven because he bore the Trinity in his heart; God being willing to teach us by this example, that no person can ascend into Heaven, unless he has the same faith which St. Paul had. And the quickening and salutary Baptism, by which we receive remission of sins, and without which no person was ever admitted into Heaven: Is it not administered to the Faithful in the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost? Besides all this St. John says, AND THESE THREE ARE ONE.”
(David Martin, The genuineness of the text of the first Epistle of Saint John 5:7, 1722, p. 139-140)

(Note: Martin apparently changed three-fold name to F,S and HG)

The Genuineness of the Text of the First Epistle of Saint John, Chap. V. V. 7, There are Three in Heaven, &c. Demonstrated ... Translated from the French (1722)
David Martin
https://books.google.com/books?id=qbIHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA140

 

[Steven Avery]

Fathers Cite Disputatio as the words and work of Athanasius

[Migne Graeca] Furthermore, the Greeks of the 12th Century recognized [Disputatio Contra Arium] as a genuine work of Athanasius.
(Latin: Porro vides Graecam saeculi xii synodum agnovisse ut genuinum Athanasii opus. Migne Graeca, PG 140.209, fn. 7)

• Niketas or Nicetas Choniates (Greek: Νικήτας Χωνιάτης, ca. 1155 to 1217), whose real surname was Akominatos (Ἀκομινάτος), was a Greek Byzantine government official and historian – like his brother Michael Akominatos, whom he accompanied to Constantinople from their birthplace Chonae (from which came his nickname, ”Choniates” meaning”person from Chonae"). Nicetas wrote a history of the Eastern Roman Empire from 1118 to 1207. His theological work, (Thesaurus Orthodoxae Fidei), although extant in a complete form in manuscripts, has been published only in part. It is one of the chief authorities for the heresies and heretical writers of the 12th century.
(Niketas Choniates. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niketas_Choniates>)

● [Thesaurus. Book 25.6] St Athanasius’s, from his discourse speech, which was given at the holy first great synod at Nicaea towards Arius (Nicetae Choniatae. Thesauri Lib. XXV.6; Translated by Pavlos D Vasileiadis, correspondence, 15 December 2018)

○ Greek: Τοῦ ἁγίου Ἀθανασίου, ἐκ τοῦ διαλεκτικοῦ λόγου, ὅ ἐποιήσατο ἐν τῇ κατὰ Νίκαιαν ἁγίᾳ πρότῃ μεγάλῃ συνόδῳ πρὸς τὸν Ἄρειον.
(Nicetae Choniatae. Thesauri Lib. XXV.6; Migne Graeca, PG 140.209)

• John XI Bekkos (also, commonly, Beccus; name sometimes also spelled Veccus, Vekkos, or Beccos), (c. 1225 – March 1297) was Patriarch of Constantinople from June 2, 1275 to December 26, 1282, and the chief Greek advocate, in Byzantine times, of the reunion of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. John Bekkos was born in Nicaea among the exiles from Constantinople during the period of Latin occupation of that city, and died in prison in the fortress of St. Gregory near the entrance to the Gulf of Nicomedia.[1] (John XI of Constantinople. Wikipedia.
<en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_XI_of_Constantinople>)

● [Union of the Old Church and the new Rome] For forthwith St. Athanasios the Great, in the disputation with Arios that took place at the Synod in Nicaea, which begins, “By God’s providence, I was on my way with my most beloved brethren, having visited the servants of God dear to me” [Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 440A], says: “[From such examples] we learn that the Son was begotten from the essence of God the Father.” [Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 477C] The same [Father], in the discourse that begins,”You did well in indicating me the discussion that you had,” [Epistola de Nicaenis decretis. Migne Graeca 25, 416A] says thus: “Son and creature could not be the same, unless His essence be thought to be both from God and external to God.” [Epistola de Nicaenis decretis. Migne 25, 448A] And much further on in the same discourse [he says]:”The essence of the Son is not something devised from without, nor is it introduced from non-existent things; rather, it springs from the essence of the Father as radiance from light and as vapor from water.”[Epistola de Nicaenis decretis. Migne Graeca PG 25, 460C] (John XI Bekkos, The union of the old church and the new Rome; Migne Graeca, PG 141.143C; Father Patapios, Correspondence, January 2019)

○ Greek: Αὑτίκα γὰρ ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος ἐν εῇ πρὸς Ἅρειον διαλέκτῳ τῇ γενομένῃ ἐν τῇ κατὰ Νίκαιαν συνόδῳ, ἦς ἡ ἀρχὴ · «Τῇ τοῦ Θεοῦ προνοίᾳ ἀπῄειν προσεληλυθὼς σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις μου ἀδελφοῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἐμοὶ ποθου μένους τοῦ [Θεοῦ] Χριστοῦ δούλους.» [Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 440A] φησίν [Psalm. CIX. 3.] Καὶ μετ ὀλίγα · «Τὸν Υἱὸν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα [ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων παραδειγμάτων] μανθάνομεν.”[Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 477C] Ὁ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ λόγῳ οὗ ἡ ἀρχή · «Καλῶς ἐποίησας δηλώσας μοι τὴν γενομένην παρὰ σοῦ ζήτησιν,»[Epistola de Nicaenis decretis. Migne Graeca 25, 416A] οὔτω φησίν · «Οὐκ ἅν εἴη αὐτός Υἱός καὶ κτίσμα, ἵνα μὴ καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἔξωθεν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ οὐσία αὐτοῦ νομίζητια.»[Epistola de Nicaenis decretis. Migne 25, 448A] Καὶ μετὰ πολλὰ ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ · «Οὐκ ἔξωθέν τίς ἐστιν ἐφευρεθεῖσα ἡ τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐσία, οὐδὲ ἐκ μὴ ὄντων ἐπεισήχθη, ἀλλ' ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας ἔφυ, ὡς τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασμα, καὶ ὡς ὕδατος ἀτμίς.»[Epistola de Nicaenis decretis. Migne Graeca PG 25, 460C] (John XI Bekkos, De unione Ecclesiarum veteris et novae Romae; Migne Graeca, PG 141.143C)

● [Union of the Old Church and the new Rome] Athanasius the great in his discourse to Arius that took place at the synod of Nicaea, which at the beginning mentions that”With God’s providence I left so that to come together with my brothers to Christ’s servants that are convinced by me”[Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 440A];”therefore God saying to his Son through the prophet, ‘From the womb, before morning-star, I brought you forth,’ [Ps 109:3b] means the generation of the Son from the fatherly essence.”[Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 476D] And just below:”For no other reason he mentions womb, only for representing that the Son himself was brought forth [or, generated] by the Father’s essence.”[Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 476D-477A] And just below:”When, then, the Scripture says that from womb was brought forth [or generated] the Son, the origination of the Son from the divine substance is meant.”And just below:”And that the Son is brought forth [or, generated] from the essence of the God and Father we learn [from these examples].”[Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 477C] (John XI Bekkos, The union of the old church and the new Rome; Translation by Pavlos D Vasileiadis, correspondence, December 2018.)

○ Greek: Ὁ μέγας Ἀθανάσιος ἐν τῇ πρὸς τὸν Ἅρειον διλέλει τῇ γενομένη ἐν τῇ κατὰ Νίκαιαν συνόδῳ, ἦς ἡ ἀρχὴ,”Τῇ τοῦ Θεοϋ προνοίᾳ ἀπῄει προσεληλυθὼς σὺν τοῖς φιλτάτοις μου ἀδεφοῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἐμοὶ πειθομένους τοῦ Χριστοῦ δούλους,"[Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 440A]

φησίν·”Οὐκοῦν ὁ Θεὸς λέγων πρὸς τὸν ἴδιον Υἱὸν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, «Ἐκ γαστρὸς πρὸ ἐωσφόρου ἐγέννησά σε,”[Psalm cix, 3] σημαίνει τὴν ἐκ τῆς πατρικῆς οὐσίας γέννησιν τοῦ Υἱοῦ.”[Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 476D] Καὶ μετ' ὀλίγα ·”Δι' οὐδὲν ἔτερον γαστέρα ὀνομάζει, ἢ ἴνα παραστήσῃ αὐτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν ἐκ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας γεγεννῆσθαι.”[Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 476D to 477A] Καὶ μετ' ὀλίγα ·”Ὅταν οὖν φάσκῃ ἡ Γραφὴ ἐκ γαστρὸς γεγεννῆσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν, τὴν ἐκ τῆς θεϊκῆς ὑποστάσευς γνησιότητα τοῦ Υἱοῦ σημαίνει.”Καὶ μετ' ὀλίγα ·”Τὸν οὖν Υἱὸν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα [ἐκ τῶν τοιούτων παραδειγμάτων] μανθάνομεν.”[Disputatio contra Arium. Migne Graeca PG 28, 477C] (John XI Bekkos, De unione Ecclesiarum veteris et novae Romae; Migne Graeca, PG 141, 707-708)

Date of Dialogue : Internal Evidence

• Bernhard Voss considered whether it could not be deduced from this that the dialogue arose very early and that there is thus real contemporary knowledge.
(Stockhausen, Die pseud-athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium, 2010, p. 150)

• [Martin: Early Date] The Orthodox, represented in this Dialogue under the name of Athanasius, demands of the Arian, represented by the name Arius, whether by saying the Emperor Constatine reigns by Sea and Land, they did not thereby say that the Son Constantius did not reign there also. The Arian answers, it would be very dangerous to say that Constantius does not reign with Constantine his Father. It appears plainly from all this, that this Dialogue must have been composed whilst the Emperor [PAGE 138] Constantine was living, and at the time Constantius was sent into the East, where he made himself famous by the victories he gain'd over the enemies of the State, about the year 336 somewhat before the death of the great Constantine, which fell out on the 22nd of May, 337 which evidently proves that this Dialogue must have been written about the year of our Lord 336 and wrote withal in the East, where Constantius was that year. (Martin, The genuineness of the text of the first Epistle of Saint John 5:7, 1722, p. 137-138)

• David Martin (7 September 1639 – 9 September 1721), a learned French Protestant theologian, was born at,Revel, in the diocese of Lavaur. He was educated at Montauban, and at the academy of the reformed at Nîmes. He afterwards studied divinity at Puy-Laurent, whither the academy of Montauban had been removed. Having been admitted to the ministry in 1663, he settled as pastor with the church of Esperance, in the diocese of Castres. In 1670 he accepted an invitation to the church of La Caune, in the same diocese, where he officiated till the revocation of the edict of Nantes, in 1685. In 1686, the magistrates of Deventer invited him to become professor of divinity and pastor of the Walloon church in that city; but the regency of Utrecht, where he had taken up his residence, fully appraised of his merit, prevailed upon him to accept the office of pastor in their city. He had studied his native language grammatically; and when the French Academy was about to publish the second edition of their Dictionary, he sent them remarks and observations, of which they availed themselves, with polite acknowledgements to the author. He died of a violent fever in 1721, after he had completed his eighty-second year.
(David Martin French theologian. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Martin_(French_theologian)>)

• [Stockhausen: Dialogue Dated circa 350] Another interesting text can be found in Chap. 22.94 Athanasius makes clear in his argument that the Son is also”true God,”and that John 17:3, in this sense, is an example. Arius wanted to understand the verse in such a way that only God is”true God", but the Son is not, so that”and Jesus Christ whom Thou has sent”(καὶ ὃν ἀπέστειλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν) is no longer part of the intent of”that they might know thee, the only true God”(ἵνα γινώσκωσι σε τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεόν), that so the”and”(καί) is not an additive”even"“also”(καί). Athanasius then tells Arius that it is a συνδεσμός, so that the two parts of the sentence are to be considered together and in no way separate. And to clarify his argument, he now cites the following comparison:”When someone tells his neighbor about Constantine, he says: Know the only Augustus and autocrat of the earth and of the sea, the Emperor Constantine and his son Constantius! Does he confess then the son together with the father? Yes or no?"95 Whereupon Arius answers:”There is no small danger in saying that Constantius does not rule with his father Constantine, by subsuming him under him."96 And then Athanasius counters:”With Constantine and Constantius you see the greatest danger, but with Jesus Christ and his father you are not afraid if you are so extreme. You have to apply such worship to the Lord, as well as to the said Constantine. You do not steal anything from his son Constantius, that is, that he is Augustus, and everything that was previously said about his father, that nowhere else do you recognize the unity of dignity than through him."97 Bernhard Voss 98 considered whether it could not be deduced from this that the dialogue arose very early and that there is thus real contemporary knowledge. [Voss, The dialogue in early Christian literature, 1970, p. 333, fn. 50] This [337 AD] seems unlikely to me, since here in principle a situation is made clear in which of the three Constantine (d. 327) sons only Konstantius is left, since only and especially he is led in the father-son comparison, so this comparison at the earliest after the year 350 can be formulated. It seems to me, therefore, rather scholarly knowledge, which is attached here by the author: That of the Constantine sons ultimately only the surviving Konstantius has played an important role in the history of the Church. Such scholarly knowledge of the author can also be observed in some other places: Thus, in Chap. 20 another comparison with the emperor led, in Ch. 25 f. a very detailed comparison of the house construction and also in chap. Finally, a comparison of the calendar calculation based on the lunar cycle.
(Stockhausen, Die pseud-athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium, 2010, p. 149-150) Contemporary Work Referenced : Clementine Homilies (circa 300-320 AD)

• The author knew the pseudo-clementines. What version he had in mind is not very sure. 31 (480 C) He refers to Klemens.
(Voss, The dialogue in early Christian literature, 1970, p. 333, fn. 50)

• [Mention of Clement in Dialogue] Are you suggesting that my body is eternal [like God]? Have you not at some time or another listened to Clement, the student of Peter the apostle, who condemns such a doctrine? (Disputatio Contra Arium. 31; Migne Graeca, PG 28.480C-D; Translated by Jake Lake, correspondence July 2019)

Greek: Σὺ δὲ τί φῄς με ἀΐδιον συντίθεσθαι τὸ Θεῖον; Οὐκ ἐπηκροάσω ποτὲ Κλήμεντος τοῦ παρακολουθήσαντος Πέτρῳ τῷ ἀποστόλῳ, ὃς καθαιρεῖ τὴν τοιαύτην δόξαν; (Disputatio Contra Arium. 31; Migne Graeca, PG 28.480CD)

• [Clementine Homilies : Overview & Date] The original author (of the Clementine Homilies) shows a detailed knowledge of the towns on the Phoenician coast from Caesarea to Antioch. He was an Arian, and Arianism had its home in the civil diocese of the Orient. He uses the Praeparatio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea (written about 313). In 325 that historian mentions the dialogues of Peter and Appion as just published — presumably in his own region; these were probably the nucleus of the larger work completed by the same hand a few years later. Citations of Pseudo-Clement are by the Palestinian Epiphanius, who found the romance among the Ebionites of Palestine; by St. Jerome, who had dwelt in the Syrian desert and settled at Bethlehem; by the travelled Rufinus; by the Apostolical Constitutions, compiled in Syria or Palestine. The work is rendered into Syriac before 411. The Arian author of the Opus imperfectum cited it freely. It was interpolated by a Eunomian about 365–70. All these indications suggest an Arian author before 350 in the East, probably not far from Caesarea. ...the [Clementine] Homilies (books 10–14), preserved in two British Library manuscripts, one of which was written in the year 411. Some fragments of the Clementines are known in Arabic, Armenian and in Slavonic.
(Clementine literature. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clementine_literature>)

• [Stead Affirms] This work (Clementine Homilies) cannot be later than the mid-fourth century, since it was used by the writer of the Recognitions (c. 360-380), which in turn was translated by Jerome.
(Stead, Divine Substance, 1977, p. 218)

Disputatio HIT very similar to Clement Homilies

• [Clementine Homily IX.23] This then we would have you know, that unless any one of his own accord give himself over as a slave to demons, as I said before, the demon has no power against him. Choosing, therefore, to worship one God, and refraining from the table of demons, and undertaking chastity with philanthropy and righteousness, and being baptized with the thrice-blessed invocation for the remission of sins, and devoting yourselves as much as you can to the perfection of purity, you can escape everlasting punishment, and be constituted heirs of eternal blessings.
(Clementine Homilies, Homily IX.23; ANF 8, p. 279) (See also: Homily IX.19, PG 2.255-256, ANF 8, page 279; Homily IX.23, PG 2.257-258, ANF 8 p. 279; Homily XIII.4, PG 2.331-332, ANF 8 p. 300-301)

Greek: Καὶ τοῦτο οὖν ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι βουλόμεθα ὅτι, ἐὰν μή τις ἑκὼν ἑαυτὸν δαίμοσιν δοῦλον ἐκδση (ὡς τάχιο εἶπον), ὁ δαίμων τὴν κατ' αὐτοῦ ἐξουσίαν οὐκ ἔχει. ἕνα οὖν θεὸν σέβειν ἑλόμενοι καὶ «τραπέζης δαιμόνων» ἀποσχόμενοι καὶ σωφροσύνην μετὰ φιλανθρωπίας καὶ δικαιοσύνης ἀναδεξάμενοι καὶ τρισμακαρίᾳ ἐπονομασίᾳ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν βαπτισάμενοι τῷ ὅσον δύνασθε ἐπὶ τὸ τέλειον τῆς ἁγνείας ἑαυτοὺς ἐπιδιδόναι δύνασθε κολάσεως ἀιδίου ·υσθέντες αἰωνίων ἀγαθῶν κληρονόμοι καταστῆναι.
(Clementine Homilies, Homily IX.23; Migne Graeca PG 2, 257-258) (See also: Homily IX.19, PG 2.255-256; Homily IX.23, PG 2.257-258; Homily XIII.4, PG 2.331-332)

Disputatio has Rare Variant of Jn 14:28

• [Jn 14:28 variant in Disputatio] To confirm his point Eusebius appeals to two passages from the Gospel of John:”The Father who sent me is greater than I”(cf. Jn 6:44; 14:28)... The form of Jn 14:28 [My Father who sent me is greater than I] is not found elsewhere in Eusebius. Opitz notes ad loc. that it is found in Origen, Comm in Ioh. 32, 29, 363 (GCS Origenes 4, 475) and frequently; De prin. 4, 4, 8 (GCS Origenes 5, 360); Ps-Athanasius, Disputatio contra Arium 1 (PG 28, 440A); and Arnobius [255-330 AD], Conflictus cum Serapions 2, 1 (CCL 25A, 87). (Lienhard, Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth Century Theology, 1999, p. 74, fn. 14) [Jn 14:28: Ὁ Πατήρ μου ὁ πέμψας με μείζων μου ἐστί (TR: ὁ πατήρ μου μείζων μού ἐστι)]

Disputatio In MSS of Athanasius Works

• [Stockhausen: Disputatio part of Earliest MSS Corpus] The Disputatio contra Arium is in the context of the so-called x-collection... The x-collection is an independent, well-defined compilation of writings of Athanasius, whose special feature is that it contains a table of contents and excerpts from a letter from Photios to his brother Tarasios on the writings of Athanasius and that in addition to their composition (in contrast, especially to the y-collection, but also to the b-tradition) is handed down very homogeneous. It contains the following Athanasian and pseudo-Ashanasian scriptures: Oratio contra gentes (CPG 2090), Oratio de incarnatione verbi (CPG (2091), †Disputatio contra Arium (CPG 2250), Epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Libyae (CPG 2092), Orationes contra Arianos I–III (CPG 2093), †De incarnatione et contra Arianos (CPG 2806), Epistula encyclica (CPG 2124), Epistulae ad Serapionem I–II (CPG 2094), †Epistula catholica (CPG 2241), †Refutatio hypocriseos Meletii et Eusebii (CPG 2242), Epistula ad Epictetum (CPG 2095), †Contra Apolinarem II–I (CPG 2231), In illud: qui dixerit verbum in filium (CPG 2096), †De passione et cruce domini (CPG 2247), Epistula ad Marcellinum (CPG 2097), De virginitate (CPG 2248) und †Testimonia e scriptura (CPG 2240). As can be seen in this list, the disputatio contra arium is not at the very beginning of the collection. But as it comes to stand in accordance with the writings of Contra gentes and De incarnatione (which does not deal with the question of Arian), it functions as an introduction to the”anti-Ananic”writings of Athanasius, which are summarized in this collection, in so far as the disputatio contra Arianos, that it reproduces a discussion between Athanasius and Arius at the Synod of Nicaea itself, which binds Athanasius' writings to be classified thematically and chronologically according to the Synod of Nicaea, and illuminates the background of the dispute. (Stockhausen, Die pseud-athanasianische Disputatio contra Arium, 2010, p. 138-141)
Codex Patmiacus A 4 membr. s. X. [10th century]
• contra gentes M 25,69,23 [Refutation of the Gentiles]
• de incarnatione M 25,96D [On the incarnation of Christ]
• disputatio cum Ario M 28.440.1 [Dialogue with Arius]
• ep. ad. episc. Aeg. M 25.537.1 [Letter to the Bishop of Egypt and Libya]
• contra gentes M 25.53.40 [Refutation of the Gentiles - continued]
• I, II c. Arian. M 26.12 [Against the Arians, Book 1 and 2]
(Opitz, Untersuchungen zur Ü berlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius, vol 23, 1935, p. 9-10)
Codex Genuensis 5, membr. s. X/XI. [10th 11th century]
• de incaratione M 25.197.10 [On the incarnation of Christ]
• disputatio cum Ario M 28.440 [Dialogue with Arius]
• epistula ad episcopos Aegypti et Lybae; M 25.537 [Letter to the Bishop of Egypt and Libya]
(Opitz, Untersuchungen zur Ü berlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius, vol 23, 1935, p. 11-12)

Affirmed by John Mill (1645– 1707 AD) : Acclaimed Pioneer in NT criticism

• John Mill (c. 1645 – 23 June 1707) was an English theologian.[1] Mill is noted for his critical edition of the Greek New Testament which included notes on over thirty-thousand variant readings in the manuscripts of the New Testament.[2] Mill's Novum testamentum græcum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS. exemplarium, versionum, editionum SS. patrum et scriptorum ecclesiasticorum, et in easdem nolis (Oxford, fol. 1707) was undertaken with the encouragement of John Fell, his predecessor in the field of New Testament criticism; it took thirty years to complete and was a great advance on previous scholarship. The text is that of Robertus Stephanus (1550), but the notes, besides including all previously existing collections of various readings, add a vast number derived from his own examination of many new manuscripts, and Oriental versions (the latter unfortunately he used only in the Latin translations). Though the amount of information given by Mill is small compared with that in modern editions, it is probable that no one, except perhaps Tischendorf, has added so much material for the work of textual criticism. He was the first to notice the value of the concurrence of the Latin evidence with the Codex Alexandrinus, the only representative of an ancient non-Western Greek text then sufficiently known; this hint was not lost on Bentley. Mill's work noted over 30,000 discrepancies between some 100 extant New Testament manuscripts. His work was attacked by Daniel Whitby and Anthony Collins. Whitby's Examen claimed that Mill had destroyed the validity of the text; Collins received a reply from Bentley (Phileleutherus lipsiensis). Bentley defended Mill noting essentially that Mill was not responsible for the differences between the various manuscripts, he only pointed them out. Bentley further noted that Christendom had indeed survived despite the errors, essentially asserting that Whitby's attacks were unfounded.
(John Mill (theologian). Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mill_(theologian)>)

● [John Mill] For only then did the author of the Disputatio in Concilio Nicaeno Habita (“Debate Held at the Council of Nicaea”), under the name of Athanasius, cite this text [1 John 5:7]. But from where, you will ask, did this writer know what had remained hidden from the other Greeks for several centuries? From older Greek codices, uncorrupted and complete. For just as the scattering of the Christians of Asia seems to have brought it about that many codices with this comma missing were read in Greece and various other places, so, without any doubt, did some intact codices, brought to foreign countries during the same period, remain hidden in private people’s homes.
(J. Mill, The New Testament, with the variant readings MSS. copies and version, edition, manuscripts and writings of the Church Fathers, 1710, p. 585; Translated by Sara Van der Pas, correspondence, August 2020)

Epistula ad episcopum Persarum (350-550 AD)

• [Forster] Now the following passage is his [Athanasius] definition of the doctrine of the Trinity, addressed to the heathen Persians: and drawn up, he tells them, “according to Scripture” (κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον).
(Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witness, 1867, p. 89)

HIT:
● [Letter to the Bishop of the Persians] Therefore, to us there is one God, from whom are all things; A perfect Trinity [Three persons], consubstantial, of equal power, of equal glory; The Father [who is the source] of all good things, from whom the Son has been begotten, from whom the Holy Spirit is proceeding according to scriptures [that which has been written]; One Godhead making himself known in three hypostasis.
(Athanasius, Letter to the Bishop of the Persians; Translated by Pavlos D. Vasileiadis.)

○ Greek: Εἷς γὰρ Θεὸς ἡμῖν, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα· Τριὰς τελεία, ὁμοούσιος, ἰσοδύναμος, ἰσοκλεής· Πατὴρ ἡ πάντων τῶν ἀγαθῶν πηγὴ, ἐξ οὗ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐγεννήθη, ἐξ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐκπορεύεται κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον· Μία θεότης ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσι γνωριζομένη.
(Athanasius, Epistula ad episcopum Persarum; Migne Graeca, PG 28.1568B)

Comment:
• [Forster] By his own words,”according to the Scripture”(κατὰ τὸ γεγραμμένον), St. Athanasius here tells us that he is copying Scripture. And the Scripture copied from, in his concluding words, is, self-evidently, 1 John v. 7, where alone the three-one doctrine is so stated.
(Forster, A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witness, 1867, p. 89)

Liber de definitionibus : Athanasius
Brief Overview : Scholars Disagree

• In 1857, J.P. Migne published Liber de definitionibus in a volume of works Athanasius of Alexandria, he was convinced that it was not the work of Athanasius. He himself admitted in the introduction that it was sometimes ascribed to Gregory of Nyssa, and he shows similarities to that of Maxim the Confessor. While the associations with Maxim are somehow justified, assigning a set of definitions to Gregory of Nyssa is the same misunderstanding as considering Athanasius of Alexandria as their author. ...Maxim's authorship also raises reasonable doubts, because although he lived in the VII century, his work has a completely different character. ...Jean Baptiste Pitra certifies that in many Slavic manuscripts known to him, the definitions were ascribed to Clement Alexandria, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril, Maxim and John Damascene. ...Liber de definitionibus resembles the definitions from John Damascus' Dialectic (PG 94, 521-676), but differs from them in content. The author of the Liber de definitionibus should therefore be looked for elsewhere. The list of translations below shows clearly that this work bears a surprising resemblance to the second chapter of Viae dux by Anastasius of Sinai. Only the similarity of names brought this chapter into the volume of the writings of Athanasius of Alexandria.

• According to William Cave, the author of the Guide became Patriarch of Antioch in 561 AD, and he died in 599. He adds that the Guide is a work composed not only of various works by Anastasius himself, but also of the writings of other authors. One of the arguments there is to be the fact that in chapter II, the Guide mentions the late Eulogius Alexandria, who died in 608. Cave concludes that the passage speaking of the death of Eulogius must be a later interpolation. Much more it is likely, however, that the author of the Guide was Anastazy other than that indicated by Cave. For the whole problem is that in the 6th and 7th centuries the name of Anastasius was extremely popular, and many of them were associated with the monastery at Sinai. ...K. H. Uthemann believes that the Guide was written by one author and was not published earlier than the other turn of 659/660 and not after the Caliphate of Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, who ruled in the years 685-705

Richard's arguments, or perhaps more importantly, his authority itself, made the Anastazy, who died in 700 AD, almost unquestionably considered the author of the Guide. The most respected textbook on patrology states that the author of The guide was Anastasius Synaita, who died after AD 700, although he adds that his works are not yet sufficiently researched. Daniel Larison ascribes the Guide to the same author as Sermo Adversus Monotheletas. Larison recognizes that the author of both of these works was Anastazy, who died about a year 700. ...Unfortunately, with the present state of the sources, we cannot say anything with certainty.

• M. Przyszychowska, “Are the Definitions - Liber de definitionibus - of the Pseudo-Athanasius of Alexandria, chapter II of the Guide (Viae Dux) of the son of Anastasis?” in E-Patrologos, 4/1, 2019, p.50-53.

HIT:
 [Liber de definitionibus] 8. What is nature? We profess one nature in the theology of the Holy Trinity, but three hypostases. For there is one nature, substance, authority, kingdom, and power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, three hypostases and three persons, that is, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. In three persons is the one Godhead known. (Liber de definitionibus theologicis, 8)

o Greek: Ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς θεολογίας μίαν φύσιν ὁμολογοῦμεν τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος, τρεῖς δὲ ὑποστάσεις. Καὶ γὰρ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος μία φύσις ἐστὶ, καὶ μία οὐσία, καὶ μία ἐξουσία, καὶ βασιλεία, καὶ δύναμις· τρεῖς δὲ ὑποστάσεις, καὶ τρεῖς χαρακτῆρες, καὶ τρία πρόσωπα· τουτέστι Πατὴρ καὶ Υἱὸς καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Μία θεότης ἐστὶν ἐν τρισὶ προσώποις γνωριζομένη.
(Liber de definitionibus 8; Migne Graeca, PG 28.537)

Comment:
Note: Scholars agree that this work was compiled from other other fathers. The majority of scholars seem to think that the work was compiled in the 7th century, but others believe it was compiled in the 6th century. Therefore, I present the citation as originally written by Athanasius of Alexandria (i.e., written in the 4th century).

Athanasius, Dialog I De Sancta Trinitate (PG 28.1116-1157)
Note: The critical appraisal of the De Trinite 5 Dialogues (Migne Graeca, PG 28.116-1285) began with the publication by Theodore Beze in 1570. Theodore Beze had access to the two earliest manuscripts of these dialogues: cod. Genev. gr. 30 (11th century); cod. Vind. theol. gr. 109 (11th century). Codex Genev gr 30 and codex Vind. theol. gr 109 remain the earliest manuscripts known of these dialogues to this day. Although much of the early criticism concerning the author of these works attributed them to Maximus the Confessor (580-662 AD) following Byzantine scholars of the 14th and 15th centuries, the Byzantine tradition concerning their authorship was largely due to the fact that these five dialogues (along with two against the Macedonians) were placed with Maximus' works (Demetrios Kydones 1324~1398; Gregorios Protosyngellos d. 1459; Johannes Kantakuzenos 1295~1338). However, as more manuscripts were found and it was determined that the theology concerning the person of the Holy Spirit actually began in the early 3rd century, 19th and 20th century scholars began to re-assess these dialogues. It became apparent that the author composed them in the 4th century. Although these scholars do not agree about which author, they have determined that the writings of Dialogue I, II (Migne Graeca, PG 28.116-1201) originate anywhere from 360 to 400 AD. Authors considered by these scholars (Loofs; Stolz; Weigl) are as follows: Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. 382 AD); Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390 AD); Didymus the Blind of Alexandria (313-398 AD); or an unknown earlier source circa 360. Therefore, this citation from Dialogue I will simply be attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria in this paper.
(For a critical overview of this history in detail, see: Kim, Ps.-Athanasius, Dialog I de sancta trinitate, 2016.
<opus4.kobv.de/opus4-fau/files/8109/Hyounggun_Kim_Dissertation.pdf>)

• The Anomoean sect of the Arians, of whom he was the leader, are sometimes called [by whom?] after him Aetians. His work De Fide has been preserved in connection with a refutation written by Epiphanius (Haer. lxxvi. 10). Its main thought is that the homoousia, i.e. the doctrine that the Son (therefore the Begotten) is essentially God, is self-contradictory, since the idea of unbegottenness is just that which constitutes the nature of God.
(Aëtius of Antioch. Wikipedia. <en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aëtius_of_Antioch>)

HITS:
• Anomoean: Isn't it true, God knows of himself that he is ungenerated?
• Orthodox: But what we have recorded is not his Ousia.
• Anomoean: Are you talking about one deity and three hypostases?
• Orthodox: Your earlier knowledge is worthless. I will answer you this way: Hypostasis is one and
Deity is another; not because they have different realities, but because the hypostasis denotes
something other than the deity. For hypostasis designates [or, is meaning]”being”, the divinity”what-isbeing”.
• Athanasius, Dialogues on the Trinitate I; Migne Graeca, PG 28.1117-1120.

Greek:
• Ἀνόμ. Οὐκ οἶδεν 28.1120 οὖν ὁ Θεὸς ἀγέννητον ἑαυτόν;
• Ὀρθ. Ἀλλ' οὐ τοῦτό ἐστιν αὐτοῦ ἡ οὐσία, ὃ κατειλήφαμεν.
• Ἀνόμ. Μίαν λέγεις θεότητα, καὶ τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις;
• Ὀρθ. Λέλυται μέν σου ἡ πρότερον γνῶσις. Ἀποκρινοῦμαι δέ σοι καὶ οὕτως· Ἄλλο ἐστὶν ὑπόστασις, καὶ ἄλλο θεότης· οὐχ ὡς ἄλλο πρᾶγμα καὶ ἄλλο, ἀλλ' ὡς ἄλλο τι σημαινούσης τῆς ὑποστάσεως, καὶ ἄλλο τῆς θεότητος. Ἡ μὲν γὰρ ὑπόστασις «τὸ εἶναι”σημαίνει· ἡ δὲ θεότης «τὸ τί εἶναι.»
• Athanasius, Dialogues on the Trinitate I; Migne Graeca, PG 28.1117-1120.

Comment:
• [Kim] It is noticeable that the contempt of both groups [Jews & Greeks] is related to their ignorance of the son. For this reason Athanasius brings “Arians” together, now with the Jews, now with the Greeks, in order to put them in a bad light. In Gregory of Nyssa’ (335-395 AD) opinion, Eunomius is the defender of the Greeks because he restores the created God, i.e. mixes the Son with the world, so that the Son, as the”firstborn”and as a creature, stands on the same level with all other creatures. And he compares Eunomius to the Jews because they do not accept the son. As far as the “earlier knowledge” is concerned, the following mention of the Orthodoxus must be taken into account: “Hypostasis and deity are different from one another.” In this regard, the “earlier knowledge” probably indicates that the terms “hypostasis” and “Ousia” were used synonymously for one another. The “term post quem” of this so-called Neo-Nicene revival is to be accepted at 360/1 at the earliest.
(Kim, Ps.-Athanasius, Dialog I de sancta trinitate, 2016, p. 95-96)

On the Incarnation and against the Arians

• [Quasten] Concerning the Incarnation and against the Arians: A shorter treatise De incarnatione et contra Arianos has come down to us, whose authenticity has been questioned. Nevertheless, no convincing reasons have been advanced against the Athanasian authorship. The objection that Athanasius could not have referred to the Trinity as “One God in three Hypostases” (Greek: εἷς Θεὸς ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν), since he always uses the word hypostasis as a synonym for essence, is no proof. First of all, at the Alexandrian synod of 362 Athanasius admitted that the term hypostasis could be used also in the meaning of person and therefore one could speak of “three hypostases”
(Tom. ad Antioch. 5-6; Migne Graeca, PG 26.801).

• [Quasten] In addition, the tract is quoted as genuine by Theodoret (Did. 2, 3) who calls it an Oration against the Arians, and by Gelasius (De duabus naturis). The content is concerned with the divinity of Christ, which is proved from Scripture, and that of the Holy Spirit (13-19).

• Quasten, Patrology, vol 3, 1986, p. 28-29.

• [Riebe] Bernard de Montfaucon [Athanasii Archiepiscopi Alexandrini Opera Omnia, 1777, Vol 1, p. 338] defended the authenticity of De Incarnatione et Contra Arianos against the suggestion that the author was Apollinaris of Laodicea. (Riebe, Marcellus of Ancyra in modern research, 1992, p. 50)

• [Riebe] Eduard Weigl [Untersuchungen zur Christologie des heiligen Athanasius, 1914, pp. 150-158.] defended Athanasian authorship on the grounds of the concept of the”goodness of God alone”, the general Athanasian style of writing, and expressions like δεύτερος θεὸς and θεολογεῖσθαι, and he points to the fact that Theodoret (393-466 AD) and Gelasius (d. 496) refer to De Incarnatione et Contra Arianos as a work by Athanasius.
(Riebe, Marcellus of Ancyra in modern research, 1992, p. 51)

HITS:
 And that is why David, singing to God, says: “For with thee is the fountain of life: in thy light shall we see light;” (Ps. 35:10) for he knows that the Son is the fountain of the Holy Spirit with God the Father. And the Son says through Jeremiah: “My people have committed two evils; they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out broken cisterns that can hold no water.” (Jer. 2:13) And when the seraphim glorify God by saying thrice: “Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts,” (Is. 6:3) they glorify the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Hence, just as we are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son, so are we also baptized in the name of the Holy Spirit, and we become the sons of God, (Cf. Matt. 5:9, Rom. 8:14, 1 John 3:1) not of gods. For the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are the Lord of hosts. There is one divinity, and one God, in three hypostases. That is why the Father’s words in Isaiah are attributed to the Son by John, and to the Holy Spirit by Paul in Acts.
(Athanasius, On the Incarnation and against the Arians; Migne Graeca, PG 26.1000)

o Greek: Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὁ Δαβὶδ ψάλλων τῷ Θεῷ λέγει· Ὅτι παρὰ σοὶ πηγὴ ζωῆς, ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς· οἶδε γὰρ παρὰ τῷ Θεῷ Πατρὶ ὄντα τὸν Υἱὸν τὴν πηγὴν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. Καὶ διὰ Ἱερεμίου ὁ Υἱὸς λέγει· Δύο καὶ πονηρὰ ἐποίησεν ὁ λαός μου· ἐμὲ ἐγκατέλιπον πηγὴν ὕδατος ζῶντος, καὶ ὤρυξαν ἑαυτοῖς λάκκους συντετριμμένους, οἳ οὐ δυνήσονται ὕδωρ συνέχειν. Καὶ ὅτε δοξολογοῦσι τὰ σεραφὶμ τὸν Θεὸν, λέγοντα τρίτον· Ἅγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος σαβαὼθ, Πατέρα καὶ Υἱὸν καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα δοξολογοῦσι. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, ὥσπερ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ βαπτιζόμεθα, οὕτως καὶ εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, καὶ γινόμεθα υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, οὐ Θεῶν. Πατὴρ γὰρ καὶ Υἱὸς καὶ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, Κύριος σαβαώθ ἐστι. Μία γὰρ ἡ θεότης καὶ εἷς Θεὸς ἐν τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσι. Καὶ διὰ τοῦτο, ἅπερ εἶπεν ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν τῷ Ἡσαΐᾳ, ὁ Ἰωάννης λέγει.
(Athanasius, On the Incarnation and against the Arians; Migne Graeca, PG 26.1000)

Comments:
Note: Full Greek & Latin text of Theodoret & Gelasius are in the Appendix.
Theodoret (393-466 AD)
Testimony of the holy Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria.
From the longer Discourse De Fide: Of the same from his book against the Arians: “And when he says 'Wherefore God has also highly exalted Him and given Him a name which is above every name' he speaks of the temple of the body, not of the Godhead, for the Most High is not exalted, but the flesh of the Most High is exalted, and to the flesh of the Most High He gave a name which is above every name. Nor did the Word of God receive the designation of God as a favour, but His flesh was held divine as well as Himself.”
(Athanasius, De Incarnatione et Contra Arianos; Migne Graeca, PG 26.988-989]

Of the same from the same work: “And when he says 'the Holy Ghost was not yet because that Jesus was not yet glorified,' he says that His flesh was not yet glorified, for the Lord of glory is not glorified, but the flesh itself receives glory of the glory of the Lord as it mounts with Him into Heaven; whence he says the spirit of adoption was not yet among men, because the first fruits taken from men had not yet ascended into heaven. Wherever then the Scripture says that the Son received and was glorified, it speaks because of His manhood, not His Godhead.”
[Athanasius, De Incarnatione et Contra Arianos; Migne Graeca, PG 26.989B]
Theodoret, Dialogue 2; <www.newadvent.org/fathers/27032.htm>; Migne Graeca, PG 84.180-181.

Athanasius (297-373): Ad Serapion
• [Shapland] These letters reach us through another collection, which Opitz calls the 'middle corpus'. As these collections can be traced back to the sixth and seventh centuries, and as the edition represented by RS is ultimately derived from them, it is obvious that this division is very ancient. 3 There is other evidence to show that I and II were, at an early date, closely connected. Severus of Antioch [465-538], c. Impium Grammaticum, fr.168B, quotes from II. 8 as though it belonged to the first letter; and the two are counted as one work in the Armenian corpus. [He also notes the following points the doxology at the end of IV.7(189) suggests the formal conclusion of the letter; the reference to the Gospels and Psalms in IV.23, from which Tillemont inferred a connexion between this work and the ad Marcellinum; the 'pathetic' style in which Athanasius writes, as contrasted with the more robust and forceful character of these letters ; the respectful attitude to Origin and Theognostus in 9-1 1 which suggests an early date.] Moreover, the title of II in RS is found in the margin of B, which would suggest that it existed first as a marginal gloss. But when we come to examine the contents of the letters, it is obvious that II is far more closely connected with III than with I. In answer to a request from Serapion, Athanasius promises (II.l) that he will abridge the contents of I. Instead, however, he goes on to give a statement of the doctrine of the Son. Now the explicit reference to the Spirit in II.l makes it certain that Athanasius is referring to the preceding letter, and not, as Felckmann supposed, to c. drianos, I— III. In any case, II is not a summary of that work or of any other. In III.l he explains why he has begun by giving an account of the Son, and goes on to make the promised abridgement of Ep. I. Thus III.l takes up the promise made at the beginning of II. The conclusion of II, moreover, is very abrupt, and there is no doxology. As Montfaucon saw, this makes it very probable that originally II and III were one letter containing a brief statement of Athanasius's teaching on the Trinity. But as II formed by itself a short and self-contained exposition of the ὁμοούσιον it was detached from III (which adds nothing at all to the contents of I) and incorporated with I in the collection of twenty-eight works.
(Shapland, "Introduction" in The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion, 1951, p. 12-13)

• [Shapland] Thus the correspondence originally consisted of three letters. In the first, Athanasius takes cognizance of the new heresy and answers its arguments as Serapion has described them. He deals firstly with the passages of Scripture to which they appeal, notably Amos 4.13 and 1 Timothy 5.21 (3-14). He then turns to an argument based on the relationship of the three divine Persons. If the Spirit proceeds from the Father, He must be the Son's brother. If He belongs to the Son, the Father is His grandfather. Turning to the alternative, that the Spirit is a creature, he shows that the ministry and operation of the Godhead is one, hence the Godhead Himself must be one (15-21). There follows an examination of Scripture to show that the Spirit belongs to God and not to the creatures (21-7). The letter ends with an appeal to tradition (28), a discussion of the consequences for a faith regarding God as dyad rather than as Triad (29-30), and further texts.
(Shapland, "Introduction" in The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion, 1951, p. 13)

• [Shapland] We therefore conclude that the letters can scarcely have been begun before the summer of 358; that much of the evidence leads us to put them several months later in 359 or early in 360. It is less likely that they were written at any later date.
(Shapland, "Introduction" in The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion, 1951, p. 18)

HIT:
 These sayings concerning the Holy Spirit, by themselves alone, show that in nature and essence he has nothing in common with or proper to creatures, but is distinct from things originate, proper to, and not alien from, the Godhead and essence of the Son; in virtue of which essence and nature he is of the Holy Triad, and puts their stupidity to shame. But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the Holy Triad is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, ‘who is over all, and through all, and in all’—‘over all’, as Father, as beginning, as fountain; ‘through all’, through the Word; ‘in all’, in the Holy Spirit. It is a Triad not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ (Matthew 28:19).
(Athanasios, Ep. ad Serap. I.19; The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion 1.27-28, Translated by C. R. B. Shapland, 1951, pp. 133-136)

o Greek: Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν καὶ μόνα καθʼ ἑαυτὰ λεγόμενα περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος δείκνυσιν αὐτὸμηδὲν κοινὸν μηδὲ ἴδιον ἔχειν τι τῇ φύσει καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ πρὸς τὰ κτίσματα, ἀλλʼ ἄλλο μὲν εἶναι τῶν γενητῶν, ἴδιον δὲ καὶ οὐ ξέ νον τῆς τοῦ Υἱοῦ οὐσίας καὶ θεότητος, διʼ ἣν καὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος ὂν, καταισχύνει τὴν ἐκείνων ἀναισθη σίαν. Ἴδωμεν δὲ ὅμως καὶ πρὸς τούτοις καὶ αὐτὴν τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς παράδοσιν καὶ διδασκαλίαν καὶ πίστιν τῆς καθολικῆς Ἐκκλησίας, ἣν ὁ μὲν Κύριος ἔδωκεν, οἱ δὲ ἀπόστολοι ἐκήρυξαν, καὶ οἱ πατέρες ἐφύλαξαν. Ἐν ταύτῃ γὰρ ἡ Ἐκκλησία τεθεμελίωται, καὶ ὁ ταύτης ἐκπίπτων οὔτ' ἂν εἴη, οὔτʼ ἂν ἔτι λέγοιτο Χριστιανός. Τριὰς τοίνυν ἁγία καὶ τελεία ἐστὶν, ἐν Πατρὶ καὶ Υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι θεολογουμένη, οὐδὲν ἀλλότριον ἢ ἔξωθεν ἐπιμιγνύμενον ἔχουσα, οὐδὲ ἐκ δημιουργοῦ καὶ γενητοῦ συνισταμένη, ἀλλʼ ὅλη τοῦ κτίζειν καὶ δημιουργεῖν οὖσα· ὁμοία δὲ ἑαυτῇ καὶ ἀδιαίρετός ἐστι τῇ φύσει, καὶ μία ταύτης ἡ ἐνέργεια. Ὁ γὰρ Πατὴρ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου ἐν Πνεύματι ἁγίῳ τὰ πάντα ποιεῖ· καὶ οὕτως ἡ ἑνότης τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος σώζεται· καὶ οὕτως εἷς Θεὸς ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ κηρύττεται, «ὁ ἐπὶ πάντων, καὶ διὰ πάντων, καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν.» «Ἐπὶ πάντων» μὲν ὡς Πατὴρ, ὡς ἀρχὴ, καὶ πηγή· «διὰ πάντων» δὲ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου· «ἐν πᾶσι» δὲ ἐν τῷ Πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ. Τριὰς δέ ἐστιν οὐχ ἕως ὀνόματος μόνον καὶ φαντασίας λέξεως, ἀλλὰ ἀληθείᾳ καὶ ὑπάρξει Τριάς. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ὤ ἐστιν ὁ Πατὴρ, οὕτως ὁ ὤν ἐστι καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς ὁ τούτου Λόγος. Καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον οὐκ ἀνύπαρκτόν ἐστιν, ἀλλʼ ὑπάρχει καὶ ὑφέστηκεν ἀλη θῶς. Καὶ οὔτε ἔλαττον τούτων φρονεῖ ἡ καθο λικὴ Ἐκκλησία, ἵνα μὴ εἰς τοὺς νῦν κατὰ Καϊάφαν Ἰουδαίους καὶ εἰς Σαβέλλιον ἐμπέσῃ· οὔτε πλεῖον ἐπινοεῖ, ἵνα μὴ εἰς τὴν Ἑλλήνων πολυθεότητα κυ λισθῇ. Καὶ ὅτι αὕτη ἡ πίστις τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ἐστὶ, μαθέτωσαν πῶς ὁ μὲν Κύριος ἀποστέλλων τοὺς ἀπο στόλους παρήγγειλε τοῦτον θεμέλιον τιθέναι τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ λέγων· «Πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος.»
(Athanasius, Epistulae quattuor ad Serapionem, 1.27·28, PG 26:593, 596.)

 

[Steven Avery]

4 Armenian discussions

Alan Sucui

Grantley

Inessa
I have two friends who are interested in bible studies, I'll send you their emails with their permission
Aghvan Astsatryan
asaghvan@gmail.com Aghvan Aghvan Astsatryan +37493569446 WhatsApp

blbuljan@gmail.com
Vardan

contacts from Peter Heisey

Dear ____

My friend ___ sent me your contact info. Please let me know if this specialty project is of interest to you. Thanks!

We (mostly myself and another researcher) are doing some Bible research in the USA, often revolving around the heavenly witnesses verse, 1 John 5:7 (also known as the Johannine Comma, or Comma Johanneum.)

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

We wonder if there are any Armenian Bible or scholarly papers that focus on this verse?
So far I have not run into any.

We are supporters of the authenticity of the verse, as from the pen of the Apostle John, however we work closely with scholars on all sides of the authenticity issue. The main goal is simply sound scholarship.

We have one Armenian project that is very specific, and that is the one that I will describe here. It may involve inquiring with Armenian libraries about manuscripts, and then finding and reading and copying a specific short section. Also there may be some writing in Armenian books or Journals about this work, which might be found in a search done in Armenian.

We are hoping to have the Armenian script for a couple of sentences and then some English translation. The main goal is to see if it actually matches the Greek (with English translation) on this one small part. We can make modest financial contributions if that will be helpful. An Armenian library, or Bible scholar, may give an estimate of the date of any manuscript as well. That is helpful, but the simple fact that it was translated into Armenian early is the key point.

There is a work in Greek that was translated to Armenian in the early centuries, perhaps c. AD 500. Here is some information about the Greek work and the section that we find especially interesting, as it is considered to be a valid reference to the heavenly witnesses verse.

The work involves a discussion of Athanasius with an Arian at Nicaea. Apparently it does not take place at the Council, but in that time and place. Whether Athanasius himself contributed to this work in unknown. There is a lot of discussion as to who wrote it, and when, but that is not our concern. It is definitely an early work, a scholar named Dr. Annette von Stockhausen estimates c. AD 400 for the writing. We have this information available if you would like more background.

Here is the title.

• [Armenian Title of Work] Dialogue on the Council of Nicea against Arius, in the year 310 of the divine incarnation, in the days of the pious emperor Constantine and the blessed Pope Sylvester and of the episcopacy of Byzantium of Alexander. (Casey, Armenian Manuscripts of St. Athanasius, 1931, p. 47)

Text of Greek to English.
We do have a bit more translated, a paragraph, but this is the crucial part.

[Athanasius responds]
Likewise isn’t it the remission of sins procured by that quickening and sanctifying ablution [baptism], without which no man shall see the kingdom of heaven, [a baptism] given to the faithful in the thrice-blessed name? And besides all these, John says: ”And the three are the one”.
(Disputation Contra Arium 44; Migne Graeca, PG 28.499-500)

Greek
Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παρεκτικὸν, καὶ ζωοποιὸν, καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρὸν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισμακαρίᾳ ὀνομασίᾳ δίδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς; Πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν Ἰωάννης φάσκει· «Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.» (I Joan. V, 7).
(Disputation Contra Arium 44; Migne Graeca, PG 28.499-500)

One helpful resource we have used.
This may not be available to you for free, I could send you the pictures, or some pertinent facts.

Armenian Manuscripts of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (1931)
Robert Pierce Casey (1897-1959)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1507897
p. 43-59

Sincere thanks! for you consideration of this project.
Any help appreciated!

If this is not your scholarship "sweet spot", that is fine, just let us know.
Any recommendations also appreciated.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
347 218-3306 voice 520 442-3322 text

purebible@gmail.com
Skype - mbesteven
Facebook and Messenger https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568/
Facetime - stevenaveryspencer@gmail.com
No WhatsApp - use iPad not iPhone

PS
In the future, we are also interested in learning more about the Synods of Sis and Adina, and the writings of Haitho, Uscan and Gregorius Sisnesis. And the manuscripts used by Clemente Galano in his writing on the Synods.

 

[Steven Avery]

William Cave - doting monk
https://books.google.com/books?id=VLoPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA364

John Mill
Disputatio in Concilio Nicaeno Habita (“Debate Held at the Council of Nicaea”),

David Martin

Charles Forster

Migne

Alberto Rigolio
(24. Ps. Athanasius, Disputatio Contra Arium; Rigolio, Christians in Conversation, 2019, p. 115-117)
• [Rigolio : Overview & Aspects] 24. Ps. Athanasius, Disputatio Contra Arium.
Date of composition: late fourth cent. The

(Patrick Andrist,
“Literary Distance and Complexity in Late Antique,and Early Byzantine Greek Dialogues Adversus Iudaeos (late 4th - early 9th c.)”, 2017, p. 45-46)
4th century genre

(Shapland, "Introduction" in The Letters of Athanasius Concerning the Holy Spirit, Ad Serapion, 1951, p. 12-13)
Maybe on dating

Anne Stockhausen

• Quasten, Patrology, vol 3, 1986, p. 28-29.

Bernhard Voss
[Voss, The dialogue in early Christian literature, 1970, p. 333, fn. 50]
AD 337

(Opitz, Untersuchungen zur Ü berlieferung der Schriften des Athanasius, vol 23, 1935, p. 11-12)

M. Przyszychowska, “Are the Definitions - Liber de definitionibus - of the Pseudo-Athanasius of Alexandria, chapter II of the Guide (Viae Dux) of the son of Anastasis?” in E-Patrologos, 4/1, 2019, p.50-53

(Kim, Ps.-Athanasius, Dialog I de sancta trinitate, 2016, p. 95-96)

Casey

Authors considered by these scholars (Loofs; Stolz; Weigl) are as follows: Apollinaris of Laodicea (d. 382 AD); Diodore of Tarsus (d. 390 AD); Didymus the Blind of Alexandria (313-398 AD); or an unknown earlier source circa 360. T

• [Riebe] Eduard Weigl [Untersuchungen zur Christologie des heiligen Athanasius, 1914, pp. 150-158.] defended Athanasian authorship
(Riebe, Marcellus of Ancyra in modern research, 1992, p. 51)

 

[Steven Avery]

Add page on Bishop of Persians, strong new hit.

This reference shows that the idea that Nicea did not know of the heavenly witnesses is a myth, thus supporting the usage by Athanasius.

Nicea - heavenly witnesses use by Heraclianus contra the arian Germinius
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.59

Gerhard Schmid on AD 431 Ephesus
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/860548064032195/?comment_id=863351247085210&comment_tracking={"tn"%3A"R"%7D

Also, the wording of Pseudo-Athanasius is exactly the same as the wording in Concilium universale Ephesenum anno 431, which quotes the passage of 1 John 5 without the Heavenly Witnesses. So the presence of the wording in Pseudo-Athanasius means nothing for the debate in favor of the Heavenly Witnesses.

 

[Steven Avery]

Richard Simon
https://books.google.com/books?id=bds7AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA10

 

[Steven Avery]

https://forums.carm.org/threads/ecfs-and-the-trinity.11135/page-5#post-867670

DCA is a false-positive!

Grantley and TNC agree on one basic point ... references everywhere are false positives, as many as 20 references are said to be based on the earthly witnesses, even without the slightest mention of spirit, water and blood .. i.e. invisible allegory.

Richard Porson tried that trick as well.

Scrivener, again, was more sensible.

Plain Introduction (1894)
Scrivener and Edward Miller
https://archive.org/details/cu31924092355118/page/n415/mode/2up
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/scrivener/ntcrit2/Page_404.html

... a passage occurs in the Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture of uncertain date (fourth or fifth century), which appears to refer to it, and another from the Disputation with Arius (Ps.-Athanasius)]

 

[Steven Avery]

Casimir Oudin
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/casimir-oudin.2682/

Du Pin
Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica
(may be called
Nouvelle bibliotheque des auteurs ecclesiastiques, contenant l'histoire de leur vie, le catalogue, la critique, et la chronologie de leurs ouvrages ; le sommaire de ce qu'ils contiennent: un jugement sur leur style, et sur le
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_LEtAAAAAcAAJ
also --
Histoire ecclesiastique du dix-septieme siecle - and various similars

Palaeographia Graeca (1708)
Montfaucon
https://books.google.com/books?id=zHAsAAAAYAAJ

Bengel

Gerhard

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

This section of De Moor is similar to

David Martin
https://books.google.com/books?id=4tlbAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA77

De Moor is 50 years later, thus Martin does not have Oudin etc.

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

De Moor
https://www.fromreformationtoreform...monies-for-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity-part-4

[Not the doubtful writings of ATHANASIUS.] Our AUTHOR indicates the Disputation, which is said to have been held at the Council of Nicea by Athanasius against Arius, in which we read, opera of ATHANASIUS, tome I, page 147:

Τί δὲ καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀφέσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν παρεκτικὸν, καὶ ζωοποιὸν καὶ ἁγιαστικὸν λουτρὸν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐκ ἐν τῇ τρισμακαρίᾳ ὀνομασίᾳ δέδοται τοῖς πιστοῖς; πρὸς δὲ τούτοις πᾶσιν, Ιὠάννες φάσκει, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν,

but also is not that sin-remitting, life-giving, and sanctifying baptism, without which no one will see the kingdom of heaven, bestowed upon the faithful in the thrice-blessed name? but in addition to all these, John says, and the three are one.

Likewise Synopsin Sacræ Scripturæ, which is in the opera of ATHANASIUS, tome 2, where on page 138 in the review of the argument of 1 John, among other things it is said:

καὶ τὴν ἑνότητα δὲ τοῦ Υἱοῦ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα δείκνυσι,

and he shows the unity of the Son with the Father: which words are also believed to have regard to our text. That that Synopsin Sacræ Scripturæ is of ATHANASIUS is denied by CAVE in his Historia litteraria;[15] by OUDIN in his de Scriptoribus Ecclesiæ, tome I, column 349; and by MONTFAUCON in his Palæologia Græca: on the other hand, DU PIN claims it for ATHANASIUS in his Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica. Whatever the case may be, it is not able to be denied that this Synopsin surpasses in antiquity almost or verily all Codices that are today extant.

Similarly, although ATHANASIUS was not the Author of the cited Disputation, it appears to have been written already before the death of Constantine the Great about the year 336: see MARTIN, Dissertations Critiques, part I, chapter XII; Examen de la Reponse de Mr. Emlyn, chapter XV; La Verite du Text 1 John 5:7, demontree, etc., part II, chapters IX, XIV, pages 318, 319: compare GERHARD’S Disputationem posteriorem on this passage, § 22, 23, pages 1318-1320, and his Patrologiam, page 212. Concerning the νοθείᾳ/ spuriousness of the Disputation, which is reported to have been managed by Athanasius contra Arium at the Synod of Nicea, OUDIN discourses at length, de Scriptoribus Ecclesiæ, tome I, columns 328-331, who refers this Disputation to a later age, and thinks that perhaps it is able to be ascribed to Vigilius Tapsensis, a Writer of the Sixth Century.[16] But see what MARTIN observes, on the other hand, for referring this Writing to the Fourth Century, La Verite du Text 1 John 5:7, demontree, etc., part II, chapter IX. But if it was the offspring of even the Fifth or Sixth Century, it would exhibit a sufficiently ancient testimony for the authenticity of the text of John. BENGEL, in his Apparatu Critico ad Novum Testamentum on this passage of John, § 23, observes concerning the Author of this Dialogue:

“The Author of the debate the learned today teach to be Maximus the Confessor,[17] who, in the year of our Lord 640, with his monastery near Constantinople left behind, went into Africa: in the year 645, he went to Rome: and in the year 655 he was brought back to Constantinople by force. From which you may gather that Maximus among the Africans got possession of the Johannine Saying, previously unknown to him: and that he, exalting in that event, composed the Dialogue for the sake of showing and promoting that Saying. But if one does not acknowledge Maximus, he will be obliged to produce another author not at all unsuitable, and sufficiently ancient, and relying on the Codices of the Africans, and those in Greek: for he cites many saying of the New Testament (not to mention the Septuagint) in a manner that corresponds to the African codices: and this saying, the Three are one, if he had repeated it from some annotation only, if from Latin monuments, if the allegation had less strength in any regard: how could Athanasius, the Greek doctor, be introduced as making use of it? how had the author set the end and totality of the whole conversation on him? how would John be said to say that? and finally how would Arius, resisting for so long, yield?”

 

[Steven Avery]

Note:

The full Charles Forster section on Athanaius style would be very interesting!

A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witnesses; or, Porson's Letters to Travis eclectically examined, and the ... evidences for 1 John v. 7, eclectically re-surveyed (1867)
Charles Forster
http://books.google.com/books?id=yXIsAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA59

p. 59-63 mostly

This can be discussed with Annette Stockhausen and other current scholars.