Blog Archive

Saint Moses the Black

Saint Moses the Black
Saint Moses the Black

Popular Posts

There was an error in this gadget

Labels

Saint John the Theologian

Saint John the Theologian
Saint John the Theologian

Followers

Total Pageviews

Follow by Email

Friday, July 31, 2009

1st John 5:7, & Saint Cyprian

The verse was known by Saint Cyprian around the year 250 A.D.


KJV
1 John 5:7-9
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.""



The Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume V paper back





On page 423 it says:


Quote:

"The Lord warns, saying, "He who is not with me scattereth." He who breaks the
peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who
gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord
says, "I and the Father are one;" and again it is written of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," And these three are one."
And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in
celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the
parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold unity does not hold
God's law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life
and salvation." [1]

[1] "Treatises of Cyprian" page 423 in the book "The Ante-Nicene Fathers volume 5: edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts, Sir James Donaldson & Arthur Cleveland Coxe





In Schaff's:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.v.i.html

QUOTE:

"6. The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She
knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She
keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom.
Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is
separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of
Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is
an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for
his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he
also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He
who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.
He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to
Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of
Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;”
and again it is written
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are
one.”
And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine
strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and
can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold
this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and
the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

7. This sacrament of unity,
this bond of a concord inseparably cohering, is set forth where in the Gospel
the coat of the Lord Jesus Christ is not at all divided nor cut, but is received
as an entire garment, and is possessed as an uninjured and undivided robe by
those who cast lots concerning Christ’s garment, who should rather put on
Christ."














JNORM888

5 comments:

John said...

"And these three are one.”

occurs in the text whether or not the larger TR reading is there. The question is whether Cyprian could have interpreted the shorter text to refer to the Father, Son and Spirit.

Since the scholarly theory on the longer text is that it was a gloss that found its way into the text, Cyprian doesn't help distinguish between the gloss theory and the idea it was already in the text.

Anonymous said...

Some Latin versions of John’s first epistle that include the Johannine Comma say this.

1 John 5:7 quoniam tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT, 8 et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT.

5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, AND THESE THREE ONE THEY-ARE, 8 and three they-are who witness they-give on earth, Spirit and water and Blood, AND THESE THREE ONE THEY-ARE.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/comma.html


Other Latin versions of John’s first epistle that include the Johannine Comma say this.

1 John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant in caelo, pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus, ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT, 8 et tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, spiritus et aqua et sanguis, ET TRES UNUM SUNT.

5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give in heaven, Father, Word and Spirit Holy, AND THESE THREE ONE THEY-ARE, 8 and three they-are who witness they-give on earth, Spirit and water and Blood, AND THREE ONE THEY-ARE.

http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=23&c=5


The Latin versions of John’s first epistle that do NOT include the Johannine Comma say this.

1John 5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant, 8 spiritus et aqua et sanguis, ET TRES UNUM SUNT.

5:7 Because three they-are who witness they-give, 8 Spirit and water and Blood, AND THREE ONE THEY-ARE.

http://www.drbo.org/lvb/chapter/69005.htm


Cyprian says this in Latin regarding John 10:30 and 1 John 5:8 (as quoted by Martin Shue).

dicit dominus, ego et pater unum sumus, et iterum de patre et filio et spiritus sancto scriptum est, ET TRES UNUM SUNT.

He-says, Lord, I and Father one we-are, and again, of Father and Son and Spirit Holy, written it-is, AND THREE ONE THEY-ARE.

http://www.geocities.com/avdefense1611/wallace.html


The factual truth of the matter is that the clause “ET TRES UNUM SUNT” appears ONLY in 1 John 5:8 in the Latin version of John’s first epistle, NOT in the Comma, whereas the clause “ET HI TRES UNUM SUNT” always appears in the Comma in any Latin version of John’s first epistle that includes the Comma.

Therefore, the factual truth of the matter is that Cyprian is quoting from 1 John 5:8 in the Latin version of John’s first epistle that was available to him, NOT from the Comma.

This is not a matter of personal interpretation. It is a fact.

Why did Cyprian quote 1 John 5:8 (“ET TRES UNUM EST”] instead of quoting the Comma (“ET HI TRES UNUM EST”)?

The answer is obvious, which is that the Latin version of John’s first epistle that Cyprian was quoting did NOT include the Comma—otherwise, Cyprian would have quoted the Comma—and that Cyprian was giving the phrase “spiritus et aqua et sanguis” (Spirit and water and Blood) in 1 John 5:8, which he was quoting, saying, “et tres unum est” (and three one they-are), the Trinitarian interpretation “patre et filio et spiritus sancto” (Father and Son and Spirit Holy).

Jnorm888 said...

Interesting, and thanks for commenting.





ICXC NIKA

Anonymous said...

Just as proponents of the Comma incorrectly claim that Cyprian quoted the Comma instead of 1 John 5:8 in the Latin version of John’s epistle in the third century, when in fact he quoted 1 John 5:8 (et tres unum est), likewise proponents of the Comma incorrectly claim that that Gregory of Nazianzus faulted the grammar in 1 John 5:8 in the nineteenth paragraph in his thirty-second oration (his fifth theological oration) in the fourth century, when in fact Gregory cited 1 John 5:8 as the fourth of four correctly written proof texts from the Bible ([1] Proverbs 30:29-31 [LXX], [2] either Exodus 18-19 or Exodus 37:7-8 [LXX], [3] either Matthew 6:24 or Luke 16:13 and [4] 1 John 5:8 ) in his eighteenth and nineteenth paragraphs to prove his opponent (the person to whom he was writing) wrong in thinking (1) that things that are different in nature are not grouped together under one number and (2) that things of one gender are not grouped together under the number of a different gender.

http://www.piney.com/HsNanzianzen.html

Gregory is saying to his opponent that 1 John 5:8 proves him (his opponent) wrong. Gregory could not say this if he thought that the grammar in 1 John 5:8 was faulty. Gregory no more faults the non-grammatical-gender-agreement in 1 John 5:8 (the masculine number “three” and the neuter nouns “Spirit” and “water” and “Blood”) than he faults the non-grammatical-gender-agreement in Proverbs 30:29-31 (LXX) (the neuter number “three” and the neuter number “fourth” and the masculine nouns “lion-cub” and “goat” and “rooster” and “king”). After citing these four correctly written proof texts, Gregory refers to a fifth example (three kinds of crab and three kinds of dog). Then he says, “So you see how completely your argument from con-numeration has broken down, and is REFUTED by ALL these instances [ALL five examples].” It is obvious that Gregory does NOT fault the grammar in ANY of these four cited proof texts. Nevertheless, proponents of the Comma incorrectly claim that Gregory faulted the grammar in 1 John 5:8 in the fourth century, just as they incorrectly claim that Cyprian quoted the Comma from a Latin copy of John’s epistle in the third century.

Steven Avery said...

Hi,

Thanks for the strong confirmation of the Cyprian citation. Excellent. Notice that many solid thinkers, like Franz August Otto Pieper, have very properly seen the strength and significance of this reference.

As for the grammatical issues raised in a very confusing manner by Jim, feel free to come on one of the forums like WhichVersion or TC-Alternate for fascinating discussion.

Steven

Related Posts with Thumbnails