allegorical (Trinitarian) interpetation in RGA and BCEME - Richard Simon and Greek mss.

Steven Avery

Eis-egesis is not synonymous with allegory.
Potamius speaks for himself, and only quotes 1 John 5:8 Clause-D "et tres unum sunt".
He is Clause-D focused.

He gives eis-egesis about 1 John 5:8 Clause-D "et tres unum sunt". with no quotation of any part of "who bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit" (Clauses B-and-C).

The phrase used by Grantley is a
“Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Jn 5:8”
Raising the Ghost of Arius. p. 26,

That is your view as well.
And you two do apply it to Potamius and apparently others post-Nicea.


Grantley uses

We also find Origen applying 1 Jn 5:8 to the Trinity, significantly in the context of an allegorical reading of Ps 122:2 (LXX): “The servants to their lords, the Father and the Son, are the spirit and the body; - p. 25

.... these authors cite the comma, merely a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Jn 5:8. Once the Trinitarian interpretation of the phrase tres unum sunt in 1 Jn 5:8 had established itself, the three witnesses of the Spirit, the water and the blood were ripe for allegorical interpretation as types of the three persons of the Trinity. Once the Trinitarian interpretation of the phrase tres unum sunt in 1 Jn 5:8 had established itself, the three witnesses of the Spirit, the water and the blood were ripe for allegorical interpretation as types of the three persons of the Trinity. The beginnings of this process of allegoresis may be seen in Cyprian’s plea for the unity in the Church:

"Tertullian (Adversus Praxean XXV.1) considered that the (authentic) verse 1 Jn 5:8—just like many passages in the Hebrew bible, such as Gen 1:26-27, 3:22 and 19:24—gave some intimation of the Christian Trinity. In Cyprian we see a further development: the allegorical interpretation of the Spirit, water and blood of 1 Jn 5:8 as types of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the persons of the Christian Trinity... a rendering of 1 Jn 5:8 in which the water, spirit and blood are replaced by their allegorical equivalents;" - p. 431

"An allegorical interpretation, in the form, perhaps, of a marginal note, invaded the text of the Latin Bibles" p. 256

The existence of
Trinitarian allegoresis of this verse before the formulation of the comma is
demonstrated by the fact that some early writers (e.g. Facundus and Haymo) give
the spatial marker in terra in verse 8 but do not yet cite the comma. p. 38

On p. 167, discussing Bellarmine's he talks of:

"Latin Fathers whose works merely show a knowledge of the allegorical interpretation of 1 Jn 5:8"

in the context of
"Hyginus, Cyprian, Idacius, Athanasius, Fulgentius and Eugenius of Carthage"

Which is puzzling in application.
In fact, Bellearmine had used many more.
Jerome, it is clear that Jerome
was aware of the Trinitarian allegoresis of 1 Jn 5:8, to which he refers in a sermon
preached at Bethlehem in 401. p. 55

Newton then suggests that
the Trinitarian allegoresis of the earthly witnesses led a scribe (or scribes) either
to record this allegoresis in the margin, “whence it might afterwards creep into
the text in transcribing,” or to insert it into the text “fraudulently.” p., 206

Simon and the Greeks
the Greeks also had a tradition of interpreting verse 8 allegorically as a
reference to the Trinity;
After a thorough review of the manuscript evidence for the comma, Simon concluded that the Greeks, like the Latins, had a tradition of interpreting the water, Spirit and blood of 1 Jn 5:8 allegorically as a reference to the Trinity. p. 148
114 Simon 1689a, *2v–3r;
1689b, 1:A2v.

Simon, Richard. Histoire critique du texte du Nouveau Testament, Où l’on établit la Vérité des
Actes sur lesquels la Religion Chrêtienne est fondée. Rotterdam: Leers, 1689a.
-----. Critical History of the Text of the New Testament, Wherein is firmly Established the Truth of
those Acts on which the Foundation of Christian Religion is Laid. London: Taylor, 1689b.


Matthieu Souverain’s bombshell Platonism unveiled (Le Platonisme dévoilé), — on new page

Mill concluded
that the seeming citations in Tertullian, Cyprian and Augustine were
merely allegorical readings of v. 8. p., 184 blunder

There is a bit more in BCEME
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Simon knew that present-day Arians argued strenuously
against the comma, though he dismissed their arguments.92 To be fair, Simon’s
arguments were not based invariably on confessional divisions; Simon also
dismisses faulty arguments by the Catholic theologian Fromond (i.e. Libert
Froidmont), who had suggested that the Arians had removed the comma from
their bibles. (Accusations that particular groups have corrupted scripture go back
to the beginning of Christian apologetic, as seen for example in Justin’s Dialogue
with Trypho 71-73.) But how is it, Simon asks, that this verse is also absent from
the text cited by Cyprian, who lived before Arius, and from the Syriac and other
Eastern versions? In any case, Simon argues, Antitrinitarians gain nothing by
pointing out that the comma is absent from the mass of Greek texts: “Now
whether that Verse be Read in the I. Epistle of St. John […] or it be not Read; yet
the Doctrine of the Trinity may always be very well proved from that place,
against those who deny that Mystery; because the Fathers from the First Ages of
the Church, have applied the Witness of the Spirit, of the Water, and of the Blood,
to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They have proved, by the Unity of those
Witnesses, that the three Persons of the Trinity are one.”93 For Simon, as for
Erasmus, any attempt to prove or disprove the doctrine of the Trinity on the
basis of the comma alone was bound to fail. Simon’s examination of the verse was