Euthymius Zigabenus - Panoplia Dogmatica - the three key quotes

Steven Avery


Again [here follows] the theology of the great Athanasius about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit being at the same time both distinct and united. And that when those things which the Divine Scriptures say about the Father are the same things again said about the Son and about the Holy Spirit, it is proof of one Godhead in these three.
(Euthymius, Panoplia, Chapter 2; Translated by Jeroen Beekhuizen, correspondence, May 2020)

Greek: Έτι περί Πατρός καὶ Υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, διακεκριμένη ἅμα καὶ ἡνωμένη θεολογία του μεγάλου Αθανασίου, καὶ ὅτι ἃ λέγουσιν "αἱ θεῖαι γραπφαὶ περὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ταῦτα φασι πάλιν καὶ περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ περὶ τοῦ άγίου Πνεύματος, δεικνύουσαι μίαν τὴν
ἐν τοῖς τρισὶ θεότητα."
(Euthymius, Panoplia, Chapter 2; Migne Graeca, PG 130.49) - 1865 - 1792 - 1710


The word "one" is applied, i) to things homoousian [i.e., of the same nature], where there is a sameness of nature, but a difference of persons, as in this phrase, "And the three are one" (1 John 5:7); ii) to things heteroousian [i.e., of different natures], where there is a sameness of persons, but a difference of natures, as in this phrase, "And both together are one, not by nature, but by conjunction."

Greek: Τὸ ἕν ἐπὶ μὲν τῶν ὁμοουσίων λέγεται, ἔνθα ταυτότης μὲν φύσεως, ἑτερότης δὲ ὑποστάσεων, ὡς τὸ καὶ "τὰ τρία ἔν" (1 Jn. 5:7)· ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν ἑτεροουσίων, ἔνθα ταυτότης μὲν ὑποστάσεων, ἑτερότης δὲ φύσεων, ὡς τὸ "καὶ τὸ συναμφότερον ἐν, ἀλλʼ οὐ τῇ φύσει, τῇ δὲ
συνόδῳ." - Porson originally 1790 - Turton 1827 - Charles Forster - 1867 - Migne 1865

(this next is unclear, it is under the next quote, which is similar but does not have the key phrase)

Euthymius, Panoplia, Chapter 12; Migne Graeca, PG 130.248-249; Tîrgovişte, 1710, κηʹ [p. 28v];
Translated by Pavlos D Vasileiadis, correspondence, May 2020.


[1 John 5:6-9] "And it is the Spirit which testifieth because the Spirit is the truth. And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one. If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater." (1 John 5:6-9) See now again, how the preacher of truth calls the Spirit by nature God, and of God; for having said, that it is the Spirit of God that witnesses, a little onward he has, “the witness of God is greater.” (1 John 5:9) How then is he a creature, who is declared to be God with the Father of all things, and completive of the Holy Trinity? (Euthymius, Panoplia, Chapter 12)

o Greek: "Καὶ τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν, ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια· Ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ Πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ, καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν. Εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστί." (1 John 5:6-9) Θέα δὴ πάλιν, ὅτι τῆς ἀληθείας ὁ κῆρυξ Θεόν τε καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ θυσικῶς τὸ Πνεῦμα καλεῖ. Εἰρηκὼς γὰρ, ὅτι τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ μαρτυροῦν, μικρόν τι προελθὼν ἐπιφέρει, "Ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ Θεοῦ μείζων ἐστί." (1 John 5:9) Πῶς οὖν ἐστι ποίημα τὸ τῶν ὅλων Πατρὶ συνθεολογούμενον, καὶ τῆς ἁγίας Τριάδος συμπληρωτικόν;
(Euthymius, Panoplia, Chapter 12; Tîrgovişte, 1710, ριβʹ [p. 112r]; Migne Graeca, PG 130.871-872) - 1865 - 1782 - Matthaei - 1827 - Thomas Turton - 1823 - Burgess

Continues, bring in text.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Pavlos D. Vasileiadis claims there was manuscript revision.
Would that be only for the one of three quotes above that has the full verse?
Is there ANY hard evidence, or is it only Porson-esque mind reading?
Last edited:

Steven Avery

This one is not Panoplia Dogmatica or Euthymius - this should be removed

Also this grammar question.

New, looks like a second section on Euthymius Zigabenus, where he attempts to justify the solecism!

Post planned here:


Hi Pavlos D. Vasileiadis,

Apparently there is a spot where Euthymius Zigabenus comments on the masculine and neuter discordance, in a way that is reminiscent of the discussion in Gregory Nazianzen, yet far more direct and clear as to the need to explain the solecism. (Without involving third parties, as in Gregory.)

Euthymiu tu Zigabēnu ta heuriskomena panta, Volume 3 - is this Euthymius or Noel Alexandre?
Migne, 1865

(this Latin has to be checked a bit more, also the Greek would help)

Controversia I Opusculum IV
Caput VII

Quid Joannes? Cum in Calholicis epistolis suis tres esse ait *, qui testimonium dant, Spiritum, aquam, et sanguinem, videturne tibi delirare? Primum, quia res substantia diversas connumerare ausus est, quod tu consubstantialibus tantum tribuis. Quis enim hæc unius ejus demque substantiæ esse dixerit ? Alterum, quia mollo minime congruenti voces sequentes subjuuxerit; sed cum tres masculino genere proposuisset, tria neutro genere subjunxit, contra quam tuæ, atque ipsius etiam grammaticæ leges ferant. Verum quid interest, aut cum tres masculino genere præposueris, unum, et unum, et unum subjicere : aut cum unum, et unum, et unum dixeris, non tres, sel tria appellare?


Quick Google translation (without checking the Latin yet)
Feel free to offer a spiff-up.

Why John? When the three letters that Calholicus He said that testify, the Spirit, the water and the blood seem to you crazy? First, because the substance regular different terms, what do you credit consubstantial. Who is this one and the same substance that statement? The second is, because they are harder to harmonize the voices of the least of all the following subjuuxerit; but, when the three male gender, is proposed, there are three neuter gender, he added, that, contrary to what is thy life, and belong to him even in a grammatical Cases whatsoever. Yes, and what it concerns, or will have preferred, when the three male gender, is, one, and the one, and the one to be subjected: either when they make one, and the one, and the one you have said, there are not three, namely three to call?


Compare to Nazianzen, e.g. this from Rubeis (1687-1775) starts with the Why John?

Thesaurus Theologicus, in quo Natalis Alexandri, Dionysii Petavii, Jacobi Sirmondi, Johannis Mabillonii, Petri Constantii, Gabrielis Danielis, Henrici Cardinalis Norisii, Johannis Garnerii, aliorumque Clarissimorum Virorum Dissertationes ... exhibentur (1762)

"Quid Joannes? Cum in Catholicis Epistolis suis tres esse ait, qui testimonium dant, Spiritum, aquam & sanguinem..."


This has the potential to be an amazing new discovery!
Afaik, it has been missed till tonight  .


And, along with the Matthaei scholium and the Gregory section, totally eliminates the objection that goes "why didn't they notice the grammatical problem?"