Exposition of the True Faith

[Steven Avery]

The Witness of God is Greater

Justin Martyr : Exposition of the True Faith (5th century)

[Vranic] The attribution [of Exposition of the True Faith] to Justin Martyr went unquestioned until the
eighteenth century. Some two hundred years later, the work has been conclusively restored to Theodoret of
Cyrrhus (393-457 AD), whose authorship has remained unchallenged since 1930. (Vranic, The Constancy and
Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 74)

[Vranic] In 1880 J.K.T. von Otto published his third edition of the works of Justin Martyr. In this critical edition,
the Expositio was published among the "fragmenta psevdo-ivstini." In creating the critical text, von Otto used
most of the extant manuscripts containing the Expositio rectae fidei: Codex (Regius) Parisinus MCCNCVIII—
codex A; Codex (Regius) Parisinus CMXXXVIII—codex Ab; Codex (Regius) Parisinus MCCLIX A—coda B;
Codex (Regius) Parisinus CDL—codex C; Codex Coislinianus CXX—codex D; Codex Coislinianus CCXXV—
codex Db; Codex Claromontanus LXXXII—codex E and Eb; Coda Argentoratensis grace IX—codex F; Codex
Gissensis DCLXIX-codex G; Coda Monacensis graecus CXXI—codex M; Codex Venetus graecus LXXXVI—
codex V. Several codices containing the Expositio were not taken into consideration due to their
inaccessibilityP but the chances that these manuscripts would substantially alter von Otto's critical text are
negligible. Von Otto detected two recensions of the text, a shorter and a longer version. The shorter version is
found in the reliable ancient codices D, G, and B, while the other manuscripts of the same family (A, Ab, Eb, V)
contain the longer text. Von Otto's critical edition relies on this manuscript family. The rest of the manuscripts
have the relatively corrupted text of the longer recension. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the
Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 75)

[Vranic] The two versions of the Expositio rectae fidei have existed since at least the tenth century. The
longer recension is divided into eighteen chapters. The shorter version excludes chapters 1, 6, and 18, most of
chapters 7, 8, and 16, and parts of chapters 5, 9, 10, and 13. As Sellers remarks, the shorter version is about
three-fifths the length of the complete version F.K. von Funk conducted a study of the two recensions and
concluded that the shorter version is merely an abbreviation of the original text, pronouncing the
longer version the textus receptus. This text was critically analyzed and published by von Otto. (Vranic, The
Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 75-76)
[Vranic] Only after the publication of von Otto's critical edition did the Expositio draw scholarly attention. The
major breakthrough in restoring the authorship of the Expositio to Theodoret of Cyrrhus came in 1930. Soon
after publishing a critical edition of the Liber contra impium Grammaticum of Severus of Antioch, J. Lebon
published an article in which he argued for Theodoret's authorship. Lebon's argument was based on the
evidence provided by Severus. Writing in the year AD 518, Severus, a former patriarch of Antioch with
passionate sympathies for Miaphysite doctrines, quoted passages from the Expositio, attributing them
expressly to Theodoret of Cyrrhus. The impact of Lebon's argument is evident in an article a few years later,
when the great M. Richard advanced an argument about the date of composition of the Expositio, taking
Theodoret's authorship as a given. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret
of Cyrrhus, 2015, p. 76)

[Vranic] Therefore, the composition of the Expositio rectae fidei is best dated to the period between
Theodoret's ascent to the bishopric of Cyrrhus in AD 423 and the Nestorian schism at the Council of
Ephesus in AD 431. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus,
2015, p. 82-83)

 

[Steven Avery]

HITS:

[§7] Yes, then, as was said (it is good to remember it with a more complete demonstration), in the
teaching of discipline in Christ, in the instruction of baptism and also, certainly, not only by the divine
doctrine but also by the creation of the universe, in the absolute power of authority, the same and
identical things have been transmitted about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who is so clumsy
as to argue about the communion of essence between them? It was admitted, in effect, to agree that
there is a Divinity, who makes himself known in the Father, in the Son and in the Holy Spirit, in
which [the names] "Father", "Son" and "Holy Spirit" reveal the Persons of the one Divinity, and
"God" implies the essential communion of Persons. It is conceived as One in Three, and it is
known as Three in One.

(Justin Martyr, Exposition of the True Faith, 7)

Henry Hammond has:
“Of the holy and coessential Trinity,”

“The God of all, who is known in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost:”
and of them all
"These three partake of one and the same essence, have one and the same divinity"
and, three persons, asserted and cited from St. Paul, 2 Cor. xiii. 13, and from Christ, Matt, xxviii. 19:
“Unity in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity.”

o Greek: Εἰ γάρ, ὅπερ εἴρηται (καλὸν γὰρ ἀναλαβεῖν πρὸς ἐντελεστέραν ἀπόδειξιν), ἐπί τε τῆς ἐν
Χριστῷ ροῦ κόσμου μαθητείας, επί τε τῆς διδαχῆς τοῦ βαπτίσματος, ἔτι μὴν καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θείας
διδασκαλίας καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς δημιουργίας, οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς κατ’ ἐξουσίαν αὐθεντίας,
παραπλήσια καὶ ταὐτὰ περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος παραδέδοται, τίς οὕτω σκαιὸς
ὡς διαμφισβητεῖν περὶ τῆς κατ’ οὐσίαν ἀλλήλων κοινωνίας; Ἔνα τοίνυν θεὸν προσῆκεν
ὁμολογεῖν, ἐν πατρὶ καὶ υἱῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι γνωριζόμενον, ᾗ μὲν πατὴρ καὶ υἱὸς καὶ
ἅγιον πνεῦμα, τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος τὰς ὑποστάσεις γνωρίζοντας, ᾗ δὲ θεός, τὸ κατ’ οὐσίαν
κοινὸν τῶν ὑποστάσεων νοοῦντας. Μονὰς γὰρ ἐν τριάδι νοεῖται, καὶ τριὰς ἐν μονάδι
γνωρίζεται.

(Justin Martyr, Expositio Rectae Fidei, 7; Otto, Corpus apologetarum christianorum
saeculi secundi, vol 3, part 1, 1880, p. 26)

[§9] In this way, then, we think that the Son has been begotten from the Father, as a light is kindled
from another light. The image is sufficient to establish the co-eternity, the identity of essence and the
impassivity of the generation. If it was ignited, it coexisted eternally in what ignited it. At what exact
moment did the light beam separate from the [source of] light? And if a light comes from another light, it
would demonstrate the identity with the one from which it was generated. Furthermore, if what has
been generated is also a light, its generation would be impassive.23 The luminous ray does not arise
from the light by separation, or effusion, or division, but comes impassively from its essence. We also
retain the same notion about the Holy Spirit: as the Son proceeds from the Father, so also the Spirit;
but it will certainly differ in mode of existence. For the Son, Light that arises from the Light, shone when
he was begotten, but the Spirit, being the Light of Light also He, did not arise when he was begotten but
by procession. In this way he is coeternal with the Father, identical in essence, and thus proceeded
from there impassively. In this way we understand the Unity in the Trinity, and we recognize the
Trinity in the Unity. Having attained these things and received this measure of knowledge from the
Lord, we expose what was accomplished by intelligence to the children of the Church, exhorting them
to think in this way until a more perfect illumination of knowledge is revealed to them, since it is wise to
apply diligently to those [topics] that have been raised by us. For we are not presenting an elaborate,
bombastic or haughty exposition, but rather we put it forward in a pious way worthy of true
knowledge, gathering, as far as possible, the knowledge of the Divinity one in three perfect
Persons. And thinking in such a way about the Holy Trinity…

(Justin Martyr, Exposition of the True Faith, 9)

o Greek: Οὕτω τοίνυν νοοῦμεν τὸν υἱὸν ἐκ πατρὸς γεγεννῆσθαι, ὡς φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς ἐκλάμψαν.
Ἱκανὴ γὰρ ἡ εἰκὼν παραστῆσαι το τε συναΐδιον τό τε τῆς οὐσίας ταὐτὸν τό τε τῆς γεννήσεως
ἀπαθές. Εἰ γὰρ ἐξελάμφθη, τῷ ἐκλάμψαντι ἀχρόνως συνυπέστη. Τίνι γὰρ φωτὸς ἔκλαμψις
χρόνου μέσῳ διακόπτοιτο; Καὶ εἰ φῶς ἐκ φωτός, τὸ ταὐτὸν ἐκείνῳ δηλώσειεν, ἀφ’ οὗ καὶ
γεγέννηται. Εἰ δὲ πάλιν φῶς καὶ τὸ γεγεννημένον, ἀπαθὴς ἂν εἴη καὶ ἡ γέννησις. Οὐ γὰρ κατὰ
τομὴν ἢ ῥεῦσιν ἢ διάστασιν τοῦ φωτὸς ἡ ἔκλαμψις φίνεται, ἀλλ’ ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτῆς ἀπαθῶς
προέρχεται. Τὴν αὐτὴν δὲ γνῶσιν καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος κατέχωμεν, ὅτι, ὥσπερ ὁ υἱὸς
ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, οὕτως καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα· πλήν γε δὴ τῷ τῆς ὑπάρξεως διοίσει. Ὁ μὲν γάρ, φῶς ἐκ
φωτός, γεννητῶς ἐξέλαμψεν, τὸ δέ, φῶς μὲν ἐκ φωτὸς καὶ αὐτό, οὐ μὴν γεννητῶς ἀλλ’
ἐκπορευτῶς προῆλθεν· οὕτως συναΐδιον πατρί, οὕτως τὴν οὐσίαν ταὐτόν, οὕτως ἀπαθῶς
ἐκεῖθεν ἐκπορευθέν. Οὕτως ἐν τῇ τριάδι τὴν μονάδα νοοῦμεν, καὶ ἐν τῇ μονάδι τὴν τριάδα
γνωρίζομεν. Ταῦτα χωρήσαντες καὶ τοῦτο τὸ μέτρον παρὰ τοῦ κυρίου τῆ γνώσεως λαβόντες
τοῖς υἱέσι τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὸ καταληφθὲν ἐκτιθέμεθα, οὕτω μὲν φρονεῖν παρακαλοῦντες, ἕως ἂν
τελεωτέραν τῆς γνώσεως τὴν ἔκλαμψιν δέξωνται, ἐπεὶ γε τοῖς παρ’ ἡμῶν ἐκτεθεῖσιν σὺν
ἐπιμελείᾳ προσέχειν σωφρονικόν. Οὐ γάρ τι κομψὸν ἢ ὑπέρογκον ἢ μεγαλαυχίας ἔχον
ἀπόδειξιν ἐφαντάσθημεν, ὅσον δὲ εὐσεβὲς μᾶλλον καὶ πρέπον τῇ ἀληθεῖ γνώσει κατὰ
δύναμιν συλλἐξαντες τῆς μιᾶς θεότητος τὴν ἐν τελείαις τρισὶν ὑποστάσεσιν γνῶσιν
ἐξεθέμεθα. Καὶ περὶ μὲν τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος... (Justin Martyr, Expositio Rectae Fidei, 9; Otto,
Corpus apologetarum christianorum saeculi secundi, vol 3, part 1, 1880, p. 30, 32)

Comment:
[Vranic] Moreover, the layout of the material of the Expositio points to a clear Trinitarian emphasis. Out of
eighteen chapters, the first ten are dedicated to a clear and concise discussion of Trinitarian material.
Theodoret was concerned with explaining the doctrine of the Trinity, arguing for the full divinity of the Logos
and the Holy Spirit. (Vranic, The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus,
2015, p. 81)

 

[Steven Avery]

Henry Hammond - p. 467
http://www.archive.org/stream/paraphraseannota04hammuoft#page/466/mode/2up

Henry Hammond
https://books.google.com/books?id=jtslAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA306

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

Joseph Bingham
http://books.google.com/books?id=EJhMAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA367

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

Edmund Calamy
https://books.google.com/books?id=WhwtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA476

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

John Scott Porter might give good leads where is applying a hand-=wave

John Scott Porter
https://books.google.com/books?id=eMHORkWbDJUC&pg=PA505