omission of tres unum sunt in earthly witnesses

Steven Avery

Administrator
this was an awkward ham-fisted reaction to Joachim Flores.

Flores had the full text, but since the heavenly and earthly witnesses were the same, it was hard to interpret the heavenly as unity of essence (ontological)

Raising the Ghost of Arius
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-arius-grantley-mcdonald.421/page-2#post-5328
Unusual Claims of Arian Addition
Aquinas - handled superbly, only the final phrase

According to Aquinas, Joachim’s interpretation of the unity of the heavenly witnesses as one of love and testimony rather than one of essence was a perversion of its true sense. Aquinas goes on to suggest that the clause “and these three are one” at the end of verse 8—which can only refer to a unity of testimony rather than one of essence—was added by Arians in order to cast suspicion on the parallel phrase in verse 7, in order to lead the reader to suspect that the testimony of the three heavenly witnesses was likewise one of testimony rather than of essence. “In the true copies this is not found,” Aquinas concludes. For Aquinas it was clear that Joachim had fallen into the error of the Arians, and had therefore rightly been condemned by the Council.109 In Aquinas’ comments we see that variations in the reading of the comma in Latin bibles—attributable to textual interference to the end of verse 8 caused by the presence of the credal formulation hæc tria unum—had led Aquinas to a conclusion which was philologically incorrect, even if consistent with his doctrinal position. As far as I am aware, Aquinas was the first person to suggest that the presence of the clause “and these three are one” in verse 8 was due to its addition by Arians.

Joachim (c. 1190) full text

short text
Lateran Council (1215) - supports Lombard, condemns Joachim, the theme is 4 persons per Joachim not Arianism
Aquinas (c. 1250)
Ottobonianus
Bryennius
Complutensian Polyglot

Amsterdam Polyglot - Arius Montanus

more

Did the Lateran Council have the same idea about Joachim, and Arianism, and utilize the short text, BEFORE Aquinas?

William Wright shows Ottobonianus
https://books.google.com/books?id=1J4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA616

RGA
One of the issues discussed at the Fourth Lateran Council was a rapprochement between the Roman and Byzantine churches; as part of this process, the Acts of the Council were translated into Greek. The section in which Joachim’s propositions are condemned is the first documented occurrence of the comma in Greek.113

113 The passage from the Greek translation of the Acta is given in Martin, 1717, 138; Martin, 1722, 170; Horne, 1821, 4:505; Seiler, 1835, 616: ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, λόγος, καὶ πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καὶ τοὕτοι [sc. οὗτοι] οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν. This reading resembles that in Codex Montfortianus (except for the omission of τῷ before οὐρανῷ and the insertion of the article ὁ, which apparently does duty for all three persons) so closely that we might suspect that the scribe of Montfortianus had consulted this document. There is a fifteenth-century Greek ms of the Acta of the Lateran Council in the Bodleian Library, but it is one of the Codices Barocciani, brought from Venice and given to the University in 1629 by Lord Pembroke (Cod. Barocc. 71, 84-87); see Coxe, 1853, 114.

See if this will help the TRA discussion
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/823638741815323/
 
Last edited:
Top