overview of Greek and dual-language evidences and Greek grammatical imperatives

Steven Avery


Pure Bible Forum

overview of Greek and dual-language evidences and Greek grammatical imperatives

early church writers - references, usages and allusions - Ante-Nicene


Summary for Forums

There are a wide array of evidences that point to the early Greek manuscripts having both the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

The first is the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome, that discusses the tendency for the verse to be dropped. Jerome was working with Greek and Latin early manuscripts.

There are direct early church writer evidences in Greek.
Two were even acknowledged by Scrivener, a fierce opponent of authenticity.
Disputation of Athanasius against Arius at the Council of Nicaea
Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture


Of the Greek Fathers it has been said that no one has cited it, even when it might be supposed to be most required by his argument, or though he quotes consecutively the verses going immediately before and after it1: [but a passage
occurs in the Greek Synopsis of Holy Scripture of uncertain date (fourth or fifth century), which appears to refer to it, and another from the Disputation with Arius (Ps.-Athanasius)].

Internal evidences are abundant, and start with the solecism in the short Greek text. Which is fixed by the translation back from Latin! That this happenstance would be from an interpolation strains credulity.

The Old Latin manuscripts are a second-century line, and the source of the line would be translations from Greek to Latin.

Similarly, the Latin of Cyprian would have likely come over from Greek, as pointed out by Walter Thiele
Last edited:

Steven Avery


Claudius Apollinaris


Origen Psalm Scholium
Origen on Psalm 123 (122 in LXX)
Tertullian Eusebius of Caesarea
Jeroen Beekhuizen - The Comma Johanneum revisited
Eusebius and the Sabellian controversies
Jerome Psalm 91 Vulgate Prologue

Valentinus (Gnostic) - (also spelled Valentinius; c. AD 100 – c. 160)
also Valentinian - Hales says no, perhaps because that is the followers.

Irenaeus quotes Valentinus (talking John)

Look more into Irenaeus uses

Gerhard (1619)


Richard Laurence (1814)

former wholly renounced the authority of St. Paul; and -the Acts and Epistles to Timothy were corrupted or rejected by the Basilidians, Marcionites, Valentinians, * and their followers.
* Origen. contr. Cels. I.ib. II. p. 77. •


Faith in the Holy Trinity Vol 1 (1824)
William Hales
Origen contra Marcion Valentinus (and perhaps Lucian - Philopatris) Contra Celsium ( Celsus - Origen on who has corrupted the Gospel )

Very interesting with the Griesbach canon and then Unitarian lauding of gnostics.
Note that he shows Griesbach mangling the Wettstein pseudo-canon.



New Plea (1867)
Charles Forster
p. 7-12
Ittigius p.9
Hippolytus p. 12
Also p. 77
Porson - tpia in the neuter


Eberhard Nestle (1901)



The Johannine Corpus in the Early Church (2004)
by Charles E. Hill

Thus he (Irenaeus) links John’s interests in the Gospel directly to the controversy with Cerinthus.82 It is true that he also mentions the Nicolaitans in 3. 11. 1 as among those John wished to refute, and then includes the views of unnamed others, who must be Valentinians.83 But the references to the Valentinian version of adoptionism are simply expansions upon the basic structure of Cerinthus’ teaching as recorded in 1. 26. 1, added for the sake of showing that John wrote to put an end to all such ideas.



De Recta in Deum Fide -

J. Quasten writes, "The dialogue De recta in Deum fide (Peri ths eis theon orfhs pistews), extent in its Greek original as well as in a Latin translation by Rufinu ....

Enrico Norelli writes, "We now refer to the dialogue On Orthodox Faith in God, the work of a contemporary of Methodius, which comes to us in the original Greek and in a translation by Rufinus. The work is a dialogue in five books: a defender of the orthodox faith first refutes Megetius and Mark, two Marcionites, then Marinus, a follower of Bardesanes, and finally two Valentinians. Since the orthodox defender is named Adamantius, the work was attributed to Origen, who was nicknamed Adamantius. It was because of this attribution that Rufinus translated it. But the author seems rather to be an anti-Origenist.

contra per John Mill ? -

Last edited:

Steven Avery


While Matt is dumb as usual, he does supply the Greek in HTML


June 21, 2011
Although the writer I quote below is desperately grasping at straws to find early proof for the genuineness of the interpolation in 1st John 5:7 he in the process shows proof that the THREE-IN-ONE - ( CONCEPT ) - really originates with Gnostic writers rather than any genuine Christian writer:

CHARLES FORSTER: “...I have myself verified Gk., ( τρία ) in the neuter, applied to ( Persons of the Trinity ), in St. Irenaeus, circ. A.D. 185, St. Hippolytus, A.D. 240, St. Basil, St. Athanasius, Eusebius, and Germanus, Archbishop of Constantinople, A.D. 715. ... The first occurrence of Gk., ( τρία ) I find in St. Irenaeus, in a quotation ( FROM THE ARCH-HERETIC VALENTINUS );{6} a circumstance which carries back its use to A.D. 140, ... from the first verse of St. John's Gospel ; and in this connection so introduces Gk., ( τρία ), ... As he takes HIS GNOSTIC TRINITY from St. John's Gospel, it is only natural that he should take his title for it from the Epistle. We now come to the passage itself: GREEK TEXT: “...Ἔτι [18.] τε [l. δὲ] Ἰωάννην τὸν μαθητὴν τοῦ Κυρίου διδάσκουσι τὴν πρώτην ὀγδοάδα μεμηνυκέναι. αὐταῖς λέξεσι, λέγοντες οὕτως· Ἰωάννης ὁ μαθητὴς τοῦ Κυρίου βουλόμενος εἰπεῖν τὴν τῶν ὅλων γένεσιν, καθ’ ἣν τὰ πάντα προέβαλεν ὁ Πατὴρ, ἀρχήν τινα ὑποτίθεται τὸ πρῶτον γεννηθὲν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὃν [ὃ] δὴ καὶ Υἱὸν Μονογενῆ καὶ Θεὸν κέκληκεν, ἐν ᾧ τὰ πάντα ὁ Πατὴρ προέβαλε σπερματικῶς. Ὑπὸ δὲ τούτου φησὶ τὸν Λόγον προβεβλῆσθαι, καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὴν ὅλην τῶν Αἰώνων οὐσίαν, ἣν αὐτὸς ὕστερον ἐμόρφωσεν ὁ Λόγος. Ἐπεὶ οὖν περὶ πρώτης γενέσεως λέγει, καλῶς ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς, τουτέστι τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Λόγου, τὴν διδασκαλίαν ποιεῖται· λέγει δὲ οὕτως· Ἐν ἄρχῃ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος· οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. Πρότερον διαστείλας τὰ τρία, Θεὸν, καὶ Ἀρχὴν, καὶ Λόγον, πάλιν αὐτὰ ἑνοῖ, ἵνα καὶ τὴν προβολὴν ἑκατέρων αὐτῶν δείξῃ, τοῦ τε Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Λόγου, καὶ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἅμα, καὶ τὴν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα ἕνωσιν. Ἐν γὰρ τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡ ἀρχὴ, [ἐν ἀρχῇ δὲ] καὶ ἐκ τῆς ἀρχῆς ὁ Λόγος. Καλῶς οὖν εἶπεν· Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος· ἦν γὰρ ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ· καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν· καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀρχή· καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, ἀκολούθως· τὸ γὰρ ἐκ Θεοῦ γεννηθὲν, Θεός ἐστιν· οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν· ἔδειξε τὴν τῆς προβολῆς τάξιν...” -
(Ap. D. Advers. Haeres. Lib. I. p. 36. Op. Paris, 1639. [SAME TEXT = Book 1. Chapter 1. Section 18. (ed. W. Wigan Harvey) Sancti Irenaei episcopi Lugdunensis libri quinque adversus haereses, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1857].)