Potamius of Lisbon

Steven Avery

Administrator
The life and works of Potamius of Lisbon: a biographical and literary study with English translation and a complete commentary on the extant works of Potamius Epistula ad Athanasium, De Lazaro, De martyrio Isaiae Prophetae, Epistula de substantia, Epistula Potami
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_life_and_works_of_Potamius_of_Lisbon.html?id=HlIQAQAAIAAJ

Worldcat

https://www.worldcat.org/title/life...a-de-substantia-epistula-potami/oclc/39873592

Pelayo on Potamius and Priscillian - Spanish Heterodox - p. 30 p. 33-34

A History of the Spanish Heterodox (2009)
Marcelino Menendez Pelayo

http://www.amazon.com/History-Spanish-Heterodox-Marcelino-Menendez/dp/1901157989#reader_1901157989

Opusculos desconocidos de San Jeronimo ;
This seems to pop up in 1908, again with little English explanation, not sure if there is even an English translation. It seems to be attributed to either Potamius or Jerome.

La Vetus Latina Hispana
http://books.google.com/books?id=LoCOWLs8_p8C&pg=PA262
http://books.google.com/books?id=LoCOWLs8_p8C&pg=PA522

Notice that this work has been ascribed to Jerome as well as Potamius

Altercatio ecclesiae et synagogae (1999)

. N. Hillgarth, Martino Conti
http://books.google.com/books?id=DV...a=X&ei=qoLyTrbOEOXY0QGdouTKAg&ved=0CFoQ6AEwBg

Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.

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


 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Research email 12/19/2011 - pics can be put back in

Potamius of Lisbon

Manlio Simonetti
Antonio Montes Moreira
Marco Conti
Mark Humphries
Valeriano Yarza Urkiola

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

Seeing Simonetti referenced by Bevenot.
So, starting with a Simonetti snippet (found by google books, Simonetti and "tres unum" search)

La crisi ariana nel IV secolo (1975)
Manlio Simonetti
http://books.google.com/books?ei=bZvuTuCSFOPn0QHB0YXZCQ&id=F7wAAAAAMAAJ&dq=Manlio+simonetti+"tres+unum+"&q=+"tres+unum+"#search_anchor

Sulla possibilità che Potamio possa aver utilizzalo il comma Ioanneum nell'interpretare trinitariamente tres unum sunt
di I Io. 5.8 (ce. 3.10.19) cfr.MONTES MOREIRA. op. cit., p. 170 222 235

Google translate - "The possibility of Potamia may have used in interpreting paragraph Joanneum Trinitarian "

So who is Potemio ?

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

REVIEW -
The Life and Works of Potamius of Lisbon., M. Conti (1998)
Classical Review, 55 . pp. 161-163.
Humphries, Mark (2005)
http://eprints.nuim.ie/614/
Abstract
Potamius of Lisbon is hardly one of the more celebrated churchmen of the fourth century AD. His life is shrouded in obscurity: we do not know when he was born, when he became bishop, or when he died. He emerges into the light of history in the mid-350s when, during the western residence of the 'Arian' emperor Constantius II, many bishops were called upon to adhere to the emperor''s preferred version of Christian orthodoxy" -- a version that would later be denounced as heresy after the triumph of Nicene Christology at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

He discusses Potamius' career (5-28) and writings (29-44). There are commentaries on the four works mentioned above that are attributed to Potamius by C. (45-132), as well as the fragment of a letter by Potamius quoted in Phoebadius of Agen's Contra Arianos 5.2

Thus we have to revisit Phoebadius to see whether it is the same major reference, or how related.
Horne in 1825 gave us a good summary from Nolan:

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

We mentioned Stoeckhardt, and his usage of Phoebadius, especially in:

Karl George Stoeckhardt - the German section that is translated in the 1963 book by Degner
Jan 29, 2008

Georg Stoeckhardt
http://www.elfk.de/portal/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=JeCQ/PM7Rm8=&tabid=300&mid=746
* Phoebadius, Bischot von Aginnum in Aquitanien 37, erwähnt in seiner Schrift ..Contra Ariano" (Kap. 45) ebenfalls Vater. Sohn und Heiligen Geist. Und er bemerkt dazu: ."Unus tarnen Deus omnia. quia tres unum sunt" (Gott ist doch ganz einer, weil drei eins sind). Er meint; Die drei sind ein Gott, weil es sicher ist. dass diese drei eins sind. Der Nachsatz soll den Vordersatz bestätigen.

Notice that Stoeckhardt takes this quite seriously as part of the evidence, and that Pieper says he is a defender:
referring to the three witnesses in heaven to be genuine (eg, Besser, Stoeckhardt, Sander, Mayer, and others)

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

Remember .. Ordo Romanus - apparently we have to put together the Roman Creed, Phoebadius and Potamius.

An introduction to the creeds and to the Te Deum
Andrew Ewbank Burn
http://books.google.com/books?id=ONpIAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA129

Other references by Kretzmann, Meyer and others.

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

Returning, this looks like a separate, corroborative reference to Phoebadius.
Showing the verse used by both sides of the debate.

Potamio of Lisbon (Lisboa) is an early Arian

The life and works of Potamius of Lisbon: a biographical and literary study with English translation and a complete commentary on the extant works of Potamius Epistula ad Athanasium, De Lazaro, De martyrio Isaiae Prophetae, Epistula de substantia, Epistula Potami (1998)
Marco Conti
http://books.google.com/books/about/The_life_and_works_of_Potamius_of_Lisbon.html?id=HlIQAQAAIAAJ

Now Morerira seems to have Potamius allegorizing .. before Augustine ! To Athanasius !

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=Cca&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:eek:fficial&q="Epistula ad athanasium " "tres unum"&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=120421l120421l0l120752l1l1l0l0l0l0l302l302l3-1l1l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&ei=uQTvToi1HaL30gGk5YHKCQ

Potamio de Lisboa: estudio, edición crítica y traducción de sus obras (2000)
Valeriano Yarza Urkiola
http://books.google.com/books?ei=vwTvTvzwMOTi0QG-9YDYCQ&id=VJ_YAAAAMAAJ&dq="Epistula+ad+athanasium+"+"tres+unum"&q=+"tres+unum"#search_anchor

p. 98 and 274 looks to be our Latin !
Brand new.

Is this the smoking gun of verse usage directly in the Arian 4th century debates ?
Where both Potamius and Phoebadius are discussing the verse, Potamius more directly ?
Pics, analysis and additional emails planned.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator

This is one of the Potamius references .. not where he mentions John as speaking.
Although the overlap with Potamius and Jerome is fascinating.


Inauguração do Viviarum - March 17, 2010
http://vivariumpatrum.blogspot.com/
12 - Potâmio de Lisboa (?-c. 360). Embora a tradição lendária se refira a nomes de bispos anteriores, e os indícios nos levem a pensar na existência de comunidades cristãs em Olisipo-Lisboa desde os finais, ou mesmo meados do século III, a verdade é que, de facto, Potâmio é, por volta de 355, o primeiro bispo conhecido de Lisboa (cf. MOREIRA - Potâmio, primeiro bispo, 59). O seu nome, que embora seja grego não impede a sua origem ibérica ou mesmo olisiponense, está associado à querela ariana que, depois do concílio de Milão (355), se alargara também ao mundo hispânico. O testemunho do De confessione verae fidei, 32 (da autoria de dois luciferianos romanos Faustino e Marcelino, redigido cerca de 383 ou 384) não deixa dúvidas: Potamius Olisiponae civitatis episcopis (CCL 69, 368). Na primeira referência que as fontes históricas fazem ao bispo olisiponense este aparece já envolvido nos importantes debates teológicos que marcaram o período pós-niceno. De facto, depois de, na primeira fase do seu episcopado, ter professado a fé de Niceia, Potâmio acabou por aderir ao arianismo, por meados do ano 355. Depois dos insucessos dos Concílios de Arles (353) e de Milão (355), nos quais o papa Libério tentara reabilitar Atanásio e resolver a controvérsia cristológica a favor de Niceia, tem inicio um período difícil para os defensores do dogma niceno. O papa Libério sofre o exílio, a Ósio de Córdova espera-o igual destino, ao recusar-se assinar a condenação de Atanásio. Entretanto, Ósio de Córdova denuncia a apostasia do bispo de Lisboa perante os bispos ibéricos. Potâmio apela então à ajuda do imperador Constâncio que relega Ósio para o exílio e confirma o arianismo de Potâmio (De confessio verae fidei, 32). Por esta altura Potâmio subscrevera uma fórmula herética (quem pro impia fidei subscriptione, Ibidem) que, provavelmente, corresponde ao credo emanado pelo sínodo de Sirmium, realizado em Agosto de 357, no qual o bispo lusitano teve um papel importante na defesa das teses arianas. S. Hilário de Poitiers confirma que o bispo olisiponense participou no referido sínodo do qual o partido anti-niceno saiu vitorioso, atribuindo mesmo ao bispo de Lisboa a redacção da fórmula de Sirmium (Liber de synodis, 3, PL 10, 487). Se todo o protagonismo que Hilário lhe atribui não pode ser confirmado pela parcimónia das restantes fontes, não restam dúvidas de que Potâmio deu, pelo menos, algum contributo para a elaboração da fórmula anomeia de Sirmium da qual é um dos subscritores e divulgadores. Por esta ocasião, o bispo lusitano escreveu alguns tratados heterodoxos, dos quais sobreviveram aos séculos apenas algumas palavras duma Epistula citada por Febádio, bispo de Agen. A passagem de Potânio ao arianismo é ainda confirmada pelo fragmento de uma Epistula Athanasii ad Potamium, referida no Liber adversus haeresim Felicis de Alcuino (794). Depois do concílio que teve lugar em Rimini (359), Potâmio parece ter regressado à fé de Niceia, como demonstra a sua Epistula ad Athanasium, e é neste reencontro com a fé ortodoxa que se insere a substância da obra escrita que Potâmio nos legou. Desta, que consta sobretudo em textos homiléticos, nem tudo sobreviveu (edição crítica de M. CONTI, em Corpus Christianorum, 69/A, 53-277). Já fizemos referência a uma das suas cartas perdidas da qual se conserva apenas um fragmento citado por Febádio, bispo de Agen, na Aquitânia, que no seu Contra Arianos transcreve um breve trecho duma Epistula Potamii (PL XX,16). Por volta do ano 359, Potâmio escreveu a Epistula ad Athanasium que chegou até nós incluída num dossier anti-ariano compilado pelo partido Luciferiano, nos finais do séc. IV (CCL 69/A, 149-163). Nesta carta o bispo de Lisboa combate a argumentação ariana que negava a legitimidade do uso do termo “substantia” na descrição da relação divina Pai-Filho, uma vez que tal termo não consta nas Escrituras. Potâmio defende a consubstancialidade e unidade do Pai, do Filho e do Espírito Santo à luz do passo Joanino 14, 28 (is qui me misit maior me est), que era usado pelos arianos como argumento a seu favor (cf. fórmula Sirmiana). O Pai é “Maior” que o Filho na medida em que ordo praeponitur, non substantia separatur” (CCL 69/A, 155). O filho é “menor” apenas enquanto provém do Pai (auctor Pater, ibidem, 157), é a relação que distingue o mittens do missus. Porém, tanto o mittens como o missus participam da unidade da substância: “Sed mittens et missi, quia tres unum sunt, de unitate deitatis una substantia est” (Ibidem 157). A unidade de substância entre o Pai e o Filho é garantido pela unidade de querer e operar de ambos. A teologia exposta é claramente aderente à fé de Niceia e parece não deixar dúvidas quanto ao regresso de Potâmio à ortodoxia. Deste período ortodoxo Potâmio legou-nos tos seguintes esctritos: 1. Tractatus de Lazaro, 2. Tractatus de martyrio Isaiae Prophetae, 3. Epistula ad Athanasium; 4. Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Nesta última obra o autor atesta ter escrito um tratado De Trinitate (“Igitur, quia superiori tractatu Trinitatis excussimus lumen...”, CCL 69/A, 209) que, provavelmente, deve ser identificado com o conteúdo da segunda parte da Epistula ad Athanasium. As homilias De Lazaro assim como o De martyrio Isaiae, redigidas cerca do ano 357, reflectem um certo pessimismo antropológico típico da atmosfera espiritual que se vive na região em que o priscilianismo lançou sólidas raízes. O De Lazaro é uma homilia na qual predomina a narração centrada no episódio bíblico da morte e ressurreição de Lázaro e onde o autor intercala as descrições marcadas por um realismo que chega a ser mórbido, com algumas reflexões de tipo filosófico-antropológico. O carácter não doutrinal desta obra não facilita a tarefa de as situar na evolução doutrinal do seu autor. Quanto ao De martyrio Isaiae, apresentado tradicionalmente sob a designação de homilia, não reúne, na verdade, os elementos característicos deste género literário. Desta vez, Isaías e os seus feitos heróicos estão no centro da narração. Não constituindo uma obra volumosa, os escritos de Potâmio, que abrangem os diferentes géneros de epístolas, tratados e homilias, dizem bem do seu protagonismo doutrinal e pastoral e são para nós particularmente significativos, por se tratar dos primeiros escritos cristãos da região que corresponde ao hodierno Portugal. A morte de Potâmio deve situar-se, segundo o já referido De confessione verae Fidei (41) de Faustino e Marcelino, por volta do ano 360, quando se dirigia para a villa que o imperador Constanço lhe oferecera como prémio da sua adesão ao arianismo (Cf. CCL 69/A, 370).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Witness of God is Greater

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

Note:
Marco Conti errs in placing (I John 5:8), the reference is clearly is the heavenly - (I John 5:7) - not the earthly witnesses, (I John 5:8). However, denying the obvious reference is the standard delusion pushed by the textual critics, as explained in the invisible allegory posts. The verse is clearly I John 5:7, there is no invisible allegory involved! Thanks to the BVDB contras for pointing out that within a book quote the number should not be changed without explanation. Beyond that, Conti,or his editor, erred on two of the John 10:30 quotes, so I fixed those numbers below.


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


Potamius, Bishop of Lisbon (circa 355-366 AD)
Potamius (first known bishop of Lisbon - Ulyssipona) an ecclesiastic of Spanish birth, flourished as bishop of Lisbon in the middle of the 4th century; and if the first of the pieces mentioned below be genuine, he must, in the early part of his career, have been a champion of the Catholic faith. Subsequently, however, he was a zealous Arian, and it is believed that he drew up the document known in ecclesiastical history as The Second Sirmian Creed. The writings usually ascribed to Potamieus are, Epistola ad Athanasiulm Episcopun Alexandrinum de Consubstactialitate Filii Dei, in some MSS. entitled Epistola Potainii ad Athanasium ab Aritais (impetitum?) posquam in Concilio Ariminensi subscripserunt, composed in the year A.D. 355, while the opinions of the author were yet orthodox. (Potimus. The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. James Strong and John McClintock; Harper and Brothers; NY; 1880.
www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/P/potamius.html

HITS:
● Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God. You must justly admit that, when your poisonous desire of impure slander was inflamed, the venerable fathers transfixed you with pious arrows in that holier council. Here also it is clearly shown that you held before you fetters of malicious distortion, since the Savoir says: "I have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him who sent him." (John 6:38) What do you answer, serpent? Is it really possible that you seek to obfuscate the brightness of this [PAGE 138] pure profession, which they consider to be a very small problem? The occasion has a bearing on the matter. The Lord our Savior appeared to mankind as a human being, since he had clothed himself with a human body. Therefore, he said: "I have come down from heaven not to do my own will." (John 6:38) He denied the exercise of the humanity that was in him. Therefore, he cries out in order to proclaim in himself the predecessor whom he remembers as his Father and begetter. Since the Son is named second, therefore he who precedes is greater: but, because "these three are one" (SA: I John 5:7), the substance of him who sends and of him who is sent, in the context of the unity of the Godhead, is one: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30), and "He sees me, sees the Father." (John 14:9) and, as the Savoir himself said to the Apostles: "I have been so long with you and yet you do not know the Father." (John 14:9)

(Potamius of Lisbon. "Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 136)

○ Latin: Epistola ad Athanasium Episcopum Alexandrinum de Consubstantialitate Filii Dei. Bene quod te antiquitas patrum in synodo sanctiori, voluntate viperea impurae virositatis inflata, castis etiam te transfixere missilibus. Nam et hic doceris calumniandi pedicas praetendisse, quod Salvator ait (Ioan. VI, 38) : Non veni opera mea facere, sed eius qui misit me. Quid dicis serpens? Numquid in hac luce tenebras infundis simplici huic professioni, quam quaestiunculam putant? Tempus in causa est: Salvator apud homines, quia hominum corpus induerat, videbatur in corpore; ideo dixit: Non veni facere opera mea: hominis in se negavit officia? (1417D) Clamat ergo, ut illum ordinatorem in se praedicet, quem in se sibi meminit auctorem Patrem; quia Filius sequitur vocabulo, ita maior est ille qui praevenit; sed et mittentis et missi, quia tres unum sunt, de divinitatis unitate una substantia est (Ioan., X, 30) : Ego et Pater unum sumus. Et (Ioan. X, 30) : qui me videt, videt et Patrem. Et ipse Salvator ad Apostolos: Tanto tempore, inquit, vobiscum sum, et Patrem non nostis? (Potamius Ulyssiponensis, Tractatus, Migne Latina, PL 8, 1416C-1417D)

● Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. With good reason John asserts: 'and the three of them are one' (1 John 5:8) 'Substance ' is the expression of a single entity. In fact the substance of a thing is the totality of that through which a thing exists. Thus 'substance' will set a certain condition under a certain authority, or shows that a certain condition is subjected to it. As a consequence 'substance' is that through which the perplexity of faith is resigned and the unity of the Trinity is bound together. (Potamius of Lisbon. "Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 150)

○ Latin: Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. 3. Merito Iohannes ait: 'Et tres unum sunt' (1 Ioh. 5:8). Substantia singularis vocabuli nomen est. Est enim substantia rei one illud per quod est res. Substantia enim, aut sub aliquo statuet, aut aliquem subesse sibi docet statum. Merito ergo substantia est, per quam fidei perplexitas redditur et Trinitatis unitas catenatur. (Potamius of Lisbon. "Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 151)

● Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 10. And now, if you agree, since we have burst out from the spring of the Trinity, let us examine again, like keen investigators, the innermost nature of the 'substance', from which the spring gushes and flows out. Thus the Savior proclaimed: 'The Father and I are one' (John 10:30). Likewise John says: "And the three of them are one' (1 John 5:8). And David also: "For this purpose God has anointed you, your God' (Ps. 44:8) he says - that is, the God to whom David's words, the half of your part of which he is the whole. 'Yours' - he says - that is devoted to you, to whom your yourself should be made over. He is 'yours' to whom the words are spoken, or 'his' who comes, or 'of him' whom he frequently meets.'Your God', he says, to whom you certainly belong, with whom you are associated thanks to unity, or who, from his 'substance', is associated with you. But since the power of the Father is the Son, the power itself pertains to its 'substance', because 'substance' cannot exist without power. With good reason the 'substance' of the Father and the Son is one. (Potamius of Lisbon. "Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 156)

○ Latin: Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. 10. Nunc ergo, si placet, quia de Trinitatis fonte prorupimus, et venas substantiae unde fons scaturit et profluit curiosi indicis relegamus. Nam sic Salvator intonuit: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus' (Ioh. 10:30). Ut et Iohannes: 'Et tres', inquit, 'unum sunt' (I Ioh. 5:8). Et David: 'Propterea unxit te deus deus tuus' (Ps. 44:8), inquit, hoc est, cui tu deberis.Tuus, inquit, videbitur; tuus, inquit, patris tuae dimidium, cuius est totus. Tuus inquit, hoc est, tibi deditus, cui ipse sis mancipatus. Tuus cui dicitur, aut suus est qui advenit, aut ipsius est iste cui frequenter occurrit. 'Deus tuus', inquit, scilicet cuius es, ad quem pertines unitate, aut qui ex substantia pertinet ad te. Sed quia virtus Patris est Filius, virtus ipsa ad substantiam pertinet suam, quia sin virtute non potest esse substantia. Merito una Patris et Filii substantia est. (Potamius of Lisbon. "Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 157)

● Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 19. What the Son made, the Father caused. What the Father wanted, the Son fulfilled. The Father ordered all that the Son commanded. The will of the Father is everything for which the Son feels compassion: in fact the Word of God, Christ, that is the power of the Father, has put everything into effect. That is why the Father has made all that the Son has ordered. Indeed the Father with his power, when the Son descended to the underworld, through the Son and his self-same power, broke the adamantine bars of hell, and with the word of power evoked the dead men from the bowels of the abyss, and with the flaming sword of his mouth, according to the judgement delivered by his Christ, exiled the devil. This is one substance, this is the invisible and eternal majesty, this is the everlasting unity of the undivided Trinity. As John says: 'And the three of them are one' (I John 5:8). And Peter implores 'three tabernacles' (Mark. 9:4), and 'every word is confirmed by three witnesses' (Matt. 18:16). (Potamius of Lisbon. "Letter on the Substance of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 162)

○ Latin: Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. 19. Quod Filius fecit, Pater operatus est. Quod Pater voluit implevit et Filius. Pater iussit quicquid Filius imperavit. Patris voluntas est quicquid Filius miseretur: omnia enim verbum dei, Christus, hoc est virtus Patris, exercuit, inde est, quod Pater fecit quicquid Filius ordinavit. Pater enim virtute sua, descendente ad inferos Filio, per filium eademque virtute adamantinas tartari seras infregit, et verbo virtutis de secretis barathri mortuos evocavit, et diabolum flammea oris romphea Christi sui per sententiam exulavit. Haec est una substantia, haec invisibilis et aeterna maiestas, haec indiscissae Trinitatis unitas sempiterna. Ut Iohannes ait: 'Et tres unum sunt' (I Ioh. 5:8). Et 'tria tabernacula' Petrus exorat (Marc. 9:4), et 'tribus testibus verbum omne consistit (Matth. 18:16). (Potamius of Lisbon. "Epistula de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 163
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
And for hilarity, watch this quote from Grantley McDonald, one of the textcrit dupes, in a list of heavenly witnesses references including Cyprian and Potamius.

"none of these (13) authors cite the comma, merely a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Jn 5:8." -
Grantley McDonald, Raising the Ghost of Arius, p. 26

Read the QUOTES.
The textcrits are subject to a very strong delusion.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://books.google.com/books?id=IjqCjU8GevAC&pg=PA275
P. 113-115
1622725291234.png

1622725247782.png


p. 275
1622725131151.png


p. 275
35. Phoebadius of Agen, Contra Arianos 5 (PL 20.16 = CCL 64.27). Centuries later Alcuin quoted from an otherwise unknown letter of Athanasius to Potamius which poses a number of theological questions (PL 101.113, cf. J. Madoz, ‘Potamio de Lisboa,’ Revista Espanola de Teologia 7 [1947], 79-109, at 86): in favor of the authenticity of the quotation, see A. Wilmart, ‘Le De Lazaro de Potamius,’ ]TS 19 (1918), 289-304, at 289 n. 1; A. Montes Moreira, Potamius (1969), 159-167.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Here is what Grantley does have about Potamius (noting his hilarious hand-wave)

RGA - p. 24-26
Many of those who use the phrase in this Trinitarian signification cite it in the form tres unum sunt, a direct translation of the Greek: ... Potamius of Lisbon († after 357) (Epistula ad Athanasium; Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti) .... It should be emphasised that none of these authors cite the comma, merely a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Jn 5:8.

RGA - p. 426
Wilmart, A. “La lettre de Potamius à Saint-Athanase.” Revue bénédictine 30 (1913): 257-285.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - Evangelical Textual Criticism
(also similar placed in queue on Hixson page)
https://www.facebook.com/Evangelica.../2773222082769086?comment_id=4122210067870274

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

Hi ETC,

Potamius of Lisbon, of the mid-4th century, involved in the Arian controversies, repeatedly referenced the heavenly witnesses verse "the three are one", from the writings of John, in the direct context of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (recently discovered for our analysis, although first published in 1908)

Epistula ad Athanasium 1x
Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti 3x

And there was correspondence with ** Athanasius ** and Potamius in both directions.

Plus the Council of Sirmium in 357 was translated from Latin to Greek, with Potamius considered a major player. (Afawk there is not a written record to the verse from that Council.)

These four references from Potamius should help eliminate any idea that the verse was not circulating in Bibles during the Arian controversies.

And those who over-emphasize Priscillian with the verse in their papers should be rewriting their sections, since Priscillian was about 20 years after Potamius. Plus this is yet another Old Latin evidence evidence, predating the Vulgate.

With thanks to the new book The Witness of God is Greater, which brought forth the translations of the sections of the four quotes. It is amazing that this has not been brought into the public heavenly witnesses research and study until 2021.

More information, including quotes and Potamius background, is at:

Pure Bible Forum
Potamius of Lisbon
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/potamius-of-lisbon.1115/#post-7287

While the studies of the Greek mss. of 1200 (Lateran Council) and on is certainly worthy and appreciated, evidences like these are clearly majors, compared to the modern emphasis on minors (e.g. the Erasmus promise, the late Greek mss.) Where are the robust studies of the amazing Prologue to the Canonical Epistles by Jerome, which fits perfectly with Potamius and other references of the time? This critique is for both sides, defenders and those contra authenticity.

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Two pages of Potamius bibliography (can snapshot) up to 2003.

The Visigoths in Gaul and Iberia (2006)
A Supplemental Bibliography 1984-2003
Alberto Ferreiro
http://docshare01.docshare.tips/files/18005/180051670.pdf


POTAMIUS OLISIPONENSIS

Adkin, N. “Potamius of Lisbon, De Martirio Isaiae Prophetae1: «Per iugerum fidiculae».”Euphrosyne28 (2000): 369–373.

Alvarez, S. “El ritmo prosaico de Potamio de Lisboa.”Euphrosyne17 (1989): 265–276.

Antolin, G. “Opúsculos desconocidos de San Jerónimo—‘Codex Epistularum’ de la Biblioteca de El Escorial: A.II.3.”RABM19–20 (1908–1909): 216–226, 60–63.

Conti, M. The Life and Works of Potamius of Lisbon. InstrumentaPatristica, vol. 32. Turnhout: Brepols, 1998. xviii–190 p.

Dominguez del Val, U. “Potamio de Lisboa—Su ortodoxiay doctrina sobre la consustancialidad del Hijo.” CD172(1959): 237–258.

Fernández, G. “Constancio II, Osio de Córdoba y Potamiode Lisboa.” Actas del I Coloquio (Andalucía), 2:311–315.[See no. 7438]

Hillgarth, J. N. and Marco Conti. Altercatio ecclesiae et syno-gogae “Potamii episcopi Olisponensis” Opera omnia. Corpus Chris-tianorum. Series Latina, vol. 69 A. Turnhout: Brepols, 1999.277 p.

Lamelas, I. P. “Mistério da Trindade e Maria em Potâmiode Lisboa (¿-c. 360).” Didaskalia31 (2001): 61–87.

Leclercq, J. “Un tratado sobre los nombres divinos en unmanuscrito de Córdoba.” HS2 (1949): 327–338.

Lorenzo, J. “Acercamiento a la sintaxis de Potamio.” Emerita46 (1978): 117–130.

Madoz, J. “Potamio de Lisboa.” RET7 (1947): 79–109.

McHugh, M. P. “Potamius of Lisbon.” EEC, p. 936.

Montes Moreira, A.Potamius de Lisbonne et la Controverse Arienne.Louvain, 1969. xix–349 p.

Montes Moreira, A. “Le retour de Potamius de Lisbonne àl’orthodoxie nicéenne.” Didaskalia5 (1975): 303–354.

Saltet, L. “Fraudes littéraires des schismatiques lucifériensaux IVeet Vesiècles.”BLE8 (1906): 300–326.

Sánchez León, J. C. “Los sermones del obispo Potamio deLisboa.”ETF (Hant)11 (1998): 501–521.

Scudieri Ruggieri, J. “Considerazioni sul latino di Spagnadel secolo IV.” CNeo29 (1969): 126–158.

Weijenborg, R. “Review of Montes Moreira’s ‘Potamius’.”Antonianum45 (1970): 524.

Wilmart, A. “La lettre de Potamius à Saint Athanase.” RB30 (1913): 257–285.

Wilmart, A. “Fragments de Ps-Origène sur le Psaume XCIdans une collection espagnole.” RB29 (1912): 274–293.

Wilmart, A. “La collection des 38 homélies latines de SaintJean Chrysostome.” JTS19 (1918): 305–327.

Wilmart, A. “Le ‘De Lazaro’ de Potamius.” JTS19 (1918):289–304.

Wilmart, A. “Potamius.” RB29 (1912): 257–263.

Yarza Urkiola, V.Potamio de Lisboa: estudio, edición crítica y tra-ducción de sus obras. Anejos de Veleia. Series Minor, vol. 14.Vitoria: Universidad del Pais Vasco, 1999. 339
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Roger Pearse - Chrysostom
https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog...m-into-latin-5-the-collection-of-38-homilies/

==================
Hi Roger,

André Wilmart, (1876-1941), the Benedictine scholar, also wrote a lot on Potamius of Lisbon, including La Lettre de Potamius a Saint Athanase (1913). This is especially interesting because we have Potamius, writing to Athanasius, affirming the heavenly witnesses verse from John!

He does similar at least three more times in the extant writings. This is decades before Priscillian, and has to be Old Latin because it is also before the Vulgate.

His letter to Athanasius (Athansius did write to Potamius but we only have excerpts from Alcuin) changes the narrative of the 4th century history of the heavenly witnesses verse! Those who begin with Priscillian and claim the verse was absent in the Arian controversies will have to rewrite their sections.:)

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word,
and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

The context of his writings, direct scriptural quotations, does not allow for the common hand-waving attempt of allegorizing the earthly witnesses.

More information available at:

Potamius of Lisbon
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/potamius-of-lisbon.1115/#post-7287

Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God. ... Since the Son is named second, therefore he who precedes is greater: but, because "these three are one" (I John 5:7), the substance of him who sends and of him who is sent, in the context of the unity of the Godhead, is one: "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30), and "He sees me, sees the Father." (John 14:9) and, as the Savoir himself said to the Apostles: "I have been so long with you and yet you do not know the Father." (John 14:9)

(Potamius of Lisbon. "Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 136)

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
BNTS
https://www.facebook.com/groups/503252529695713/permalink/4202923333061929/

Hi BNTS,
Potamius of Lisbon, in the mid-4th century, involved in the Arian controversies, repeatedly referenced the heavenly witnesses verse writing of "the three are one", from the writings of John, in the direct context of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (recently discovered for our analysis, although first published in 1908) 1 John 5:7 (AV) For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
We have four extant uses from Potamius:
Epistula ad Athanasium 1x
Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti 3x

And there was correspondence with ** Athanasius ** and Potamius,in both directions.

Plus the Council of Sirmium in 357 was translated from Latin to Greek, with Potamius considered a major player. (Afawk there is not a written record to the verse from that Council.)

These four references from Potamius should help eliminate any idea that the verse was not circulating in Bibles during the Arian controversies of the 4th century.

And those who over-emphasize Priscillian with the verse in their scholarly papers should be rewriting their sections, Since Priscillian was about 20 years after Potamius. Plus this is yet another Old Latin evidence (one of many) predating the Vulgate.

With thanks to the new book The Witness of God is Greater, which brought forth the translations of the sections of the four quotes. And it is rather amazing that this has not been brought into the public heavenly witnesses research and study until 2021. e.g Nothing from Raymond Brown. And Grantley McDonald has only a bibliographic index to the Athanasius letter of Potamius, along with one en passant reference where he lists his two works as among 14 writers who supposedly were all allegorizing the earthly witnesses!

More information, including quotes and Potamius background, is at:

Pure Bible Forum
Potamius of Lisbon
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/potamius-of-lisbon.1115/#post-7287

This can also help explain why the verse was dodgy for various doctrinal viewpoints, including the Orthodox, and the writers might prefer to use the manuscripts with only the earthly witnesses.

Evidences like these are clearly majors, compared to the modern emphasis on minors (e.g. the Erasmus promise, the late Greek mss.) And where are the robust studies of the amazing Prologue to the Canonical Epistles by Jerome, which fits perfectly with Potamius and other references of the time? This critique is for both sides, defenders and those contra authenticity.

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Ehrman forum


Hi Ehrman blog,

Potamius of Lisbon, in the mid-4th century, was involved in the Arian controversies, apparently switched positions, but is generally considered an Arian.

Portamius repeatedly referenced the heavenly witnesses verse, writing of "the three are one", from the writings of John, in the direct context of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (recently discovered for our analysis, although first published in 1908.)

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

We have four extant uses from Potamius:
Epistula ad Athanasium 1x
Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti 3x

The context basically disallows the normal hand-wave that somehow Potamius was allegorizing the earthly witnesses.

And there was correspondence with ** Athanasius ** and Potamius, in both directions.

Plus the Council of Sirmium in 357 was translated from Latin to Greek, with Potamius considered a major player. (Afawk there is not a written record to the verse from that Council.)

These four references from Potamius should help eliminate any idea that the heavenly witnesses verse was not circulating in Bibles during the Arian controversies of the 4th century.

And those who over-emphasize Priscillian with the verse in their scholarly papers should be rewriting their sections, Since Priscillian was about 20 years after Potamius. Plus this is yet another Old Latin evidence (one of many) predating the Latin Vulgate, the Epistles translated c. 400 AD.

With thanks to the new book The Witness of God is Greater, which brought forth the translations of the sections of the four quotes.

And it is rather amazing that this solid new evidence has not been brought into the public heavenly witnesses research and study until 2021. e.g Nothing from Raymond Brown. And Grantley McDonald has only a bibliographic index to the Athanasius letter of Potamius.

More information, including the four quotes and the Potamius background, is at:

Pure Bible Forum
Potamius of Lisbon
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/potamius-of-lisbon.1115/#post-7287

This can also help explain why the verse was dodgy for various doctrinal viewpoints, including the Orthodox as well as Arians.

And the writers might prefer to use the manuscripts with only the earthly witnesses. As written in the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles by Jerome.

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

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

Short 200 word version


Hi Ehrman blog,

Potamius of Lisbon, in the mid-4th century, was involved in the Arian controversies, apparently switched positions.

Portamius repeatedly referenced the heavenly witnesses verse, writing of "the three are one", from the writings of John, in the direct context of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. (recently discovered for our analysis, although first published in 1908.)

1 John 5:7 (AV)
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

We have four extant uses from Potamius:
Epistula ad Athanasium 1x
Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti 3x

And there was correspondence with ** Athanasius ** and Potamius.

These four references from Potamius should help eliminate any idea that the heavenly witnesses verse was not circulating in Bibles during the Arian controversies of the 4th century.

The four quotes and the Potamius background, is at:

Pure Bible Forum
Potamius of Lisbon
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/potamius-of-lisbon.1115/#post-7287

This can also help explain why the verse was dodgy for various doctrinal viewpoints, including the Orthodox as well as Arians. And the church writers might prefer to use the manuscripts with only the earthly witnesses. As written in the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles by Jerome.
Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

https://ehrmanblog.org/a-heresy-tha...325e6ceff79154492d9b3f09e7bae7#comment-120329
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://web.archive.org/web/20120325064230/http://ecole.evansville.edu/arians/7arcon.htm
https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/history/ariancreeds.html


Seventh Arian Confession aka Second Sirmium (Sirmium, 357 AD).

Whereas it seemed good that there should be some discussion concerning faith, all points were carefully investigated and discussed at Sirmium in the presence of Valens, and Ursacius, and Germinius, and the rest.
It is held for certain that there is one God, the Father Almighty, as also is preached in all the world.
And His One Only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, generated from Him before the ages; and that we may not speak of two Gods, since the Lord Himself has said, 'I go to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God' (John 20:17). On this account He is God of all, as also the Apostle taught: 'Is He God of the Jews only, is He not also of the Gentiles? yea of the Gentiles also: since there is one God who shall justify the circumcision from faith, and the uncircumcision through faith' (Rom 3:29-30); and every thing else agrees, and has no ambiguity.

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin 'Substantia,' but in Greek 'Usia,' that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'Coessential,' or what is called, 'Like- in-Essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding; and because no one can declare the Son's generation, as it is written, 'Who shall declare His generation'? for it is plain that the Father only knows how He generated the Son, and again the Son how He has been generated by the Father. And to none can it be a question that the Father is greater for no one can doubt that the Father is greater in honour and dignity and Godhead, and in the very name of Father, the Son Himself testifying, The Father that sent Me is greater than I' (John 10:29, Ib. 14:28). And no one is ignorant, that it is Catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons of Father and Son, and that the Father is greater, and the Son subordinated to the Father together with all things which the Father has subordinated to Him, and that the Father has no beginning, and is invisible, and immortal, and impassible; but that the Son has been generated from the Father, God from God, Light from Light, and that His origin, as aforesaid, no one knows, but the Father only. And that the Son Himself and our Lord and God, took flesh, that is, a body, that is, man, from Mary the Virgin, as the Angel preached beforehand; and as all the Scriptures teach, and especially the Apostle himself, the doctor of the Gentiles, Christ took man of Mary the Virgin, through which He has suffered. And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, 'Go ye and baptize all the nations in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost' (Matt. xxviii. 19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers.
(Athanasius, De Synodis, 28. LPNF, ser. 2, vol. 4, 466).
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
ETC “responses” to date
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism....howComment=1622763350253#c8299361064995667305

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

Steven Avery 6/04/2021 12:35 am

Hi ETC,

We have recently discovered that Potamius of Lisbon, of the mid-4th century, repeatedly referenced the heavenly witnesses verse "the three are one" from John, in the direct context of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Epistula ad Athanasium 1x
Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti 3x

And there was Greek-Latin correspondence with Athanasius and Potamius.

This should help eliminate any idea that the verse was not circulating in Bibles during the Arian controversies.

(Along with other evidences,)

Potamius of Lisbon
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/potamius-of-lisbon.1115/#post-7287

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA

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

Eric Rowe 6/04/2021 7:38 pm
Interesting find. It looks like what you say is accurate, that the quotes you provide do interpret the Latin expression "tres unum sunt" with respect to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, those words, "tres unum sunt," are, as far as I can see in those quotes, the only actual words taken from 1 John 5:7-8. And those words are not unique to the longer reading of that passage. They are present in the shorter reading. I don't see any direct quotation of anything from the disputed portion of that passage in the quotes you provide there. Why do you suppose that is, if that disputed passage was present in Potamius's Bible?

On the other hand, if Potamius's Bible did have only the shorter version of 1 John 5:7-8, it would not be that remarkable for him to apply the phrase "tres unum sunt" taken from that passage to the Trinity as he does in the quotes.

It seems to me that these quotes do not constitute positive evidence for the longer version of 1 John 5:7-8 being known to Potamius since they are equally consistent with either scenario. And in fact, if anything, the absence of any direct quotation of a string of words from the longer version of the passage in a context where Potamius refers to the context of that passage and would have good reason to quote the longer version if he did know it, is evidence that he did not know it.

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

Bill Brown 6/05/2021 6:54 pm

Once again, we have a plethora of errors repeated here.

1) "We" have recently discovered.
Who, precisely, is "we"? Or is this "you, speaking as first person plural"

2) "These three are one" is in 1 John 5:8 and does not serve as evidence for anything by itself.

3) the lack of any firsthand citation arouses immediate suspicions, particularly since the one making the claims cannot read Latin

4) even granting every concession to the first three points...this means pretty much nothing since:
a) nobody disputes the last phrase of verse 8 being in existence OR
b) being used in Trinitarian arguments allegorically
c) we already know the CJ existed in Latin
d) as did literally hundreds/thousands of other non-original readings that mandated the Vulgate recension.

Now, if Steven Avery Spencer wishes to illumine the rest of us not privy to his "studies," then maybe he can actually give us and translate the Latin of a back and forth that apparently escaped notice for over 1500 years until a KJV Onlyist who cannot even read Latin suddenly found it.

I'm sure you will find your audience more than willing to engage actual issues when they are presented with evidence as opposed to mere assertions accompanied by citations that would be unacceptable at the undergraduate level to say nothing of the post-graduate level.

If you can do so then please do.

===============
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi ETC,

Let us reason together!

Eric Rowe and Bill Brown are taking self-contradictory positions.

Bill Brown tells us accurately:
”we already know the CJ existed in Latin"

Which contradicts the claims of Eric and Bill that these quotes from Potamius involve “Trinitarian arguments allegorically“ (Bill) or “have only the shorter version” (Eric}.

In fact, Priscillian quoted the full verse, from John, about 25 years after Potamius. (Priscillian even writes of the Unity of the Church Cyprian section where he is giving the heavenly witnesses, a point made by John Chapman.) So when Potamius quoted about the Father, Son and Holy Spirit from John, and "the three are one", let us accept the fact that he meant what he said.

So rather than theorize invisible (unexplained, unknown to the reader) allegorizing, an extremely difficult hypothesis, why not simply accept the fact that the Bibles of that era, at least the great majority of the Latin Bibles, had the heavenly witnesses verse? (And we see from the correspondence between Potamius and Athanasius that there was not a language Chinese wall.)

We see that dynamic at the Council of Carthage of 484, where hundreds of bishops strongly affirm the verse from John, clearer than the light, a fascinating study in its own right. Those Bibles were passed down from the Ante-Nicene era, there was no Old Latin recension to push in the verse. And thus Cyprian as well was not doing obscure invisible allegorizing, the verse was in his Bible. And Jerome's Vulgate Prologue also speaks of how the verse would be dropped from Bibles.

Why theorize that Potamius, and others, were all doing invisible allegorization? Why not acknowledge the Ockham's Razor truth that Potamius, and many other Old Latin sources, were quoting in the same manner as Priscillian. They were reading from Bibles with the heavenly witnesses in the First Johannine Epistle. Even the writer above acknowledged ”we already know the CJ existed in Latin".

In a subsequent post, I plan to show the forum how way far out can be this invisible allegorizing business in modern scholarship. Like a scholastic infection, if the mods allow that deep a study.

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

As for the complaints by Bill Brown above, with the bogus claim of a "plethora of errors" (there were none) Bill should have gone to the url in my post above.

Pure Bible Forum
Potamius of Lisbon
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/potamius-of-lisbon.1115/#post-7287

He will find references like this one for the Potamius letter to Athanasius:

(Potamius of Lisbon. "Letter to Athanasius the Bishop of Alexandria on the consubstantiality of the Son of God" in the life and works of Potamius of Lisbon edited and translated by Marco Conti, 1998, p. 136)

And this page will also help him with the big "we" concern. :)

Perhaps the moderators will watch out for whiny personal attack posts of little or no value, they are far too common on this forum.

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

Since Potamius is considered Arian, and yet was using the verse positively, here is an excellent quote from Grantley Robert McDonald in Raising the Ghost of Arius, relating to the surprise of the variety of doctrinal uses of the heavenly witnesses:

“The fact that the form of the comma cited by Priscillian and the author of the Expositio fidei chatolice is identical shows how heterodox thinkers could use the same symbola as the orthodox party as the basis of very different systems of belief. The credal formulation unum sunt in Christo Iesu could be used by the author of the Expositio fidei chatolice to express the orthodox belief that the Spirit, water and blood testify unanimously to Christ as the Son of God. The same symbolum could be used by Priscillian or the Panchristian author of the Reply to Pope Damasus to show that the three persons of the Trinity are one God, and that this one God is Jesus Christ.”

A lesson for all sides!

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

Grantley McDonald in RGA did reference the two works from Potamius that have the four references. However, it was en passant, there was no context and no text, Latin or English.

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

And I did not discover this amazing new reference. However I am the point man today for making it more publicly available. For me, it is simply a reasonable and edifying service, an outgrowth of coordinating research with Michael Maynard (1955-2014), to the glory of the Lord Jesus.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY, USA














Taking a writer with a far better background than Eric and Bill, allow me to show how this rush to claim invisible allegorization has mangled modern scholarship.

















This hand-waving of obvious references to the heavenly witnesses reached an apex of absurdity in the book by Grantley Robert McDonald, Raising the Ghost of Arius. After referencing 13 references where almost all prima facie are clearly the heavenly witnesses, Grantley writes:

"none of these authors cite the comma, merely a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Jn 5:8." - p. 26

Amazing.

The paragraph has these writers, all doing invisible allegorizing of the earthly witnesses, the Eric and Bill analysis.

Tertullian (Adversus Praxean XXV. l),
Cyprian of Carthage (De ecclesice catholicce unitate 6),
ps.-Eusebius Vercellensis (De Trinitate I, II, VII),
Phoebadius Aginnensis (t after 392) (Contra Arianos 27),
Victricius of Rouen (t c. 407) (De laude sanctorum 4),
Potamius of Lisbon (f after 357) (Epistula ad Athanasium-, Epistula de substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti),
Augustine (Contra Maximinum II)
Johannes Maxentius (Responsio contra Acephalos 5).

Latin - tria unum or haec tria unus deus [est]
Marius Victorinus
Isidore of Seville
Quodvultdeus

Greek -
Disputation of Athanasius against Arius at the Council of Nicaea
Origen Ps 122:2 (LXX)

First, this is this absurd at face, simply by reading the texts.
As an example, De Trinitate usages include:

69 Ps.-Athanasius/ps.-Eusebius Vercellensis, De Trinitate I, CCSL 9:14 (cf. PL 62:243): “[…]
Ergo quamuis in superioribus exemplis scribturarum tacita sint nomina personarum, tamen unitum nomen diuinitatis per omnia est in his demonstratum sicut et in hoc argumento ueritatis, in quo nomina personarum euidenter sunt ostensa et unitum nomen naturale cluse est declaratum, dicente Iohanne euangelista in epistula sua: Tres sunt, qui testimonium dicunt in cælo, pater et uerbum et spiritus, et in Christo Iesu unum sunt, non tamen unus est, quia non est eorum una persona.”

This is supposed to be allegorizing the earthly witnesses?

Also the authors who utilize the verse are all over the doctrinal map as well, including Priscillian as a "Sabellian" and Potamius as an Arian. And Priscillian and Jerome's Vulgate Prologue prove that the Old Latin Bibles had the verse from an early date. With the consistent Old Latin usage, we should have no doubt about the Tertullian and Cyprian references as based on the heavenly witnesses. (Priscillian even writes of the Unity of the Church Cyprian section where he is giving the heavenly witnesses, a point made by John Chapman.)

I cover this here, including the full Grantley section:

Pure Bible Forum
"none of these authors cite the comma, merely a Trinitarian interpretation of 1 Jn 5:8."- analysis or satire?
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...retation-of-1-jn-5-8-analysis-or-satire.1903/







Now, how Grantley’s quote above, a wide-ranging bald assertion contradicted by logic and the evidence, made it through a PhD thesis is a puzzle.



And the "we" that concerns Bill Brown so much is not a majestic personal plural, it is a reference to a number of folks who coordinate together and who would like to see accurate information about the heavenly witnesses. Quite obviously.

As to why Potamius was not written up earlier by Raymond Brown, Bruce Metzger, Daniel Wallace and others, that is a good question. Grantley Robert McDonald has a short reference, but did not show the readers the substance.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Bart Ehrman
Thanks for this. I haven't looked at this at any length, but isn't Potamius quoting 1 John 5:7 WITHOUT the Johannine comma? As you know, without the comma, the text says, "There three that bear witness, the spirit, the water, and the blood. And these three are one." In his quotations, he doesn't quote the comma, does he? He only quotes the statement "these three are one"? That would suggest that he is *interpreting* 1 John 5:7 (without the comma) to apply to the Trinity; but it wouldn't suggest that he found the comma itself ("in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one") in the text of his Bible. I believe the first indication that the comma is actually part of the *text* of 1 John conesat the end of the fourth century in the writings of Priscillian, also based on an interpretation of the original text of the passage. disabledupes{12ece46b18ccfa977a3d407d58da9126}disabledupes


Hi Prof Ehrman

Thanks for responding. Good job!

Here is the problem with your interpretation. :) First, we know from Priscillian that the heavenly witnesses was in the Latin Bible of the day, even the locale is the Iberian Peninsula for both men. Both Potamius and Priscillian say specifically that they are quoting John, as do many references in De Trinitate, thought by some to be around the same time, pointing to Eusebius of Vercelli.

There are numerous other confirmations of the Latin lines having the verse from early days, such as Cyprian, and the Vulgate Prologue of Jerome and the hundreds of orthodox at the Council of Carthage.

So why do we start theorizing the very difficult idea of invisible allegorizing? In such an allegorizing, the reader really has no idea how somebody went from point A to point Z. Allegorizing is generally done with the allegory spelled out ... "water means the Father, spirit means the Word/Son, blood means the Holy Spirit". Explanatory allegorizing.

And I believe the theory of invisible allegorizing was invented to hand-wave the evidences that point to heavenly witnesses authenticity.

Your thoughts welcome, iron sharpeneth!

Steven Avery
Dutchess Couny, NY
 
Last edited:
Top