Reply to Damasus

[Steven Avery]

Reply to Damasus

This came up in reviewing Raising the Ghost of Arius, when looking at the various forms of Expositio fidei chatolice.

Consolidate with part of post 5 in:

Expositio Fidei - 4th century confession discovered by Caspari
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...nfession-discovered-by-caspari.788/#post-5139

Also look at section
Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana I 101 sup. : CLA 352 (726 - 775 AD)

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

Grantley has two sections about the Reply to Pope Damasus, p. 37 plus a note, and p.39.

There is an issue as to whether Damasus should really be called Pope, in the current sense of the word.

Biblical Scholarship and the Church p. 055
Allan K. Jenkins, Patrick Preston
https://books.google.com/books?id=jxMGDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA55

The further claim that Jerome himself only dared to produce a version of scripture on the orders of Pope Damasus, Erasmus dealt with by pointing out that it was only the New Testament that Jerome revised at Damasus’ request, and that in his prefaces to some of his Old Testament books Jerome had himself identified other people at whose request he translated those books.14 (In fact, as has been seen, it seems likely that it was in fact only the gospels that Jerome was commissioned to revise.) Moreover, Erasmus did not let the matter of formal authorisation rest at that point. He first added that ‘it is not known that he [Damasus] approved Jerome’s revision’, and then that it was as bishop of Rome where Jerome was ordained that Damasus entrusted him with the task and not as ‘supreme pontiff of the world’.15

Note: this can be added to the page on Vulgate Prologue authenticity, where it is discussed whether Jerome revised the full NT, and when.

Grantley has the normal circular assumption here .
"moving towards the Johannine comma "
Rather than the far simpler and Ockham-friendly concept of the use of elements of the heavenly witnesses.

And I am placing note 47 before the text body.

47 Ad Damasum papam, cit. Künstle, 1905b, 59:

“Pater deus, filius deus et spiritus sanctus deus. Hæc unum sunt in Christo Iesu. Tres itaque formæ, sed una potestas.”

Künstle, 1905b, 67, contrasts this with the orthodox formulation in the creed Clemens Trinitas est una divinitas, also known as the “creed of St Augustine” (Southern France, fifth/sixth century; text given in Denzinger, 2001, 49-50, § 73-74). Although Clemens Trinitas does not contain the comma in its classical form, it contains the phrase tres unum sunt (here with the status of a symbolum) with an enumeration of the persons of the Trinity, creating an oddly ungrammatical sentence (Itaque Pater et Filius et Spiritus Sanctus, et tres unum sunt). In combination, these two elements are clearly moving towards the Johannine comma in its classical formulation. p. 39

Canons of the Second Council of Braga, PL 84:582: are also discussed

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

More interestingly, Priscillian’s reading of verse 7 contains the phrase in Christo Iesu. The complete phrase unum sunt in Christo Iesu is derived ultimately from Gal 3:28 (ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ), and was clearly attracted to the end of 1 Jn 5:8 by the fact that they share the words unum sunt. The phrase unum sunt in Christo [Iesu] subsequently occurs as a Trinitarian symbolum in two large-scale creeds. The first is the Reply to Pope Damasus, written in or before 384 (the year of Damasus’ death) by Priscillian or one of his followers.47 The second is the Expositio fidei chatolice, an orthodox creed written probably in Spain in the fifth or sixth century, in which this symbolum occurs as part of the wording of the Johannine comma.48

(More from the Footnotes planned) p. 37

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. p. 39

The American Journal of Theology
Vol. 11, No. 1 (Jan., 1907), pp. 131-138 (8 pages)
I John 5:7, 8
Canon J. Mancini and Caspar René Gregory

https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/478669

Kunstle shows that the old creed found by Caspari, in the Codex Ambrosianus I, 101 sup., and the Jew Isaac who sued Pope Damasus in 372, were probably of Spanish origin.

We will discuss some of the other creeds here in a later post.

 

[Steven Avery]

Caspar Rene Gregory (1907)
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/478669

After referring to the Testimonia Divinae Scripturae that were probably written by Isidore of Seville, and to the letter of the Spaniards Etherius and Beatus to the Adoptionist Elipandus in the year 785, Kiinstle shows that the old creed found by Caspari, in the Codex Ambrosianus I, I0I sup., and the Jew Isaac who sued Pope Damasus in 372, were probably of Spanish origin. He then takes up a brief creed, given by Hahn (p. 278), which he thinks perhaps contains the earliest traces of the passage. It begins with the apparently orthodox statement: "Pater deus, filius deus et spiritus sanctus deus. Haec unum sunt in Christo Jesu." But then he continues heretically:

Tres itaque formae, sed una potestas [not, as Hahn has it, "substantia"]. Ergo diversitas plures facit, unitas vero potestatis excludit numeri quantitatem, quia unitas numerus non est.

This is the Hahn text (which August Hahn, was one actually alive in 1897?)
August Hahn - Breslau (1792-1863)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Hahn

Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche, Parts 60-62
https://books.google.com/books?id=iweb1AUMQPUC&pg=PA278

This is the text called Ad Damasum papam below.

 

[Steven Avery]

Originally on the other page at the intro.
Reply to Pope Damasus - Ad Damasum papam
https://archive.org/details/notesonearlyhist00chaprich/page/264
https://books.google.com/books?id=baufuOZpsw4C&pg=PA59

“LV. Quid in altari offerri oporteat. Non oportet aliquid aliud in sanctuario offerri praeter panem et vinum et aquam, quae in typo Christi benedicuntur, quia dum in cruce penderet de corpore eius sanguis effluxit et aqua. Haec tria unum sunt in Christo lesu, haec hostia et oblatio Dei in odorem suavitatis.”

Grantley has: Ad Damasum papam, cit. Künstle, 1905b, 59:
“Pater deus, filius deus et spiritus sanctus deus.
Hæc unum sunt in Christo Iesu. Tres itaque formæ, sed una potestas

Which looks instead as the Priscillian quote.

Antipriscilliana: Dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchungen und Texte aus dem Streite gegen Priscillians Irrlehre. Freiburg: Herder, 1905b.
https://books.google.com/books?id=baufuOZpsw4C&pg=PA59

Kunstle or maybe
https://books.google.com/books?id=rYQrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA26

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

See also the Canons of the Second Council of Braga, PL 84:582:

This document, (Braga) which was subsequently absorbed into the Decretum Gratiani, first appears in the forged ps.-Isidorean collection, put together in the ninth century; it is consequently difficult to know whether the formulation genuinely reflects the thought of the late fifth century. In any case it is fascinating that this phraseology occurs in combination with the three elements offlesh, blood and water, which are found in Priscillian’s citation of 1 Jn 5:8. It is possible that the inclusion of this phrase in the Canons was suggested by the common interpretation of ljn 5:6 as a reference to the sacraments.

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

See also Clemens Trinitas