Socrates on 1 John

Steven Avery

Administrator
Socrates of Constantinople - Socrates Scholasticus (380-439)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates_of_Constantinople
see Knittel - Hinkmar - Fulbert - and others - (see Knittel Westcott)

2. According to Socrates (4th century), 1 John was corrupted very early on by those who were hostile to Christ's deity.

Knittel
https://books.google.com/books?id=kKsCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA78
The Third remark, “ That there were persons who mutilated the First Epistle of St.John, and expunged passages from it which contradicted their favourite tenets,” is proved by
Socrates75, in the 5th century;
Hinkmar, in the 9th76; and
Fulbert, bishop of Chartres, in the 11th century77.

Therefore it was not the mere hatred of Heretics which induced Epiphanius to suspect that the Alogi78, who rejected the Gospel and Apocalypse of St. John, because opposed to their theories, may also have rejected his Epistles.

1633583613197.png

1633583866952.png


Westcott
https://books.google.com/books?id=3UAyAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA158
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Duplication

First Epistle of John Corrupted p. 58
[Socrates : Church History] Nestorius (386–450 AD) thus acquired the reputation among the masses of
asserting the blasphemous dogma that the Lord is a mere man, and attempting to foist on the Church
the dogmas of Paul of Samosata and Photinus; and so great a clamor was raised by the contention
that it was deemed requisite to convene a general council to take cognizance of the matter in dispute.
Having myself perused the writings of Nestorius, I have found him an unlearned man and shall candidly
express the conviction of my own mind concerning him: and as in entire freedom from personal antipathies, I
have already alluded to his faults, I shall in like manner be unbiased by the criminations of his adversaries, to
derogate from his merits. I cannot then concede that he was either a follower of Paul of Samosata or of
Photinus, or that he denied the Divinity of Christ: but he seemed scared at the term Theotokos [“Mother of
God”], as though it were some terrible phantom. The fact is, the causeless alarm he manifested on this subject
just exposed his extreme ignorance: for being a man of natural fluency as a speaker, he was considered well
educated, but in reality he was disgracefully illiterate. In fact he condemned the drudgery of an accurate
examination of the ancient expositors: and, puffed up with his readiness of expression, he did not give his
attention to the ancients, but thought himself the greatest of all. Now he was evidently unacquainted with
the fact that in the First Catholic epistle of John it was written in the ancient copies, 'Every spirit that
separates Jesus, is not of God.' The mutilation of this passage is attributable to those who desired to
separate the Divine nature from the human economy: or to use the very language of the early
interpreters, some persons have corrupted this epistle, aiming at 'separating the manhood of Christ
from his Deity.' But humanity is united to the Divinity in the Saviour, so as to constitute not two
persons but one only.
(Socrates, Church History Book 7.32; NPNF02, vol 2. <www.newadvent.org/fathers/26017.htm>.)

Corruption of John's First Epistle - p .193

● [Socrates : Church History]
Nestorius (386–450 AD) thus acquired the reputation among the masses of
asserting the blasphemous dogma that the Lord is a mere man, and attempting to foist on the Church the dogmas
of Paul of Samosata and Photinus; and so great a clamor was raised by the contention that it was deemed
requisite to convene a general council to take cognizance of the matter in dispute. Having myself perused the
writings of Nestorius, I have found him an unlearned man and shall candidly express the conviction of my own
mind concerning him: and as in entire freedom from personal antipathies, I have already alluded to his faults, I
shall in like manner be unbiased by the criminations of his adversaries, to derogate from his merits. I cannot then
concede that he was either a follower of Paul of Samosata or of Photinus, or that he denied the Divinity of Christ:
but he seemed scared at the term Theotocos, as though it were some terrible phantom. The fact is, the causeless
alarm he manifested on this subject just exposed his extreme ignorance: for being a man of natural fluency as a
speaker, he was considered well educated, but in reality he was disgracefully illiterate. In fact he condemned the
drudgery of an accurate examination of the ancient expositors: and, puffed up with his readiness of expression,
he did not give his attention to the ancients, but thought himself the greatest of all. Now he was evidently
unacquainted with the fact that in the First Catholic epistle of John it was written in the ancient copies, 'Every spirit
that separates Jesus, is not of God.' The mutilation of this passage is attributable to those who desired to
separate the Divine nature from the human economy: or to use the very language of the early interpreters, some
persons have corrupted this epistle, aiming at 'separating the manhood of Christ from his Deity.' But the humanity
is united to the Divinity in the Saviour, so as to constitute not two persons but one only.
(Socrates, Church History Book 7.32; NPNF02, vol 2. <www.newadvent.org/fathers/26017.htm>.)

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

The Alogi reject John's Epistle p. 60

[Burgess] ...Epiphanius says, generally, that the Alogi rejected the writings of St. John because they
[the Alogi] denied the Divinity of the Logos. They must therefore have rejected the Epistle, in which
that doctrine is more fully asserted than in the Gospel or Apocalypse. [PAGE 121] ...For the Epistle and
the Gospel call the Son of God THE WORD; but the Epistle and the Apocalypse differ a little in their
designation of the Son of God, one calling him THE WORD OF LIFE, the other, THE WORD OF GOD.
Such concurrence leaves no doubt of their [the Alogi’s] rejection of the first Epistle.
(Burgess, A Vindication of 1 John, V. 7. from the Objections of M. Griesbach: in Which Is Given a New View of the External Evidence, with Greek Authorities for the Authenticity of the Verse, 1823, 2nd edition, p. 119-121)

[Epiphanius] 50.3,1 Now these”Alogi”say (this is what I call them). They shall be so called from now on,
and let us give them this name, beloved: Alogi. (2) For they believed in the heresy for which < that* > name <
was a good one* >, since it rejects the books by John. As they do not accept the Word which John preaches,
they shall be called Dumb.10 (3) As complete strangers to the truth’s message they deny its purity, and accept
neither John’s Gospel nor his Revelation. 50.3,4 And if they accepted the Gospel but rejected the Revelation, I
would say they might be doing it from scrupulousness, and refusing to accept an”apocryphon”because of the
deep and difficult sayings in the Revelation. (5) But since they do not accept the books in which St. John
actually proclaimed his Gospel, it must be plain to everyone that they and their kind are the ones of
whom St. John said in his General Epistles,”It is the last hour and ye have heard that Antichrist
cometh; even now, lo, there are many Antichrists.”11 (6) For they offer excuses [for their behavior].
Knowing, as they do, that St. John was an apostle and the Lord’s beloved, that the Lord rightly revealed the
mysteries to him, and < that he* > leaned upon his breast, they are ashamed to contradict him and try to object
to these mysteries for a different reason. For they say that they are not John’s composition but Cerinthus’, and
have no right to a place in the church. 50.4,1 And it can be shown at once, from this very attack, that
they”understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm.”12 How can the words which are directed
against Cerinthus be by Cerinthus? (2) Cerinthus says that Christ is of recent origin and a mere man, while
John has proclaimed that < he > is the eternal Word, and has come from on high and been made flesh. From
the very outset, then, their worthless quibble is exposed as foolish, and unaware of its own refutation.
(Epiphanius, Panarion, p. 28; Translated by Frank Williams, 2013.)

[Epiphanius] 34,1 Again, in their endless hunt for texts, to give the appearance of discrediting the holy
apostle’s books—I mean John’s Gospel and Revelation and perhaps the Epistles as well, for they too
agree with the Gospel and Revelation—these people get excited (2) and quote,”I saw, and he said to the
angel, Loose the four angels which are upon the Euphrates. And I heard the number of the host, ten thousand
times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, and they were clad in breastplates of fire and sulfur and
hyacinth.”(Epiphanius, Panarion, p. 67; Translated by Frank Williams, 2013.)

[Nolan] As far as I can collect from his [St. Epiphanius] words, [PAGE 569] he has implicitly declared
that they [the Alogi] objected not less to the Epistles written by St. John, than to his Gospel. (fn. 244.
St. Epiphanius expresses himself on the present subject in the following unqualified terms. ...The connexion
of the sense, in the last clause of this sentence, apparently renders it necessary that we should
suppose the Alogi rejected the Catholic Epistles; and Petavius [D. Petavius, SJ, 2 vols., Paris, 1622;
repr. in J. P. Migne, PG 41–3] accordingly renders the first clause;”but they especially reject the books
of John altogether”(Latin: sed com universos Joannis libros proprie rejiciant, &c.) (Nolan, An Inquiry into the
Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815, p. 568-569)

Corruption of John's First Epistle p. 193-194

[Burgess] ...Epiphanius says, generally, that the Alogi rejected the writings of St. John because they
[the Alogi] denied the Divinity of the Logos. They must therefore have rejected the Epistle, in which
that doctrine is more fully asserted than in the Gospel or Apocalypse. [PAGE 121] ...For the Epistle and
the Gospel call the Son of God THE WORD; but the Epistle and the Apocalypse differ a little in their
designation of the Son of God, one calling him THE WORD OF LIFE, the other, THE WORD OF GOD.
Such concurrence leaves no doubt of their [the Alogi’s] rejection of the first Epistle. (Burgess, A
Vindication of 1 John, V. 7. from the Objections of M. Griesbach: in Which Is Given a New View of the External
Evidence, with Greek Authorities for the Authenticity of the Verse, 1823, 2nd edition, p. 119-121)

[Epiphanius] 50.3,1 Now these”Alogi”say (this is what I call them). They shall be so called from now on,
and let us give them this name, beloved: Alogi. (2) For they believed in the heresy for which < that* > name <
was a good one* >, since it rejects the books by John. As they do not accept the Word which John preaches,
they shall be called Dumb.10 (3) As complete strangers to the truth’s message they deny its purity, and accept
neither John’s Gospel nor his Revelation. 50.3,4 And if they accepted the Gospel but rejected the Revelation, I
would say they might be doing it from scrupulousness, and refusing to accept an”apocryphon”because of the
deep and difficult sayings in the Revelation. (5) But since they do not accept the books in which St. John
actually proclaimed his Gospel, it must be plain to everyone that they and their kind are the ones of
whom St. John said in his General Epistles,”It is the last hour and ye have heard that Antichrist
cometh; even now, lo, there are many Antichrists.”11 (6) For they offer excuses [for their behavior].
Knowing, as they do, that St. John was an apostle and the Lord’s beloved, that the Lord rightly revealed the
mysteries to him, and < that he* > leaned upon his breast, they are ashamed to contradict him and try to object
to these mysteries for a different reason. For they say that they are not John’s composition but Cerinthus’, and
have no right to a place in the church. 50.4,1 And it can be shown at once, from this very attack, that
they”understand neither what they say nor whereof they affirm.”12 How can the words which are directed
against Cerinthus be by Cerinthus? (2) Cerinthus says that Christ is of recent origin and a mere man, while
John has proclaimed that < he > is the eternal Word, and has come from on high and been made flesh. From
the very outset, then, their worthless quibble is exposed as foolish, and unaware of its own refutation.
(Epiphanius, Panarion, p. 28; Translated by Frank Williams, 2013.)

[Epiphanius] 34,1 Again, in their endless hunt for texts, to give the appearance of discrediting the holy
apostle’s books—I mean John’s Gospel and Revelation and perhaps the Epistles as well, for they too
agree with the Gospel and Revelation—these people get excited (2) and quote,”I saw, and he said to the
angel, Loose the four angels which are upon the Euphrates. And I heard the number of the host, ten thousand
times ten thousand and thousands of thousands, and they were clad in breastplates of fire and sulfur and
hyacinth.”(Epiphanius, Panarion, p. 67; Translated by Frank Williams, 2013.)

[Nolan] As far as I can collect from his [St. Epiphanius] words, [PAGE 569] he has implicitly declared
that they [the Alogi] objected not less to the Epistles written by St. John, than to his Gospel. (fn. 244.
St. Epiphanius expresses himself on the present subject in the following unqualified terms. ...The connexion
of the sense, in the last clause of this sentence, apparently renders it necessary that we should
suppose the Alogi rejected the Catholic Epistles; and Petavius [D. Petavius, SJ, 2 vols., Paris, 1622;
repr. in J. P. Migne, PG 41–3] accordingly renders the first clause;”but they especially reject the books
of John altogether”(Latin: sed com universos Joannis libros proprie rejiciant, &c.) (Nolan, An Inquiry into the
Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815, p. 568-569)
 
Last edited:
Top