Thomas Ittigius

Steven Avery

Thomas Ittigius (1643/44-1710) - German Lutheran

The Apostolic Fathers, Volume 1 (2003)
A distinctive set of criteria for inclusion was advanced by the Lutheran theologian Thomas Ittig in his 1699 work, “Bibliotheca Patrum Apostolicorum Graeco-Latina.”13 In this collection, Ittig chose not to include all the non-canonical authors who could be plausibly considered contemporaries of the apostles, but only those who stood in what he considered to be the apostolic tradition—that is, who approximated the “spirit" and views found in the writings of the New Testament.14 On these grounds, Ittig deemed that neither the Epistle of Barnabas nor the Shepherd of Hermas was worthy of inclusion, even though, as he conceded, they fit within the appropriate chronological framework. His edition contained, then, 1 and 2 Clement, the seven authentic letters and Martyrdom of Ignatius, and the Letter and Martyrdom of Polvcarp.

Contra Richard Simon

Whiston has an interesting note about the Josephus section, is this Thomas Ittigius?
Six Dissertations
Last edited:

Steven Avery

• [Armfield] While thus the authenticity of the verse was defended in this country, abroad Simon found antagonists in Ittigius, Martianay, Maius, and Kettner; but into the controversy, as carried on there, it is unnecessary for us to enter.

No Grantley.

Smith in 1690, by Ittigius in the same year, Kettner in 1697, by Bishop Bull and ( Johannes Ernest Grabe ) Grabe in 1703, Mill in 1707, Maius 1708 (Majus), Mesnard 1709, Pfaffius 1709, by Kettner again 1713, Martin in 1717, Calamy in 1722, Bishop Smallbrook in 1722, and A. Taylor in 1727

Steven Avery

From Mike Ferrando:
  • Itigii Latin: Cum autem Caius apud Eusebium quosdam ex Artemonis asseclis et discipulis legem et prophetas plane repudiasse, reliquis vero Scripturae libris falsarias manus intulisse referat, quod ex Asclepiodoti, Theodoti, Hermophili, et Apollonidis exemplaribus eorumque collatione se deprehendisse testatur, hinc Wittichius (in Theol. pacific. thes. 254) probavit insignem illum locum de tribis in coelo testibus, qui, 1 Johan. v. 7, extat, ab Artemone potius ejusque asseclis, quam ab Arianis, e nonnullis exemplaribus deletum fuisse, quod etiam ante Wittichium Vedelius in Vindiciis illius dicti (Thes. 18) observavit. Et quamvis Wittichio se opposuerit confirmavit in "Theologia pacifica defensa," c. 17, p. 391, ubi recte inter alia animadvertit, quod non in omnibus exemplaribus fraus illa haereticis processerit, siquidem ante Arianos Cyprianus illud dictum Johannis in exemplari suo legit. Id enim constat ex ejusdem Epist. 75, p. 103, et clarius ex libro de Unitate Ecclesiae, p. 109. Unde falsum esse constat, quod in Critica N.T. Simonius asserit, inter Patres ante Victorem Vitensem, et Fulgentium neminem fuisse, qui hoc dicto Johannis usus fuerit. Equidem Simonius ad Cypriani locum excipit, quod Cyprianus, cum ait: de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scritum est; Hi tres unum sunt," non respicere ad v. 7, c. 5, Epist. Johan. sed ad v. 8, ubi Johannes spiritum, aquam, et sanguinem in unum esse dicit. Putat enim Simonius Cyprianum per Spiritum Deum Patrem, per aquam Spiritum Sanctum, et sanguinem Filium intellexisse. Et hanc Cypriana sententiam esse probat ex Facundo Hermanensi, qui libro 2, cap. 3, pro defensione trium capitulorum expressis verbis hanc Cypriano sententiam assignat. Cum enim verba Johannis ita allegasset: "Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in terra, Spiritus, aqua et sanguis, et hi tres unum sunt:" addit Johannem per Spiritum denotare Patrem, quia Christus dixerit Joh. iv. 21, "Adorabunt Patrem in Spiritu et veritate. Spiritus est Deus, et qui adorant eum, eos in Spiritu et veritate adorare oportet:" in aqua vero Spiritum Sanctum significari, juxta Johan. vii. 37, 38, 39, per sanguinem vero Filium designari, qui carni nostrae et sanguini communicavit. Et postea dicit sic Cyprianum hoc dictum intellexisse, cum scripsit: "de Parte, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto dictum est, Hi tres unum sunt." Verum unde Facundus id probare poterit, Cypriani verba non ad 7 sed ad 8 respicere? qui tamen expresse dicit, "de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est" : non, "de Spiritu, aqua et sanguine." Videtur ergo Facundus ejusmodi exemplar habuisse, in quo testimonium illud de tribus in coelo testibus desideratum fuit. Cum autem legeret apud Cyprianum "de Patre, Filio, et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est, Hi tres unum sunt", in eam sententiam facile prolabi potuit, quod Cyprianus sub nomine Spiritus, Sanctum intellexerit : quod Cypriano in mentem non venit; cum alias, si versum octavum respexisset, dicturus potius fuisset "de Patre, Spiritu, et Filio scriptum est, Hi tres unum sunt," quia "aqua sanguini" apud Johannem praeponitur. Accedit, quod Cyprianus in dicto loco unitatem de divina firmitate venientem coelestibus sacramentis cohaerere dicat, adeoque in sequentibus demum verbis ad v. 8, respiciat. Falsissimum autem est, quod addit Simonius, Patres Johannis dictum de Spiritu, aqua et sanguine de mysterio Trinitatis communiter interpretari. Nam ante Facundum vix ullus adduci poterit, et forte etiam nullus post Facundum, qui sic interpretatus est. Aliter longe Patres illum locum explicarunt, ut videre licet apud Dorschei Diss. de Spiritu, aqua et sanguine, Thes. xi.

  • Google Translate: But when Caius relates in Eusebius that some of Artemon's followers and disciples had rejected the law and the prophets outright, but had put falsified hands on the rest of the books of the Scriptures, it is testified that he had detected himself from the copies of Asclepiodotus, Theodotus, Hermophilus, and Apollonides and their collation, hence Wittichius (in Theol. pacific Thess. 254) proved that remarkable passage about the tribes in heaven as witnesses, who, 1 John. v. 7, it is evident that it was deleted from some copies by Artemon and his followers rather than by the Arians, which Vedelius also observed before Wittichius in his Vindications (Thess. 18). And although Wittichus had opposed himself, he confirmed it in "Theology pacific defended," c. 17, p. 391, where he rightly observes, among other things, that this fraud did not proceed to the heretics in all the copies, for indeed before the Arians Cyprian reads that saying of John in his copy. For this is evident from the same Epistle. 75, p. 103, and more clearly from the book on the Unity of the Church, p. 109. Hence it is evident that it is false that in the Critica N.T. Simonius asserts that there was no one among the Fathers before Victor of Vitense and the Fulgentii who used this saying of John. Indeed, Simonius accepts the position of Cyprian, that Cyprian, when he says: It was written about the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; These three are one," do not look back to v. 7, c. 5, Epistle of John. but to v. 8, where John says that the spirit, the water, and the blood are one. that he understood the water to be the Holy Spirit, and the blood to be the Son. And this Cyprian opinion is proved by Facundus of Hermanes, who, in book 2, chapter 3, assigns this Cyprian opinion to the defense of the three chapters expressed in words. they give in the earth, Spirit, water, and blood, and these three are one:" John adds to denote the Father by the Spirit, because Christ said in John iv. 21, "They shall worship the Father in Spirit and in truth. The Spirit is God, and those who worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth: "in the water the Holy Spirit is signified, according to John vii. 37, 38, 39, and by the blood the Son is signified, who partook of our flesh and blood. And Later he says that Cyprianus understood this saying when he wrote: "It was said of the Part, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, These three are one." But how can Facundus prove this, looking back at Cyprian's words not at 7 but at 8? , "it is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit" : no, "of the Spirit, water, and blood." It seems therefore that Fachus had a model of that kind, in which that testimony of the three witnesses in heaven was desired. But when he read in Cyprian it is written of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, These three are one," he could easily slip into that sentence, that Cyprian understood by the name of the Spirit, the Holy One: which did not occur to Cyprian; whereas otherwise, if he had looked at the eighth verse, he would have rather said would have been It is written of the Father, the Spirit, and the Son, "These three are one," because "water of blood" is preferred in John. It is added that Cyprian, in the said passage, says that the unity which comes from divine firmness adheres to the heavenly sacraments, and so finally in the following words to v. 8, let him look back. But it is most false, as Simonius adds, that the Fathers of John, speaking of the Spirit, the water, and the blood, are commonly interpreted as referring to the mystery of the Trinity. For hardly anyone can be brought before Facundus, and perhaps no one after Facundus, who has been thus interpreted. The Fathers explained that passage quite differently, as we may see in Dorschei Diss. of the Spirit, water, and blood, Thes. xi.

  • Well, really he says the same thing as Burgess and some other Scholars I quoted. However, it is interesting to see it.

    Yes, it is a little roundabout, but has interesting parts. No Fulgentius yet? However, it had been noted in Hessels, Cheynell, Selden but really not much before Ittigius.