A Brief Rejoinder to Mr. Sheffield on 1 John 5:7

Jonathan Sheffield recently wrote (source):

After reviewing several Francis Turretin points on the subject, his thesis amounts to a poorly constructed postmodern narrative with no basis in history. Appealing to "some scribe" is not evidence for his position, but a deus ex machina to avoid addressing the positive evidence for the passage.

After I asked if he was ok, Sheffield responded: "Francis Turretin, have you ever had the opportunity to Beta Test your thesis?" (source)

The reason for my question was that I have seen Mr. Sheffield present cogent statements in other contexts.  However, in this particular context, what he offered is hard to connect to anything I've said/written.

First: "After reviewing several Francis Turretin points on the subject, his thesis amounts to a poorly constructed postmodern narrative with no basis in history."  

Based on his follow-up message, I gather that he did not have some third party's thesis in mind. He simply misplaced his modifier.  I'm sure I've done the same in informal contexts like Facebook. However, I have no idea which of my "points" JS has in mind.  His comment is too vague for me to guess which points from the many Comma Johanneum articles I've posted he means to reference (link to tagged posts).  

Likewise, the reference to my "thesis" is not entirely clear.  My overall thesis (if one wants to call it that) on the text of 1 John 5 is that John's letter originally said (though in simple uncial without diacritical marks, spaces, and punctuation): "... ὅτι τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια. ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν. εἰ τὴν μαρτυρίαν τῶν ἀνθρώπων λαμβάνομεν, ἡ μαρτυρία τοῦ θεοῦ μείζων ἐστίν ... " (see here) and specifically without the additions proposed by Erasmus, the Complutensian editors, and others over the years on the basis (directly or indirectly) of a Latin tradition.

There's a mountain of evidence to support my thesis, especially that the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts support this thesis - particularly the non-insertion of "in earth" and of the heavenly witnesses parallel is evidenced in literally hundreds of Greek manuscripts ranging from the fourth century up to the age of printing (and beyond, for whatever little that might be worth).  (a sorted list of manuscripts can be seen here)

Further support comes from all the ancient versions, except for a subset of the Latin. For example, the Coptic versions follow the Greek (Bohairic)(Sahidic).  So does the Old Georgian (source).

Additional support comes from writings of the fathers and other early Christian authors, even amongst the Latin tradition:

• Cassiodorus' (Latin, 485–585) translation of Clement of Alexandria's (Greek 147-215) comments on 1 John (available here);
• A 3rd or 4th century opponent of Cyprian on rebaptism (available here); 
• Ambrose (339-397) in his treatise on the Holy Spirit (available here); and
• Leo the Great (391-461): the Tome of Leo (available here).

So much for "no basis in history."  It's hard to respond to the claim of poor construction or a postmodern narrative, because no specific narrative is identified. In other comments in the thread JS offered some clarification (source):

Hefin Jones, let me give you an example.

In my debate with Ehrman on Gospel Authorship, his response to the evidence I presented in support of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as the actual authors was this:

Actual quote: "But once somebody puts a name on them, apparently somebody in Rome, which at this time is becoming the biggest church and the most influential church in the empire, uh, somebody puts a name on these things, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And everybody else afterwards calls them Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. So, uh, what, you know, what else are they going to call them? That's what people are starting to call them"

That is a postmodern narrative, not actual objective evidence for his position.

He doesn't produce any documentation to that effect: no letter, where the location was (i.e., Rome, Alexandria, North Africa), - note he dropped the Rome claim when I pressed him on it. Additionally, who the person was that decided, and then which churches copied. It was like a world of make-believe. No one said what he was advocating in the ancient world.

The Critical Text Scholarship uses a similar postmodern narrative in trying to defend the premise that 1 John 5:7 is not original to the epistle of John. While taking the position that 1 John 5:7 is not original is a valid position, instead of advocating a postmodern narrative, present evidence for it in the same way as we have for any other now-credible theory of the world. “Evidence” in that sense must mean facts, which are beyond dispute as they are, whose existence is more likely, more probable, if the proposed theory is true than if any competing theory were true instead. Hope that helps. Pax Christi,

I cannot see the relevance of Ehrman's theory regarding the names of the gospels to the present controversy. JS seems to concede that my overall thesis is "a valid position" and that my approach of offering evidence in support of my position is an appropriate mode of investigating the problem.

JS continued: "Appealing to 'some scribe' is not evidence for his position, but a deus ex machina to avoid addressing the positive evidence for the passage."

What positive evidence?  I've dealt with the very few, inconsistent, and late Greek manuscripts offered in support of any version of the comma (see my post).   Before the life of Erasmus, they amount to a single Greek manuscript (GA 629). The two competing theories about that manuscript are (1) that the scribe producing the manuscript copied from a now lost Greek exemplar and (2) that the scribe producing the manuscript back-translated from his Latin exemplar into Greek to supply what he assumed was an omission in his Greek exemplar. Given the popularity of the comma among Latin readers in the West by the mid-1300s when the manuscript was made, and given the absence of known early Greek exemplars, the second of the two theories is the one more supported by the evidence. However, if an advocate of the TR wanted to go with the former theory, one might reasonably ask (as I did during my recent debate) why the Greek prepositions of the TR are different from those of GA 629. I'm not sure what appeal to "some scribe" JS has in mind. Without some clarification it's basically impossible to provide a helpful response.

As for "have you ever had the opportunity to Beta Test your thesis?" Again, this seems a bit vague. The phrase "beta test" has a meaning in software development, but I'm not sure how JS means to apply that to this topic. If he's asking if I have taken this into debate - yes, I have. There is a link above to my recent debate with CJ Cox and the topic came up in my debate with Nick Sayers (link), though I don't think I offered much (if anything!) on that topic then.

The χαριτόω (Charito'o) Argument

A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, aka BDAG (3rd edition), p. 1081, explains the meaning of χαριτόω thus: 

One of the techniques of those arguing that Mary was immaculately conceived is to load the word, χαριτόω, with special significance.  We will take a broader look at the use of the word before Luke's use (in quoting the angel) and after Luke's use.

• Sirach 18:15 (Intertestamental Period)
• Luke 1:28 (Early Apostolic Period)
• Ephesians 1:3-6 (Middle Apostolic Period)
• Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs (Second Century for their current form?), Joseph's Testament
• Shepherd of Hermas (Late 1st Century or 2nd Century), Section 101
• Clement of Alexandria (150-215), Paedagogus (c. 198) 3.11.83, Stromata (c. 198-203) 1.1.14
• Origen (185 - 253), Fragments on the Gospel of John
• Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas (2nd century BC) 
• Posidippus (c. 310-240 BC), Epigrams 
• Origen (185 - 253), Fragments in Luke (in catenas), Fragments 21a-21d

Sirach 18:15-18 (NETS)

Sirach 18:15 Τέκνον, ἐν ἀγαθοῖς μὴ δῷς μῶμον καὶ ἐν πάσῃ δόσει λύπην λόγων. 16 οὐχὶ καύσωνα ἀναπαύσει δρόσος; οὕτως κρείσσων λόγος ἢ δόσις. 17 οὐκ ἰδοὺ λόγος ὑπὲρ δόμα ἀγαθόν; καὶ ἀμφότερα παρὰ ἀνδρὶ (man) κεχαριτωμένῳ (who has been favored). 18 μωρὸς ἀχαρίστως ὀνειδιεῖ, καὶ δόσις βασκάνου ἐκτήκει ὀφθαλμούς.

Luke's Gospel

Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, [thou that art] highly favoured (κεχαριτωμένη), the Lord [is] with thee: blessed [art] thou among women.

Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians

Ephesians 1:3-6 Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly [places] in Christ: According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted (ἐχαρίτωσεν) in the beloved.

Testament of the 12 Patriarchs

11.ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ ΙΩΣΗΦ ΠΕΡΙ ΣΩΦΡΟΣΥΝΗΣ

11.1. (1) Ἀντίγραφον διαθήκης Ἰωσήφ. ἐν τῷ μέλλειν αὐτὸν ἀποθνῄσκειν καλέσας τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς αὐτοῦ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· (2) Τέκνα μου καὶ ἀδελφοί, ἀκούσατε Ἰωσήφ, τοῦ ἠγαπημένου ὑπὸ  Ἰσραήλ· ἐνωτίσασθε, υἱοί, τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν. (3) ἐγὼ εἶδον ἐν τῇ ζωῇ μου τὸν φθόνον καὶ τὸν θάνατον, καὶ οὐκ ἐπλανήθην ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ κυρίου. (4) οἱ ἀδελφοί μου οὗτοι ἐμίσησάν με, καὶ ὁ κύριος ἠγάπησέ με· αὐτοὶ ἤθελόν με ἀνελεῖν, καὶ ὁ θεὸς τῶν πατέρων μου ἐφύλαξέ με· εἰς λάκκον με ἐχάλασαν, καὶ ὁ ὕψιστος ἀνήγαγέ με· (5) ἐπράθην εἰς δοῦλον, καὶ ὁ κύριος ἐλευθέρωσέ με· εἰς αἰχμαλωσίαν ἐλήφθην, καὶ ἡ κραταιὰ αὐτοῦ χεὶρ ἐβοήθησέ μοι· ἐν λιμῷ συνεσχέθην, καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ κύριος διέθρεψέ με· (6) μόνος ἤμην, καὶ ὁ θεὸς παρεκάλεσέ με· ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ ἤμην, καὶ ὁ ὕψιστος ἐπεσκέψατό με· ἐν φυλακῇ ἤμην, καὶ ὁ σωτὴρ ἐχαρίτωσέ με· ἐν δεσμοῖς, καὶ ἔλυσέ με· (7) ἐν διαβολαῖς, καὶ συνηγόρησέ μοι· ἐν λόγοις Αἰγυπτίων πικροῖς, καὶ ἐρρύσατό με· ἐν φθόνοις συνδούλων, καὶ ὕψωσέ με.

11. THE TESTAMENT OF JOSEPH ON TEMPERANCE

11.1. (1) A copy of the testament of Joseph. When he was about to die, he called his sons and his brothers and said to them: (2) "My children and brothers, listen to Joseph, beloved by Israel; heed, sons, your father. (3) I have seen in my life envy and death, and I was not led astray from the truth of the Lord. (4) These brothers of mine hated me, and the Lord loved me; they wanted to kill me, and the God of my fathers protected me; they threw me into a pit, and the Most High lifted me out; (5) I was sold into slavery, and the Lord freed me; I was taken into captivity, and His mighty hand helped me; I was bound by famine, and the Lord himself nourished me; (6) I was alone, and God comforted me; I was weak, and the Most High visited me; I was in prison, and the Savior favored (ἐχαρίτωσέ) me; I was in chains, and He freed me; (7) I was slandered, and He defended me; in the bitter words of Egyptians, and He rescued me; in the envy of fellow servants, and He raised me up."

Shepherd of Hermas

101. (1)   Ἐκ δὲ τοῦ ἑβδόμο[υ ὄρους, ἐν ᾧ βοτάναι] χλωραὶ [καὶ] ἱλαραί, καὶ ὅλον τὸ ὄρος εὐθηνοῦν, καὶ πᾶν γένος κτηνῶν καὶ τὰ πετεινὰ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ ἐνέμοντο τὰς βοτ[άνας ἐν τούτῳ τῷ] ὄρει, καὶ αἱ βοτάναι, ἃς ἐνέμοντο, μᾶλλον (2) εὐθαλεῖς ἐγίνοντο, οἱ πιστεύσαντες τοιοῦτοί εἰσι· πάντοτε ἁπλοῖ [καὶ ἄ]κακοι [καὶ μακάριοι ἐ]γίνοντο, μηδὲν κατ’ ἀλλήλων ἔχοντες, ἀλλὰ πάντοτε ἀγαλλιώμενοι ἐπὶ τοῖς δούλοις τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐνδεδυμένοι [τὸ] πνεῦμα [τὸ ἅγιον τούτων τῶν πα]ρθένων καὶ πάντοτε σπλάγχνον ἔχοντες ἐπὶ πάντα ἄνθρωπον, καὶ ἐκ τῶν κόπων αὐτῶν παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐχορήγησαν ἀνονειδίστως καὶ ἀδιστάκτως. [ὁ οὖν] κύριος ἰδὼν τὴν ἁπλότητα αὐτῶν καὶ πᾶσαν νηπιότητα ἐπλήθυνεν αὐτοὺς ἐν τοῖς κόποις τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν καὶ (4) ἐχαρίτωσεν αὐτοὺς ἐν πάσῃ πράξει αὐτῶν. λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν τοῖς τοιούτοις οὖσιν ἐγὼ ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς μετανοίας· διαμείνατε τοιοῦτοι, καὶ οὐκ ἐξαλειφθήσεται [τὸ σ]πέρμα ὑμῶν ἕως αἰῶνος· ἐδοκίμασε γὰρ ὑμᾶς ὁ κύριος καὶ ἐνέγραψεν ὑμᾶς εἰς τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὸν ἡμέτερον, καὶ ὅλον τὸ σπέρμα ὑμῶν κατοικήσει μετὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ· ἐκ γὰρ τοῦ πνεύματος αὐτοῦ ἐλάβετε. 

101. (1) From the seventh mountain, on which there are green and cheerful herbs, and the entire mountain is lush, and all kinds of animals and the birds of the sky fed on the herbs on this mountain, and the herbs they fed on (2) became even more luxuriant. Those who believed are such; always simple, innocent, and blessed they became, having nothing against one another, but always rejoicing in the servants of God and clothed in the Holy Spirit of these virgins and always having compassion for every person, and from their labors, they provided for every person without reproach and hesitation. (3) Therefore, the Lord, seeing their simplicity and all their innocence, multiplied them in the labors of their hands (4) and graced them in all their deeds. And I, the angel of repentance, say to you who are such: remain as such, and your seed will not be wiped out forever; for the Lord has tested you and has written you in our number, and your entire seed will dwell with the son of God; for from His spirit you have received.

Clement of Alexandria, Pedagogue (the Tutor)

3.11.83

(1) παιδαγωγούμενον. «Οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ γάρ σου ὀρθὰ βλεπέτωσαν, τὰ δὲ βλέφαρα νευέτω δίκαια·» μὴ γὰρ οὐκ ἐξὸν καὶ ἰδόντα καρτερεῖν; Ἀλλὰ τὸ ἐμπεσεῖν φυλακτέον. Δυνατὸν γὰρ ἰδόντα ὀλισθεῖν, ἀμήχανον δὲ μὴ ἰδόντα (2) ἐπιθυμεῖν. Οὐ γὰρ τὸ καθαρεύειν μόνον ἀπόχρη τοῖς σώφροσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἐκτὸς εἶναι τοῦ ψόγου σπουδαστέον πᾶσαν ἀποκλείσαντας ὑπονοίας αἰτίαν πρὸς συγκεφαλαίωσιν ἁγνείας, ὡς μὴ μόνον εἶναι ἡμᾶς πιστούς, ἀλλὰ καὶ (3) ἀξιοπίστους φανῆναι. Καὶ γὰρ οὖν καὶ τοῦτο παραφυλακτέον, ὥς φησιν ὁ ἀπόστολος, «μή τις ἡμᾶς μωμήσηται· προνοούμενοι γὰρ καλὰ οὐ μόνον ἐνώπιον κυρίου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐνώπιον ἀνθρώπων.» «Ἀπόστρεψον δὲ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν ἀπὸ γυναικὸς κεχαριτωμένης, καὶ μὴ καταμάνθανε (4) κάλλος ἀλλότριον», φησὶν ἡ γραφή. Κἂν πύθῃ τὴν αἰτίαν, προσεπεξηγήσεταί σοι· «ἐν γὰρ κάλλει γυναικὸς πολλοὶ ἀπεπλανήθησαν, καὶ ἐκ τούτου φιλία ὡς πῦρ ἀνακαίεται,» εἰς πῦρ ἄγουσα ἀκατάπαυστον διὰ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν ἡ ἐκ πυρὸς ὁρμωμένη φιλία, ἣν ἔρωτα κεκλήκασιν.

(1) Being guided. "For your eyes should look straight ahead, and your eyelids should direct justly;" is it not possible, even upon seeing, to endure? But it is to avoid falling into it that one must be careful. For, seeing, one might slip, but desiring without seeing is impossible. (2) For it is not only cleanliness that is required of the temperate, but also to be beyond reproach, having excluded every cause for suspicion towards the summing up of purity, so that we may not only be faithful, but also appear trustworthy. And indeed, this too must be guarded against, as the apostle says, "that no one may fault us; providing for honest things, not only in the sight of the Lord but also in the sight of men." "Turn your eyes away from a graceful woman, and do not seek to know another's beauty," says the scripture. And if you inquire the reason, it will be explained to you: "for by the beauty of a woman many have been led astray, and by this, love burns like fire," leading to an unceasing fire because of sin, this passion ignited by fire, which they have called love.

But, above all, it seems right that we turn away from the sight of women. For it is sin not only to touch, but to look; and he who is rightly trained must especially avoid them. Let your eyes look straight, and your eyelids wink right. Proverbs 4:25 For while it is possible for one who looks to remain steadfast; yet care must be taken against falling. For it is possible for one who looks to slip; but it is impossible for one, who looks not, to lust. For it is not enough for the chaste to be pure; but they must give all diligence, to be beyond the range of censure, shutting out all ground of suspicion, in order to the consummation of chastity; so that we may not only be faithful, but appear worthy of trust. For this is also consequently to be guarded against, as the apostle says, that no man should blame us; providing things honourable, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight of men. 2 Corinthians 8:20-21 But turn away your eyes from a graceful woman, and contemplate not another's beauty, says the Scripture. Sirach 9:8 And if you require the reason, it will further tell you, For by the beauty of woman many have gone astray, and at it affection blazes up like fire; Sirach 9:8 the affection which arises from the fire which we call love, leading to the fire which will never cease in consequence of sin.

Clement of Alexandria, Stromata

1.1.14.

(1)   Ἡ μὲν οὖν τῶνδέ μοι τῶν ὑπομνημάτων γραφὴ ἀσθενὴς μὲν εὖ οἶδ’ ὅτι παραβαλλομένη πρὸς τὸ πνεῦμα ἐκεῖνο τὸ κεχαριτωμένον, οὗ κατηξιώθημεν ὑπακοῦσαι, εἰκὼν δ’ ἂν εἴη ἀναμιμνῄσκουσα τοῦ ἀρχετύπου τὸν θύρσῳ πεπληγότα· «σοφῷ γάρ», φησί, «λάλει, καὶ (2) σοφώτερος ἔσται,» καὶ «τῷ ἔχοντι δὲ προστεθήσεται». ἐπαγγέλλεται δὲ οὐχ ὥστε ἑρμηνεῦσαι τὰ ἀπόρρητα ἱκανῶς, πολλοῦ γε καὶ δεῖ, μόνον δὲ τὸ ὑπομνῆσαι, εἴτε ὁπότε ἐκλαθοίμεθα εἴτε ὅπως μηδ’ ἐκλανθανώμεθα. πολλὰ δὲ εὖ οἶδα παρερρύηκεν ἡμᾶς χρόνου μήκει ἀγράφως διαπεσόντα. ὅθεν τὸ ἀσθενὲς τῆς μνήμης τῆς ἐμῆς ἐπικουφίζων, κεφαλαίων συστηματικὴν ἔκθεσιν μνήμης ὑπόμνημα σωτήριον πορίζων ἐμαυτῷ, ἀναγκαίως κέχρημαι τῇδε τῇ ὑποτυπώσει. (3) ἔστι μὲν οὖν τινα μηδὲ ἀπομνημονευθέντα ἡμῖν (πολλὴ γὰρ ἡ παρὰ τοῖς μακαρίοις δύναμις ἦν ἀνδράσιν), ἔστιν δὲ καὶ ἃ ἀνυποσημείωτα μεμενηκότα τῷ χρόνῳ [ἃ] νῦν ἀπέδρα, τὰ δὲ ὅσα ἐσβέννυτο ἐν αὐτῇ μαραινόμενα τῇ διανοίᾳ, ἐπεὶ μὴ ῥᾴδιος ἡ τοιάδε διακονία τοῖς μὴ δεδοκιμασμένοις. ταῦτα δὲ ἀναζωπυρῶν ὑπομνήμασι τὰ μὲν ἑκὼν παραπέμπομαι ἐκλέγων ἐπιστημόνως, φοβούμενος γράφειν ἃ καὶ λέγειν ἐφυλαξάμην, οὔ τί που φθονῶν (οὐ γὰρ θέμις), δεδιὼς δὲ ἄρα περὶ τῶν ἐντυγχανόντων, μή πῃ ἑτέρως σφαλεῖεν καὶ παιδὶ μάχαιραν, ᾗ (4) φασιν οἱ παροιμιαζόμενοι, ὀρέγοντες εὑρεθῶμεν. «οὐ γὰρ ἔστι τὰ γραφέντα μὴ <οὐκ> ἐκπεσεῖν» καίτοι ἀνέκδοτα ὑπό γ’ ἐμοῦ μεμενηκότα, κυλιόμενα δὲ ἀεὶ μόνῃ μιᾷ χρώμενα τῇ ἐγγράφῳ φωνῇ πρὸς τὸν ἐπανερόμενον οὐδὲν πλέον παρὰ τὰ γεγραμμένα ἀποκρίνεται δεῖται γὰρ ἐξ ἀνάγκης βοηθοῦ ἤτοι τοῦ συγγραψαμένου ἢ καὶ ἄλλου   

(1) The writing of these memoirs of mine is admittedly weak when compared to that graceful spirit which we were deemed worthy to obey, but it might serve as a reminder of the archetype struck by the thyrsus: "For," it says, "speak to the wise, and he will become wiser," and "to him who has, more will be given." It promises not so much to interpret the mysteries adequately—much less is required for that—but merely to remind, whether we might forget or lest we be forgotten. I am well aware that many things have slipped through us, lost to the passage of time unwritten. Hence, to lighten the weakness of my memory, I provide for myself a systematic summary of memory, a salvific memorandum, having necessarily resorted to this depiction.  (3) Indeed, there are things not remembered by us (for great was the power among the blessed men), and there are also things that remained unmarked by time, now vanished, and those that were extinguished within it, fading in the mind, since such service is not easy for the untested. Reviving these memories, I willingly send forth some, choosing them knowledgeably, fearing to write what I have been careful even to speak, not out of envy (for it is not right), but rather fearing about those encountering them, lest somehow they stumble and, as the proverbial saying goes, we find ourselves offering a sword to a child. "For it is not possible that the written words will not fall out," although remaining unpublished by me, always rolling, using only the written voice to the reader, nothing more than what is written is answered—it necessarily requires the help of either the author or another.

Alternative Translation (link)

The writing of these memoranda of mine, I well know, is weak when compared with that spirit, full of grace, which I was privileged to hear. But it will be an image to recall the archetype to him who was struck with the thyrsus. For "speak," it is said, "to a wise man, and he will grow wiser; and to him that hath, and there shall be added to him." And we profess not to explain secret things sufficiently -- far from it -- but only to recall them to memory, whether we have forgot aught, or whether for the purpose of not forgetting. Many things, I well know, have escaped us, through length of time, that have dropped away unwritten. Whence, to aid the weakness of my memory, and provide for myself a salutary help to my recollection in a systematic arrangement of chapters, I necessarily make use of this form. There are then some things of which we have no recollection; for the power that was in the blessed men was great. There are also some things which remained unnoted long, which have now escaped; and others which are effaced, having faded away in the mind itself, since such a task is not easy to those not experienced; these I revive in my commentaries. Some things I purposely omit, in the exercise of a wise selection, afraid to write what I guarded against speaking: not grudging -- for that were wrong -- but fearing for my readers, lest they should stumble by taking them in a wrong sense; and, as the proverb says, we should be found "reaching a sword to a child." For it is impossible that what has been written should not escape, although remaining unpublished by me. But being always revolved, using the one only voice, that of writing, they answer nothing to him that makes inquiries beyond what is written; for they require of necessity the aid of some one, either of him who wrote, or of some one else who has walked in his foots

Origen, Fragments on the Gospel of John

(11)   Τῶν ἀρετῶν τὸ μὲν οἴκοθεν ἔχομεν καὶ παρ’ ἑαυτῶν, ὃ προαιρετικῶς κτώμεθα, τὸ δὲ ἐκ θεοῦ, πιστεύσαντες γοῦν τῷ σωτῆρι καὶ τῷ πατρὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς ἐνεδέχετο ἐκ τοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν γενέσθαι. λείπεται ἡμῖν καὶ τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ αἰτεῖν, καθὼς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ Ἰησοῦ φασὶν αὐτῷ· «Πρόσθες ἡμῖν πίστιν». ἡ γὰρ λέξις ἡ «Πρόσθες» σημαίνει ἀπαιτεῖν αὐτοὺς θεοδώρητον πίστιν πρὸς ᾗ εἶχον προαιρετικῶς. ἀμέλει καὶ ὁ Παῦλος γράφων φησί· «Κατ’ ἀναλογίαν πί«στεως» τῆς ἐνούσης ἐκ τοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν τὰς δωρεὰς τοῦ πνεύματος δίδοσθαι· «Ἑτέρῳ δίδοται πίστις, φησίν, ἐν τῷ αὐτῷ πνεύματι». εἰ δὲ πίστις δίδοταί τινι κατὰ ἀναλογίαν ἧς ἔχει πίστεως, φανερὸν ὅτι τῇ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν κατορθωθείσῃ ἡ θεόπεμπτος παραγίνεται πίστις. ἅπερ δὲ περὶ πίστεως εἴρηται, λεκτέον καὶ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ἀρετῶν. ἐπεὶ οὖν ἡ ἀρετὴ χάρις ἐστὶ κεχαριτωμένον ποιοῦσα τὸν ἔχοντα, ὅταν ἡμῖν προαιρετικῶς κατορθωθῇ αὐτή, τηνικαῦτα τὸ ἐκ θεοῦ παραγίνεται, καὶ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ δίδοσθαι παρὰ θεοῦ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος.

(11) Of the virtues, we have some from within ourselves and by our own acquisition, which we obtain by choice, and some from God, having believed in the Savior and His Father as it was possible to become through what depends on us. It remains for us also to ask from God, just as the disciples of Jesus say to Him: "Increase our faith." For the phrase "Increase" signifies them demanding a God-given faith in addition to what they had chosen voluntarily. Paul also writes saying: "According to the measure of faith" that is present by what depends on us, the gifts of the Spirit are given: "To another is given faith," he says, "by the same Spirit." If faith is given to someone according to the measure of faith they have, it is evident that the divinely sent faith arrives in addition to the faith that was achieved by our efforts. And what has been said about faith must also be said about the other virtues. Therefore, since virtue is a grace that makes its possessor favored, when it is rightly achieved by us through choice, then the divine aspect arrives, and this is the grace given by God in place of grace.

Letter of Pseudo-Aristeas (2nd century BC) (R.H. Charles, ed.):

224 Pleased with these words, the king asked the next How he could be free from envy? And he after a brief pause replied, 'If you consider first of all that it is God who bestows on all kings glory and great wealth and no one is king by his own power. All men wish to share this glory but cannot, since it is the gift of God.'

225 The king praised the man in a long speech and then asked another How he could despise his enemies? And he replied, 'If you show kindness to all men and win their friendship, you need fear no one. To be popular with all men is the best of good gifts to receive from God.'

226 Having praised this answer the king ordered the next man to reply to the question, How he could maintain his great renown? and he replied that 'If you are generous and large-hearted in bestowing kindness and acts of grace upon others, you will never lose your renown, but if you wish the aforesaid graces to continue yours, you must call upon God continually.'

Original Greek: 

(224) Τοῖς δὲ ῥηθεῖσιν ἀρεσθεὶς πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον εἶπε· Πῶς ἂν ἐκτὸς εἴη φθόνου; Διαλιπὼν δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἔφη· Πρῶτον εἰ νοήσαι ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πᾶσι μερίζει δόξαν τε καὶ πλούτου μέγεθος τοῖς βασιλεῦσι, καὶ οὐδεὶς παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ βασιλεύς ἐστι· πάντες γὰρ θέλουσι μετασχεῖν ταύτης τῆς δόξης, ἀλλ’ οὐ δύνανται· θεοῦ γάρ ἐστι δόμα. 

(225) Ἐπαινέσας δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα διὰ πλειόνων ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἕτερον· Πῶς ἂν καταφρονοίη τῶν ἐχθρῶν; Ὁ δὲ εἶπεν· Ἠσκηκὼς πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εὔνοιαν καὶ κατεργασάμενος φιλίας, λόγον οὐθενὸς ἂν ἔχοις· τὸ δὲ κεχαριτῶσθαι πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ καλὸν δῶρον εἰληφέναι παρὰ θεοῦ τοῦτ’ ἔστι κράτιστον. 

(226) Συναινέσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἑξῆς ἐκέλευσεν ἀποκριθῆναι, πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπών· Πῶς ἂν δοξαζόμενος διαμένοι; Εἶπε δέ· Τῇ προθυμίᾳ καὶ ταῖς χάρισι πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους μεταδοτικὸς ὢν καὶ μεγαλομερὴς οὐδέποτ’ ἂν ἀπολίποι δόξης· ἵνα δὲ τὰ προειρημένα σοι διαμένῃ, τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦ διὰ παντός. 

(alternative Greek)

224 Τοῖς δὲ ῥηθεῖσιν ἀρεσθεὶς πρὸς τὸν ἐχόμενον εἶπε Πῶς ἂν ἐκτὸς εἴη φθόνου; διαλιπὼν δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἔφη Πρῶτον εἰ νοήσαι, ὅτι ὁ θεὸς πᾶσι μερίζει δόξαν τε καὶ πλούτου μέγεθος τοῖς βασιλεῦσι, καὶ οὐδεὶς περὶ ἑαυτόν ἐστι βασιλεύς· πάντες γὰρ θέλουσι μετασχεῖν ταύτης τῆς δόξης, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ δύνανται· θεοῦ γάρ ἐστι δόμα. 225 Ἐπαινέσας δὲ τὸν ἄνδρα διὰ πλειόνων ἐπηρώτα τὸν ἕτερον Πῶς ἂν καταφρονοίη τῶν ἐχθρῶν; ὁ δὲ εἶπεν Ἠσκηκὼς πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους εὔνοιαν καὶ κατεργασάμενος φιλίας, λόγον οὐθενὸς ἂν ἔχοις· τὸ δὲ κεχαριτῶσθαι πρὸς πάντας ἀνθρώπους καὶ καλὸν δῶρον εἰληφέναι παρὰ θεοῦ τοῦτ᾽ ἔστι κράτιστον. 226 Συναινέσας δὲ τούτοις τὸν ἑξῆς ἐκέλευσεν ἀποκριθῆναι, πρὸς αὐτὸν εἰπών Πῶς ἂν δοξαζόμενος διαμένοι; εἶπε δὲ Τῇ προθυμίᾳ καὶ ταῖς χάρισι πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους μεταδοτικὸς ὢν καὶ μεγαλομερὴς οὐδέποτ᾽ ἂν ἀπολίποι δόξης· ἵνα δὲ τὰ προειρημένα σοι διαμένῃ, τὸν θεὸν ἐπικαλοῦ διὰ παντός.

Alternative Translation:

(224) But being pleased with what was said, he said to the next person: "How could one be outside of envy?" And after pausing, that one said: "First, if you realize that God distributes to all kings both glory and the magnitude of wealth, and no one is a king by himself; for all wish to share in this glory, but they cannot; for it is a gift from God."

(225) And having praised the man for more reasons, he asked another: "How could one despise one's enemies?" And he said: "Having practiced goodwill towards all men and having worked to make friendships, you would have no cause of complaint from anyone; but to have been favored by all men and to have received a beautiful gift from God is the greatest."

(226) And agreeing with these, he ordered the next to reply, saying to him: "How could one remain honored?" He said: "By being eager and generous in sharing your graces with others, and being magnanimous, you would never lose honor; but to ensure that what has been said to you remains, always invoke God."

"Critical" Translation (link):

224 Now the king, pleased with this reply, spoke to the next guest, “How could a man be free from envy?” Now after a pause, he declared, “First of all, by realizing that God assigns both glory and greatness of wealth to the kings, each and every one, and no one is a king by his own power. For all men wish to share this glory, but instead they cannot—for it is a gift of God.”

225 Now the king, after giving a long commendation to this guest, asked another, “How can a man despise his enemies?” Now he spoke, “By practicing goodwill to all humans and by forming friendships, you would owe no obligation to anyone. But to have gratitude with all humans, and to receive a handsome gift from God—this is one of the strongest gifts.”

226 Now the king, after approving these words, directed the next guest to answer, speaking to him, “How can a man maintain the glory he received?” Now he spoke, “If by his earnestness and his favors he showed munificence and great-generosity toward others, he would never lack glory. But if you wish for these previously-mentioned qualities to abide with you, you must call on God continually.”

Thackery's Translation (link) 

Pleased with his words, the king asked his neighbour how he might be free from envy. And he, after a pause, said, "Chiefly by considering how it is God who apportions to all kings their glory and great wealth, and that no one by his own power [FN1 Text slightly emended.] is king; for all men desire to partake of this glory, but they cannot, since it is a gift of God."

225 He commended the speaker at some length, and asked the next one how he should despise his foes. And he replied, "If thou hast studiously practised goodwill towards all men and formed friendships, thou needest fear no man. But to be in high favour with all men is the very best of good gifts to receive from God." [FN1 Text slightly emended.]

226 He commended his words, and bade the next one reply to the question, how he might retain his renown. And he said, " If with loving kindness and gracious acts thou art liberal and bountiful to others, thou wilt never have lack of renown ; but that the aforesaid graces may continue thine, thou must constEftitly call upon God."

*** 

Posidippus (c. 310-240 BC), Epigrams 

Translation:

Section  48

This is sufficient for the wise Bithynid to lie nearby

to the servant of good masters, O Themis, ruler;

for they did not begrudge freedom, I gladly declare,

who have a stele better than freedom.

Greek (48) 

τοῦθ’ ἱκανὸν συνετῆι Βιθυνίδι τοὐγγύθι κεῖσ[θαι]

  τῆι δούλη[ι χ]ρηστῶν, ὦ Θέμι, δεσποτέων·

[οὐ γὰρ] ἐλευθερίηι προσεμόχθεον, εὖ χαριτοῦμ[αι,]

[   ἥτις ἔ]χ̣ω̣ στήλην κρέσσον’ ἐλευθερίης. 

Alternative Translations (from here)

Translated by M. Lefkowitz, From Diotima: Women & Gender in the Ancient World.

Goddess Themis, this tomb is a sufficient resting-place

    for wise Bithynis,a slave of worthy masters,

for I did not strive for freedom, but I was well rewarded,

    and I have this memorial that is more enduring than liberty.

Translated by E. Kosmetatou

This is sufficient grave for wise Bithynis, a slave,

    O Themis, of good masters.

For I did not struggle for freedom but was well rewarded:

    I have this stele which is far superior to liberty.

Origen, Fragments of his lost Commentary on Luke, Fragments 21a-21d

(21a) Ἐπειδὴ εἶπεν ὁ θεὸς τῇ Εὔᾳ· ‹ἐν λύπαις τέξῃ τέκνα›, διὰ τοῦτο λέγει ὁ ἄγγελος· ‹Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη›· αὕτη γὰρ ἡ χαρὰ λύει ἐκείνην τὴν λύπην·

(21b) εἰ γὰρ διὰ τὴν τῆς Εὔας κατάραν διέβη ἡ ἀρὰ ἐπὶ πᾶν τὸ τῶν θηλειῶν γένος, οὐκοῦν στοχαστέον, ὅτι διὰ τῆς πρὸς τὴν Μαρίαν εὐλογίας πλατύνεται ἡ χαρὰ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ψυχὴν παρθένον·

(21c) ‹ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ›· ἦν γὰρ μετ’ αὐτῆς ὁ μικρὸν ὕστερον ἐξ αὐτῆς.

(21d) ‹ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ›· ἰστέον ὅτι ἅμα τῷ εὐαγγελίσασθαι εὐθὺς συνέλαβεν ἡ παρθένος παραδόξως.

(21a) Since God said to Eve, "In pain you shall bear children," for this reason the angel says, "Rejoice, highly favored one"; for this joy dissolves that pain.

(21b) If indeed through the curse of Eve, the curse passed onto all the female gender, it must then be considered that through the blessing towards Mary, joy is expanded upon every virgin soul.

(21c) "The Lord is with you"; for He was with her, who a little later came from her.

(21d) "The Lord is with you"; it must be known that at the moment of being told the good news, the virgin miraculously conceived immediately.

Compare Homily X on Luke by Origen, as translated by Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J. for the Catholic University of America Press series, The Fathers of the Church: a New Translation (vol. 94).

(p. 26)

I mention this because the translator asserted that he failed to translate the early Lucan fragments because the homilies already sufficiently discussed things ("Origen's thought on Luke 1 to 3 is covered well enough in the homilies." p. xxxix), which it seems plain that they did not. As Lienhard notes, the authenticity and accuracy of the fragments cannot be guaranteed unless we some day find the intact commentary.

What can we conclude from the above?  Chiefly, we can conclude that the term is not some special word that means, or implies, that a person is immaculately conceived, or that means or implies that a person has original justice, or the like.

Beza, Plato, and the "Shall Be" Speculative Restoration at Revelation 16:5

Beza speculatively replaced "ὅσιος" with "ἐσόμενος" in Revelation 16:5.  Sometimes advocates of the King James Version (or Scrivener's Textus Receptus, which was based on the KJV), will try to find some hint that this text existed in some now-lost copies of Scripture. To that end, I've done my best to survive the roughly 266 places in which the exact expression "ἐσόμενος" appears in any Greek writing in the Thesaurus Linguae Gracae (TLG) library of Greek Literature (as of November 10, 2023).

There is one Biblical use, namely in the Septuagint translation of Job:

Septuagint, Job 15:14 "τίς γὰρ ὢν βροτός, ὅτι ἔσται ἄμεμπτος, ἢ ὡς ἐσόμενος δίκαιος γεννητὸς γυναικός;" (NETS: For who, being mortal, can be blameless, or who can be in the right, born of woman?)

While this is an important verse for total depravity, it has no obvious connection to Revelation 16:5.

A much more interesting use is found in Plato's Timaeus.  I don't know whether Plato's Timaeus is itself included in the TLG, but beginning with Stobaeus (5th century, AD) there are multiple quotations of Plato's use (Stobaeus, Proclus, Simplicius, and especially Philoponus provide this quotation).   

In a paper (link), I found the following text and translation of Timaeus 38b 6-c 3.

χρόνος δ᾽ οὖν μετ᾽ οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν, ἵνα ἅμα γεννηθέντες ἅμα καὶ λυθῶσιν, ἄν ποτε λύσις τις αὐτῶν γίγνηται, καὶ κατὰ τὸ παράδειγμα τῆς διαιωνίας φύσεως, ἵν’ὡς ὁμοιότατος αὐτῷ κατὰ δύναμιν ᾖ· τὸ μὲν γὰρ δὴ παράδειγμα πάντα αἰῶνά ἐστιν ὄν, ὁ δ᾽ αὖ διὰ τέλους τὸν ἅπαντα χρόνον γεγονώς τε καὶ ὢν καὶ ἐσόμενος.

...

Now, χρόνος has come into being with the οὐρανός (χρόνος δ᾽ οὖν μετ᾽ οὐρανοῦ γέγονεν), so that, together (ἅμα) having been engendered, together (ἅμα) they may perish, should some dissolution (λύσις) of either the one or the other ever occur, and it has come into being [sc. γέγονεν] in accordance with the paradigm which is possessed of a thoroughly everlasting nature (τὸ παράδειγμα τῆς διαιωνίας φύσεως), so that it should prove to be as similar as possible to that paradigm, relative to its capacity (ἵν’ὡς ὁμοιότατος αὐτῷ κατὰ δύναμιν ᾖ); for that paradigm ‘is’ for all Eternity, being, whereas the other (ὁ δ᾽ αὖ, that is, its ‘image’), lasting through and through (διὰ τέλους), ‘is’ [sc. ἐστιν] for all time, having come into being, and also being and going to be’.

It's easy to observe the three times (past, present, and future) mentioned in connection with the concept of Eternity.  There is no reason to think that John would have been influenced by Plato, and in context John is quoting an angel, who would have no reason to be have been influenced by Plato.  Nevertheless, it is more reasonable to suppose that Beza was influenced by Plato.

In 1513, Aldus Manutius provided the first printed edition of Plato's works in Greek, which included Timaeus (link to relevant page):

Notice the "καὶ ὢν καὶ ἐσόμενος" as the final words of the last line of the clip. It is 

Beza may not have always agreed with Plato, but he had read him, at least enough to disagree with him. For example, "Beza does not favour Plato's philosophy, and often finds him an inept philosopher," Mallinson, Jeffrey, 'Beza’s Academic Challenge', Faith, Reason, and Revelation in Theodore Beza (1519–1605), Oxford Theological Monographs (Oxford, 2003; online edn, Oxford Academic, 3 Oct. 2011).

Setting aside the people quoting or commenting on Plato himself, and setting aside the many places where the use of the word seems utterly irrelevant to the question at hand, I have found the following places of interest (some of which were already pointed out by Nick Sayers in his book on Revelation 16:5, defending Beza's reading).

1. Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215), Stromata, Book 5, Chapter 6 (translation)(Greek can be found here):

So very mystically the five loaves are broken by the Saviour, and fill the crowd of the listeners. For great is the crowd that keep to the things of sense, as if they were the only things in existence. "Cast your eyes round, and see," says Plato, "that none of the uninitiated listen." Such are they who think that nothing else exists, but what they can hold tight with their hands; but do not admit as in the department of existence, actions and processes of generation, and the whole of the unseen. For such are those who keep by the five senses. But the knowledge of God is a thing inaccessible to the ears and like organs of this kind of people. Hence the Son is said to be the Father's face, being the revealer of the Father's character to the five senses by clothing Himself with flesh. "But if we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit." "For we walk by faith, not by sight," the noble apostle says. Within the veil, then, is concealed the sacerdotal service; and it keeps those engaged in it far from those without.

Again, there is the veil of the entrance into the holy of holies. Four pillars there are, the sign of the sacred tetrad of the ancient covenants. Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, "Who is and shall be." The name of God, too, among the Greeks contains four letters.

ταύτῃ τοι μυστικώτατα πέντε ἄρτοι πρὸς τοῦ σωτῆρος κατακλῶνται καὶ πληθύνουσι τῷ ὄχλῳ τῶν ἀκροωμένων. πολὺς γὰρ ὁ τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὡς μόνοις οὖσι προσανέχων. «ἄθρει δὴ περισκοπῶν,» φησὶν ὁ Πλάτων, «μή τις τῶν ἀμυήτων ἐπακούῃ. εἰσὶ δὲ οὗτοι οἱ οὐδὲν ἄλλο οἰόμενοι εἶναι ἢ οὗ ἂν ἀπρὶξ τοῖν χειροῖν λαβέσθαι δύναιντο, πράξεις δὲ καὶ γενέσεις καὶ πᾶν τὸ ἀόρατον οὐκ ἀποδεχόμενοι ὡς ἐν οὐσίας μέρει·» τοιοῦτοι γὰρ οἱ τῇ πεντάδι τῶν αἰσθήσεων προσανέχοντες μόνῃ. ἄβατον δὲ ἀκοαῖς καὶ τοῖς ὁμογενέσιν ἡ νόησις τοῦ θεοῦ. ἐντεῦθεν πρόσωπον εἴρηται τοῦ πατρὸς ὁ υἱός, αἰσθήσεων πεντάδι σαρκοφόρος γενόμενος, ὁ λόγος ὁ τοῦ πατρῴου μηνυτὴς ἰδιώματος. «εἰ δὲ ζῶμεν πνεύματι, πνεύματι καὶ στοιχῶμεν.» «διὰ πίστεως περιπατοῦμεν, οὐ διὰ εἴδους,» ὁ καλὸς ἀπόστολος λέγει. ἔνδον μὲν οὖν τοῦ καλύμματος ἱερατικὴ κέκρυπται διακονία καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ πονουμένους πολὺ τῶν ἔξω εἴργει. 

πάλιν τὸ παραπέτασμα τῆς εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων παρόδου, κίονες τέτταρες αὐτόθι, ἁγίας μήνυμα τετράδος διαθηκῶν παλαιῶν, ἀτὰρ καὶ τὸ τετράγραμμον ὄνομα τὸ μυστικόν, ὃ περιέκειντο οἷς μόνοις τὸ ἄδυτον βάσιμον ἦν· λέγεται δὲ Ἰαουε, ὃ μεθερμηνεύεται ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος. καὶ μὴν καὶ καθ’ Ἕλληνας θεὸς τὸ ὄνομα τετράδα περιέχει γραμμάτων. 

It is interesting to see the earliest Christian writer who is defining the tetragrammaton as "who is and shall be" has clearly been influenced by Plato. This is an example of a "possible allusion" but considering that the phrase wording doesn't align with the phrase wording of Beza's Revelation 16:5, it seems unreasonable to put much weight on it.

2. Gregory of Nyssa (d. 395), On the Baptism of Christ, A Sermon for the Day of the Lights. (link to translation) 

Διὰ δὴ ταῦτα πάντα τὸν τῆς χαρᾶς ὕμνον ἄσωμεν τῷ θεῷ, ὃν στόμα τῷ πνεύματι κάτοχον πάλαι προφητικῶς ἐξεβόησεν· Ἀγαλλιάσθω ἡ ψυχή μου ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ· ἐνέδυσε γάρ με ἱμάτιον σωτηρίου καὶ χιτῶνα εὐφροσύνης περιέβαλέ μοι, ὡς νυμφίῳ περιέθηκέ μοι μίτραν καὶ ὡς νύμφην κατεκόσμησέ με κόσμῳ. κοσμήτωρ δὲ πάντως τῆς νύμφης ὁ Χριστὸς ὁ ὢν καὶ πρόων καὶ ἐσόμενος, εὐλογητὸς νῦν καὶ εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, ἀμήν. 

For all these things then let us sing to God that hymn of joy, which lips touched by the Spirit long ago sang loudly: Let my soul be joyful in the Lord: for He has clothed me with a garment of salvation, and has put upon me a robe of gladness: as on a bridegroom He has set a mitre upon me, and as a bride has He adorned me with fair array.  And verily the Adorner of the bride is Christ, Who is, and was, and shall be, blessed now and for evermore. Amen.

The reference to the Adorner of the bride is probably a reference to Septuagint Isaiah 61:10: "... Let my soul be glad in the Lord, for he has clothed me with a garment of salvation and with a tunic of joy; he has put on me a headdress as on a bridegroom and adorned me with ornaments like a bride." (NETS) ("... ἀγαλλιάσθω ἡ ψυχή μου ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ ἐνέδυσεν γάρ με ἱμάτιον σωτηρίου καὶ χιτῶνα εὐφροσύνης ὡς νυμφίῳ περιέθηκέν μοι μίτραν καὶ ὡς νύμφην κατεκόσμησέν με κόσμῳ")  The reference to the lips touched by the Spirit is undoubtedly a reference to the account of the purification of Isaiah's lips (Isaiah 6:5-6)

Gregory's doxological conclusion is an explanation of Jesus as the Adorner together with praise of Jesus, calling him blessed and eternal.  This is an example of a "possible allusion" but considering that the phrase wording doesn't align with the phrase wording of Beza's Revelation 16:5, it seems unreasonable to put much weight on it.

3. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Commentary on Isaiah, Book 4, Oration II, at Isaiah 44:6-7 (Greek at 924 D)

Thus says the Lord, the God, the King of Israel, the God of hosts who saved him: I am the first, and I am after these; besides me there is no God. Who is like me? Let him stand up, call, and prepare for me, since I made man into the world. And let them declare to you the things that are to come before they happen. Do not be deceived, and I have announced to you.

Making a remembrance of the knowledge in Christ through the readings now given to us, he shifts the discourse to another of the necessary things. For at that time, when the divine prophet Isaiah was composing such words for us, reigning among them was the hater of God, and he was in unbearable errors. For each had his own so-called god and reverence; God made it necessary for them to have advice, interwoven with the most ingenious reproaches; moving them away from polytheism and its infirmities; and inviting them through recognition to the knowledge of truth, and of His own glory and incomparable power, bringing it to memory. In this regard, he says: Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel, the God of hosts who saved him. For He wants it to be known that He is God and the Lord of powers, and to be lifted up as if from drunkenness to see that they have been delivered from the greed of the Egyptians, performing wonders, and showing the greatness of His power and superiority. For what has not been done of the things wondered at? What plague has not been inflicted on those who oppressed them? Or how could there not be a clear demonstration of His indescribable power, with the sea standing apart, the waters freezing and forming like a wall, and the fleeing ones walking through the middle? And what about the miracles in the wilderness after this? Did He not give them bread from heaven? Did He not break open a rock in the wilderness, and water them as in a great abyss; and brought down waters like rivers? Did He not, by placing a sort of bridle on the waters of the Jordan, make a way to pass with a foot? Therefore, He rightly calls Himself not simply Lord and God in these things; but He added, And having saved him, bringing to memory, as I said, the paradoxically accomplished things through Him. Know then, he says, that I am God first, and I am after these, and besides me there was no God.

For God is the beginning of everything, being Himself without beginning, and everything was brought forth by Him into being; He then became under no one, but is, was, and will be. For this is His name, and an eternal memorial for generations of generations. Therefore, neither was there another God before Him, nor will there be one after Him. For there is one God by nature, and no other besides Him. This advice is very useful for those who have denied Him, and who have slipped into great folly in thinking that there are many gods. That no one else or different one can be counted upon Him, He demonstrates by saying: Who is like me? Who among the gods you have thought of, or named senselessly, will be according to my glory and power? From what great deeds have you believed them to be gods? Let someone stand, if there is one like me. Let someone prepare who has a nature equal in strength or glory. Let them call whoever they choose of the falsely-named gods, since I made man into the world. For I, he says, have created the heavens and the things in them, having flocks of countless holy spirits worshiping and serving me, but since I made man upon the earth, and in the following, that is, into the world, let someone show me one like me. But again saying, Since I made man, he shows himself to be the creator, and the falsely-named gods to be completely non-existent. For what of those worshiping them have they brought into being? But I, being a creator, am known, and the creator of everything, and having knowledge of all. Investigate this with the gods spoken of among you, let them declare to you the things that are to come before they happen. For it would be fitting for a god by nature to have all knowledge of both what has already happened and what will be. But if none among the falsely-named gods is found to have this, it is evident that those who do not have the knowledge of God could not be gods. Do not be deceived, instead of, Do not be silent, nor pretend.

 Οὕτω λέγει Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ, ὁ ῥυσάμενος αὐτὸν Θεὸς Σαβαώθ· Ἐγὼ πρῶτος, καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα· πλὴν ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἔστι Θεός. Τίς ὥσπερ ἐγώ; Στήτω, καὶ καλεσάτω, καὶ ἑτοιμασάτω μοι, ἀφ’ οὗ ἐποίησα ἄνθρωπον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Καὶ τὰ ἐπερχόμενα πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν ἀναγγειλάτωσαν ὑμῖν. Μὴ παρακαλύπτεσθε, καὶ ἀπήγγειλα ὑμῖν.

  Τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ γνώσεως διὰ τῶν ἀρτίως ἡμῖν ἀναγνώσεων ποιησάμενος μνήμην, μεθίστησι τὸν λόγον ἐφ’ ἕτερόν τι τῶν ἀναγκαίων. Ἐπειδὴ γὰρ κατ’ ἐκεῖνο καιροῦ, καθ’ ὃν ὁ θεσπέσιος προφήτης Ἡσαΐας τοὺς περὶ τῶν τοιούτων ἡμῖν συνετίθει λόγους, βασιλεύοντος παρ’ αὐτοῖς θεομισοῦς, καὶ ἐν ἀφορήτοις γέγονεν ὀλισθήμασιν. Ἦν γὰρ ἑκάστῳ τὸ δοκοῦν θεὸς καὶ σέβας· ἀναγκαίαν αὐτοῖς τὴν παραίνεσιν εὐφυεστάτοις ἐλέγχοις ἐγκεκλωσμένην ποιεῖται Θεός· μεθιστὰς μὲν αὐτοὺς τῆς πολυθεΐας, καὶ τῶν ἐν τούτοις ἀῤῥωστημάτων· προσκαλούμενος δὲ διὰ μεταγνώσεως εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας, καὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ δόξης, καὶ ἀσυγκρίτου δυνάμεως ἀνακομίζων εἰς ἀνάμνησιν. Ταύτῃ τοι φησίν· Οὕτω λέγει Κύριος ὁ βασιλεὺς τοῦ Ἰσραὴλ, ὁ ῥυσάμενος αὐτὸν Θεὸς Σαβαώθ. Ὅτι γὰρ Θεός ἐστι καὶ τῶν δυνάμεων Κύριος, εἰδέναι βούλεται, καὶ καθάπερ ἐκ μέθης ἀνενεγκόντας ἰδεῖν, ὅτι καὶ τῆς Αἰγυπτίων πλεονεξίας ἐξῄρηνται, θαυματουργοῦντος αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς ἐνούσης αὐτῷ δυνάμεως, καὶ ὑπεροχῆς τὸ μέγεθος ἐμφανίζοντος. Τί γὰρ οὐ πέπρακται τῶν τεθαυμασμένων; Ποία δὲ τοῖς πλεονεκτοῦσιν αὐτοὺς οὐκ ἐπηνέχθη πληγή; Ἢ πῶς τῆς ἀφράστου δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο σαφὴς ἀπόδειξις, τὸ διαστῆναι μὲν θάλασσαν, παγῆναι δὲ καὶ ὡσεὶ τεῖχος τὰ ὕδατα, καὶ διὰ μέσων ἰέναι τοὺς φεύγοντας; Τί δὲ δὴ τὰ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ μετὰ τοῦτο θαυματουργήματα; Οὐκ ἄρτον αὐτοῖς ἔδωκε τὸν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ; Οὐ διέῤῥηξε πέτραν ἐν ἐρήμῳ, καὶ ἐπότισεν αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐν ἀβύσσῳ πολλῇ; καὶ κατήγαγεν ὡς ποταμοὺς ὕδατα; οὐ τοῖς Ἰορδάνου νάμασιν οἷά τινα χαλινὸν ἐπιθεὶς, ποδὶ παρεσκεύασε παρελθεῖν; Ἀναγκαίως τοίνυν, οὐχ ἁπλῶς Κύριόν τε καὶ Θεὸν ἐν τούτοις ἑαυτὸν ἀποκαλεῖ· προσεπήγαγε δὲ, ὅτι Καὶ ῥυσάμενος αὐτὸν, εἰς ἀνάμνησιν ἀνακομίζων, ὡς ἔφην, τῶν δι’ αὐτὸν παραδόξως τετελεσμένων. Ἴσθι δὴ οὖν, φησὶν, ὅτι Ἐγὼ Θεὸς πρῶτος, καὶ ἐγὼ μετὰ ταῦτα, καὶ πλὴν ἐμοῦ οὐκ ἦν Θεός. 

Ἀρχὴ γὰρ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς, ἄναρχος ὢν αὐτὸς, καὶ παρ’ αὐτοῦ πάντα παρήχθη πρὸς γένεσιν· αὐτὸς μὲν οὖν γέγονεν ὑπ’ οὐδενὸς, ἀλλ’ ἔστιν ὤν τε καὶ ἐσόμενος. Τοῦτο γὰρ ὄνομα αὐτῷ, καὶ μνημόσυνον αἰώνιον γενεῶν γενεαῖς. Οὔτε τοίνυν πρὸ αὐτοῦ Θεὸς ἕτερος ἦν, οὔτε τις ἔσται μετ’ αὐτόν. Εἷς γὰρ φύσει Θεὸς, καὶ ἕτερος παρ’ αὐτὸν οὐδείς. Χρησιμωτάτη δὲ λίαν ἡ παραίνεσις τοῖς ἀρνησαμένοις αὐτὸν, καὶ ἐκ πολλῆς ἄγαν ἀσυνεσίας ὠλισθηκόσιν εἴς γε τὸ οἴεσθαι θεοὺς εἶναι πολλούς. Ὅτι δὲ κατ’ αὐτὸν οὐδεὶς ἤγουν ἕτερος ἐπ’ αὐτῷ καταλογισθῆναι, διαδείκνυσι λέγων· Τίς ὥσπερ ἐγώ; Ποῖος ἄρα τοῖς παρ’ ὑμῶν ὑπονοηθεῖσι θεοῖς, ἤγουν ἀσυνέτως ὠνομασμένοις, κατὰ τὴν ἐμὴν ἔσται δόξαν τε καὶ δύναμιν; Ἐκ ποίας ἄρα μεγαλουργίας θεοὺς αὐτοὺς εἶναι πεπιστεύκατε; Στήτω τις, εἴπερ ἐστὶ κατ’ ἐμέ. Ἑτοιμασάτω τις τὸν ἰσόῤῥοπον ἔχοντα φύσιν, ἢ κατ’ ἰσχὺν ἢ δόξαν. Καλεσάτωσαν οὓς ἂν ἕλοιντο τῶν ψευδωνύμων θεῶν, ἀφ’ οὗ ἐποίησα ἄνθρωπον εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. Ἐκτισάμην γὰρ, φησὶν, οὐρανοὺς, καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς, ἀναριθμήτων ἁγίων πνευμάτων ἀγέλας προσκυνούσας ἔχων καὶ λατρευούσας ἐμοὶ, πλὴν ἀφ’ οὗ πεποίηκα τὸν ἄνθρωπον ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐφεξῆς, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, δειξάτω μοί τις τὸν κατ’ ἐμέ. Λέγων δὲ πάλιν τὸ, Ἀφ’ οὗ ἐποίησα ἄνθρωπον, ἑαυτὸν μὲν δείκνυσιν ὄντα δημιουργὸν, τοὺς δὲ ψευδωνύμους θεοὺς οὐδὲν ὄντας παντελῶς. Τίνα γὰρ τῶν προσκυνούντων αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ εἶναι παρήνεγκαν; πλὴν δημιουργὸς ἐγὼ ὑπάρχων γνωρίζομαι, καὶ κτίστης τῶν ὅλων, καὶ ἁπάντων ἔχων τὴν γνῶσιν. Ἐρευνήσατε τοῦτο παρὰ τοῖς παρ’ ὑμῶν ῥηθεῖσι θεοῖς, τὰ ἐπερχόμενα πρὸ τοῦ ἐλθεῖν ἀναγγειλάτωσαν ὑμῖν. Θεῷ γὰρ κατὰ φύσιν πρέποι ἂν τὸ πᾶσαν ἔχειν τὴν γνῶσιν τῶν τε ἤδη παρῳχηκότων, καὶ τῶν ἐσομένων. Εἰ δὲ οὐδεὶς ἐν τοῖς ψευδωνύμοις θεοῖς τοῦτο λαχὼν εὑρίσκεται, ἀσυμφανὲς, ὅτι οἱ τὴν Θεοῦ γνῶσιν οὐκ ἔχοντες, οὐκ ἂν εἶεν θεοί. Μὴ παρακαλύπτεσθε, ἀντὶ τοῦ, Μὴ σιωπᾶτε, μηδὲ ἀποπροσποιεῖσθε.

This is an example of a "possible allusion" but considering that the phrase wording doesn't align with the phrase wording of Beza's Revelation 16:5, it seems unreasonable to put much weight on it.

4. Olympiodorus the Deacon (of Alexandria?)(Sixth Century?), Commentary on Jeremiah (taken from catena fragments):

 «Ἰωσεδέκ.» Ἰωσεδὲκ ἑρμηνεύεται, Ἰωὰ δίκαιος, τουτέστι δικαιοσύνη ἡμῶν· ἢ Ἰωὰ, ὢν καὶ ἐσόμενος, Ἰωσεδέκ· καὶ διὰ τὴν ὁμωνυμίαν υἱοῦ τοῦ Ἰωσεδὲκ, τοῦ ἡγησαμένου τῶν υἱῶν Ἰσραὴλ ἀπὸ τῆς αἰχμαλωσίας. Πολλάκις γὰρ ἡ Γραφὴ καὶ ἀπὸ ὀνομάτων τὰ πράγματα κρίνει· ὡς ἐπὶ τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ, ὃς ἑρμηνεύεται βασιλεὺς εἰρήνης. Ἐν τοῖς προφήταις ἐπειδὴ καὶ προφήτης ἠξίωσε κληθῆναι, καθὸ γέγονεν ἅνθρωπος, ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱὸς, ὁ τῶν προφητῶν Δεσπότης, κατὰ τὸν διὰ Μωσέως χρησμὸν λέγοντα, Προφήτην ὑμῖν ἀναστήσει Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ὑμῶν ὡς ἐμέ· κατὰ πάντα αὐτοῦ ἀκούσεσθε.

"Ἰωσεδέκ." Ἰωσεδέκ is interpreted as "Ἰωὰ the righteous," which means our righteousness. Or "Ἰωὰ," meaning "being and becoming," Josedek. And because of the similarity in name, it refers to the son of Josedek, who led the sons of Israel out of captivity. For often, Scripture judges things based on names, as in the case of Melchizedek, who is interpreted as the "king of peace." In the prophets, since even a prophet was deemed worthy to be called, just as it happened, a man, the Son of God, the Lord, the Master of the prophets, according to the prophecy through Moses, saying, "The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me; you shall listen to Him in everything."

As to the substance of this commentary, the author is clearly working from Septuagint Jeremiah, which has the text as: "ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ σωθήσεται Ιουδας καὶ Ισραηλ κατασκηνώσει πεποιθώς καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ ὃ καλέσει αὐτὸν κύριος Ιωσεδεκ."  The KJV provides "THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS," as the translation of "יְהוָה צִדְקֵֽנוּ" (YHWH tzidkenu).

What's interesting about this is the underlying idea that the Greek name Ἰωσεδέκ (Josedek) means "Ἰωὰ the righteous," with Ἰωὰ being a name of God.

Please note that this passage does not align with the text of the commentary on Jeremiah (per TA Virginia, Jr.), nor does it align with the text of the commentary on Baruch (per M Smensgård). So, perhaps the attribution is wrong, either perhaps it is in the Lamentations commentary, or perhaps it's spuriously attributed. 

5. Euthymius Protasecretis (10th century?)  "For me, to live is Christ, who is all in all, both now and forever; and to die is eternal, undying gain." ("Ἐμοὶ γοῦν τὸ ζῆν Χριστός, ὁ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι καὶ ὢν καὶ ἐσόμενος· τὸ δὲ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος αἰωνίως ἀθάνατον.")(context and translation here)

This is best seen as an expansion of Philippians 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. ( ἐμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν Χριστὸς καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος) (compare: Ἐμοὶ γοῦν τὸ ζῆν Χριστός, ὁ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσι καὶ ὢν καὶ ἐσόμενος· τὸ δὲ ἀποθανεῖν κέρδος αἰωνίως ἀθάνατον.)   The expansion "all in all" seems potentially to be taken from Ephesians 1:23 ("all in all" "τοῦ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν") or perhaps 1 Corinthians 15:28 ("all in all" "τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν").  The concept of "now and always" ("καὶ ὢν καὶ ἐσόμενος") is similar conceptually with 2 Peter 3:18 and Jude 25, while "eternal undying" has broad conceptual support in terms of "eternal life" and similar New Testament concepts.

This is an example of a "possible allusion" but considering that the phrase wording doesn't align with the phrase wording of Beza's Revelation 16:5, it seems unreasonable to put much weight on it.

The following were some results that were interesting (at least to me, but not particularly relevant):

6. John Climacus (d. 649), Ladder to Paradise (Scaala Paradisi), Step (Chapter) 29, section 10: "I am wholly united with God, and always will be" (ἡνωμένος ὅλος ὢν, καὶ ἀεὶ ἐσόμενος Θεῷ) (link to translation).

I don't see this as having any real likelihood of being seen as an allusion to Revelation 16:5, since it is about the person himself, and speaks more to something like eternal security through unity with Christ.  Nevertheless, it is beautiful, and I include it for completeness.

7. Manuel Chrysoloras (d. 1415), Questions of the Art of Grammar, Section 63 (with English interspersed):

Μετοχή· (participle) ὁ ὤν ὄντος (the being, of the being [masculine]), ἡ οὖσα οὔσης (the being, of the being [feminine]), τὸ ὄν ὄντος (the being, of the being [neuter]).

Μέλλων· (future) ὁ ἐσόμενος τοῦ –μένου (the one who will be, of the -ing [masculine]), ἡ ἐσομένη τῆς –μένης (the one who will be, of the -ing [feminine]), τὸ ἐσόμενον τοῦ –μένου (the one who will be, of the -ing [neuter]). 

Obviously not an allusion to any particular text, just an interesting Greek grammar in Greek.

8. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), Exposition on the Psalms (Greek available here) at LXX Psalm 40 (Psalm 41:10 in our Bibles)

"But you, O Lord, have mercy on me, and raise me up, and I will repay them."

"These things are fitting for Christ because of the measure of humanity. For again, consider for me the Word of God, who exists in the form of God and equal with God the Father, revealed from His essence, co-throned and co-ruling over all, as being in a state of submission and diminishment due to His likeness to us, and more humanly due to His self-emptying, or rather divinely, the words He makes towards His own Father: 'Have mercy on me, he says, and raise me up.' And yet, how is it not clear to all that He Himself is naturally the mercy of God the Father? And likewise, He is the resurrection and the life, according to His own voice. But it was necessary for Him to fulfill all righteousness; and since He became a man, not to reject the humility of humanity, nor to disdain the words befitting it, due to the skill of His dispensation. We say, then, that He asks for mercy and, in conjunction with it, resurrection, not so much for Himself, but for us who are in need of mercy and resurrection. For as sin entered the world, and death through and because of it, so, with the expulsion of sin from the world, death is expelled. For we are justified in Christ by the merciful God the Father. Therefore, death has its solution in the resurrection of Christ, through whom and in whom human nature sprouted towards incorruptibility and life. 'When you raise me up, Father,' he says, 'then I will repay them,' clearly meaning those who have wronged Him. But still, he returns again from our human humility to the divine propriety. For He did not say to the Father in heaven, 'When you raise me, then you will repay them,' but as Himself being the judge of all and understood as God, 'I will repay them,' he says. As He Himself again says, 'The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father.' And that our Lord Jesus being raised by the Father from the dead is accomplished through Him, how could one doubt? For He is, as I said, the resurrection and the life. And so He also said to the Jews about His own body, 'Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it.' And that the Jews have exacted retribution for their impiety towards Him, it would not take long words to demonstrate, they themselves having proclaimed what happened to them. For He repaid them, having delivered them to the Romans. Then again He humanly says..."

Σὺ δὲ, Κύριε, ἐλέησόν με, καὶ ἀνάστησόν με, καὶ ἀνταποδώσω αὐτοῖς.

Ταῦτα ἁρμόττει τῷ Χριστῷ διὰ τὸ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος μέτρον. Ἄθρει γάρ μοι πάλιν τὸν ὑπάρχοντα μὲν ἐν μορφῇ καὶ ἰσότητι τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρὸς Θεὸν Λόγον, τὸν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ πεφηνότα, σύνθρονόν τε αὐτοῦ καὶ συγκατάρχοντα τῶν ὅλων, ὡς ἐν ὑφέσει τε ὄντα καὶ ἐν μείοσιν διά τοι τὴν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ὁμοίωσιν, καὶ ἀνθρωπίνως μᾶλλον διὰ τὴν κένωσιν, ἤγουν θεοπρεπῶς, τοὺς πρός γε τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Πατέρα ποιούμενον λόγους· «Ἐλέησόν με γὰρ, φησὶν, καὶ ἀνάστησόν με.» Καίτοι πῶς οὐχ ἅπασιν ἐναργὲς ὡς αὐτός ἐστιν κατὰ φύσιν τὸ ἔλεος τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός; αὐτὸς δὲ ὁμοίως ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωὴ, κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ φωνήν. Ἀλλ’ ἦν ἀναγκαῖον πᾶσαν αὐτὸν πληρῶσαι δικαιοσύνην· καὶ ἐπειδὴ γέγονεν ἄνθρωπος, τὸ τῆς ἀνθρωπότητος μὴ παραιτεῖσθαι σμικροπρεπὲς, μήτε μὴν τοὺς αὐτῇ πρέποντας ἀπαξιῶσαι λόγους, διὰ τὸ τῆς οἰκονομίας εὐτεχνές. Φαμὲν δὲ ὅτι τὸν ἔλεον, καὶ συνεζευγμένως αὐτῷ τὴν ἀνάστασιν, οὐχ ἑαυτῷ μᾶλλον, ἀλλ’ ἡμῖν αἰτεῖ τοῖς ἐν χρείᾳ καθεστηκόσιν ἐλέου καὶ ἀναστάσεως. Ὥσπερ γὰρ εἰσελθούσης εἰς τὸν κόσμον τῆς ἁμαρτίας, συνεισήλατο καθάπερ ἰδίᾳ μητρὶ, καὶ ὁ δι’ αὐτήν τε καὶ δι’ αὐτῆς ἀναφὺς θάνατος· οὕτως ἐξωσθείσης ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου τῆς ἁμαρτίας, συνεξήλατο καὶ ὁ θάνατος. Δικαιούμεθα γὰρ ἐν Χριστῷ κατοικτείροντος ἡμᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός. Λύσιν οὖν ὁ θάνατος ἔχει τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ Χριστοῦ, δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐν ᾧ πρὸς ἀφθαρσίαν καὶ ζωὴν ἀνέθαλεν ἡ ἀνθρώπου φύσις. Ὅταν τοίνυν ἀναστήσῃς με, φησὶν, ὦ Πάτερ, τότε καὶ ἀνταποδώσω αὐτοῖς, δῆλον δὲ ὅτι τοῖς εἰς αὐτὸν πεπαρῳνηκόσιν. Ἐπιτήρει δ’ ὅμως, ὡς ἐκ τῆς καθ’ ἡμᾶς σμικροπρεπείας ἀναφοιτᾷ πάλιν .. [εἰς τὸ] θεοπρεπές. Οὐ γὰρ ἔφη πρὸς τὸν ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς Πατέρα, ὅτι Ὅταν ἀναστήσῃς με, τότε καὶ ἀνταποδώσεις αὐτοῖς, ἀλλ’ ὡς αὐτὸς ἐσόμενος τῶν ὅλων κριτὴς καὶ ἔστι καὶ νοεῖται Θεὸς, «Ἀνταποδώσω, φησὶν, αὐτοῖς.» Ὡς γὰρ αὐτός που πάλιν φησὶν, «Ὁ Πατὴρ κρίνει οὐδένα, ἀλλὰ τὴν πᾶσαν κρίσιν δέδωκεν τῷ Υἱῷ, ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν Υἱὸν, καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν Πατέρα.» Ὅτι δὲ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἀναστῆσαι λεγομένου τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν ἐκ νεκρῶν, δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦτο κατώρθωται, πῶς ἂν ἐνδοιάσειέ τις; Αὐτὸς γάρ ἐστιν, ὡς ἔφην, ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή· Τοιγάρτοι καὶ ἔφη πρὸς Ἰουδαίους περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος· «Λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον, καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν.» Ὅτι δὲ δίκας ἐκτετίκασιν Ἰουδαῖοι τῆς εἰς αὐτὸν γενομένης δυσσεβείας, οὐ μακρῶν ἂν γένοιτο χρεία λόγων, αὐτῶν τοῦτο κεκραγότων τῶν συμβεβηκότων αὐτοῖς. Ἀνταπέδωκε γὰρ, Ῥωμαίοις αὐτοὺς παραδούς. Εἶτα πάλιν ἀνθρωπίνως φησίν·

I don't think this is even a possible allusion, but still interesting.

The Tetragrammaton in the Early Church Fathers (with bonus material)

In the patristic period (AD 70, upon the destruction of Jerusalem, to AD 749, the death of John Damascene), three fathers, in five places, provided a Greek transliteration of the tetragrammaton.  The term "tetragrammaton," however appears to have been used even before Christ by Philo, in his "Life of Moses."  Philo seems to indicate that the superstitions around saying the holy name of God were already there, and Philo does not offer more explanation.

The early Christian writers include Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), Epiphanius (c. 310/320 to 403), and Theodoret (393-457).  There is a human translation of the Theodoret material available, and I will try to provide it when I can.

[Bonus] PHILO JUDAEUS Phil. De vita Mosis (lib. i-ii) {0018.022} (1 B.C.-A.D. 1) Book 2 section 115 line 1

βάσις, ἵνα δύο ἀρετὰς ἀγαλματοφορῇ, δήλωσίν τε καὶ ἀλήθειαν· ὅλον δ’ ἁλυσειδίοις χρυσοῖς ἀνήρτητο πρὸς τὴν ἐπωμίδα, σφιγγόμενον ἐξ αὐτῆς, ὑπὲρ τοῦ μὴ χαλᾶσθαι. χρυσοῦν δὲ πέταλον ὡσανεὶ στέφανος ἐδημιουργεῖτο τέτταρας ἔχον γλυφὰς ὀνόματος, ὃ μόνοις τοῖς ὦτα καὶ γλῶτταν σοφίᾳ κεκαθαρμένοις θέμις ἀκούειν καὶ λέγειν ἐν ἁγίοις, ἄλλῳ δ’ οὐδενὶ τὸ παράπαν οὐδαμοῦ. τετραγράμματον δὲ τοὔνομά φησιν ὁ θεολόγος εἶναι, τάχα που σύμβολα τιθεὶς αὐτὰ τῶν πρώτων ἀριθμῶν, μονάδος καὶ δυάδος καὶ τριάδος καὶ τετράδος, ἐπειδὴ πάντα ἐν τετράδι, σημεῖον καὶ γραμμὴ καὶ ἐπιφάνεια καὶ στερεόν, τὰ μέτρα τῶν συμπάντων, καὶ αἱ κατὰ μουσικὴν ἄρισται συμφωνίαι, ἥ τε διὰ τεσσάρων ἐν ἐπιτρίτῳ λόγῳ καὶ ἡ διὰ πέντε ἐν ἡμιολίῳ καὶ ἡ διὰ πασῶν ἐν

AI-based translation

"...basis, so that it might bear the statue of two virtues, both indication and truth; and the whole was hung by golden chains towards the shoulder strap, clamped from it, so that it might not slacken. And a golden petal, like a crown, was fashioned bearing four engraved characters of the name, which only those who have purified their ears and tongue with wisdom are allowed to hear and say among the holy, and absolutely no one else anywhere. The theologian says the name is tetragrammaton, perhaps assigning them as symbols of the primary numbers, of the monad, dyad, triad, and tetrad, since everything is in the tetrad, a sign and line and surface and solid, the measures of all things, and the best harmonies in music, both the one through four in the proportion of four to three and the one through five in the proportion of three to two and the one through all in..."

Human translation (source)

that it mighty bear on it, as an image, two virtues, manifestation and truth; and the whole was fastened to the mantle by fine golden chains, and fastened to it so that it might never get loose; (114) and a golden leaf was wrought like a crown, having four names engraved on it which may only be mentioned or heard by holy men having their ears and their tongues purified by wisdom, and by no one else at all in any place whatever. (115) And this holy prophet Moses calls the name, a name of four letters, making them perhaps symbols of the primary numbers, the unit, the number two, the number three, the number four: since all things are comprised in the number four, namely, a point, and a line, and a superficies, and a solid, and the measures of all things, and the most excellent symphonies of music, and the diatessaron in the sesquitertial proportion, and the chord in fifths, in the ratio of one and a half to one, and 

1. CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS Theol. Stromata {0555.004} (A.D. 2nd-3rd) Book 5 chapter 6 section 34 subsection 5 line 2

(3) ὁ καλὸς ἀπόστολος λέγει. ἔνδον μὲν οὖν τοῦ καλύμματος ἱερατικὴ κέκρυπται διακονία καὶ τοὺς ἐν αὐτῇ πονουμένους πολὺ τῶν ἔξω

(4) εἴργει. πάλιν τὸ παραπέτασμα τῆς εἰς τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἁγίων παρόδου, κίονες τέτταρες αὐτόθι, ἁγίας μήνυμα τετράδος διαθηκῶν παλαιῶν,

(5) ἀτὰρ καὶ τὸ τετράγραμμον ὄνομα τὸ μυστικόν, ὃ περιέκειντο οἷς μόνοις τὸ ἄδυτον βάσιμον ἦν· λέγεται δὲ Ἰαουε, ὃ μεθερμηνεύεται

(6) ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἐσόμενος. καὶ μὴν καὶ καθ’ Ἕλληνας θεὸς τὸ ὄνομα

(7) τετράδα περιέχει γραμμάτων. εἰς δὲ τὸν νοητὸν κόσμον μόνος ὁ κύριος <ἀρχιερεὺς> γενόμενος εἴσεισι, <διὰ> τῶν παθῶν εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἀρρήτου γνῶσιν παρεισδυόμενος, ὑπὲρ «πᾶν ὄνομα» ἐξαναχωρῶν, ὃ

(8) φωνῇ γνωρίζεται. ναὶ μὴν ἥ τε λυχνία ἐν τοῖς νοτίοις ἔκειτο τοῦ

AI-based translation

(3) The good apostle says. Then, within the veil, a priestly service is hidden and greatly restrains those laboring in it from the outside.

(4) Again, the curtain of the passage into the Holy of Holies, there are four pillars there, a holy message of the quadrilateral of old covenants,

(5) but also the Tetragrammaton, the mystic name, which was accessible only to those who were entitled to enter the sanctuary. It is called YHWH, which is translated

(6) as the one who is and who will be. And indeed, even in Greek, the name of God

(7) contains four letters. But into the intelligible world, only the Lord, having become the High Priest, enters, by suffering, entering into the knowledge of the ineffable, withdrawing above "every name," which

(8) is recognized by voice. Indeed, the lamp was located in the southern part of...

Human translation (source)

... the noble apostle says. Within the veil, then, is concealed the sacerdotal service; and it keeps those engaged in it far from those without.

Again, there is the veil of the entrance into the holy of holies. Four pillars there are, the sign of the sacred tetrad of the ancient covenants. Further, the mystic name of four letters which was affixed to those alone to whom the adytum was accessible, is called Jave, which is interpreted, Who is and shall be. The name of God, too, among the Greeks contains four letters.

Now the Lord, having come alone into the intellectual world, enters by His sufferings, introduced into the knowledge of the Ineffable, ascending above every name which is known by sound. The lamp, too, was placed to the south of ...

2&3. EPIPHANIUS Scr. Eccl. Panarion (= Adversus haereses) {2021.002} (A.D. 4th) Volume 2 page 86 lines 9 and 13

λῆς φασιν αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν Σαβαὼθ οἱ ἀνόητοι, νομίζοντες ὄνομα εἶναι [τοῦ] θεοῦ τινὸς τὸ Σαβαώθ, ὡς ἤδη καὶ ἐν ταῖς πρότερον αἱρέσεσι διὰ πλάτους ἡμῖν πεπραγμάτευται περὶ ἑρμηνείας τοῦ Σαβαὼθ καὶ ἄλλων ὀνομασιῶν, τοῦ τε Ἠλὶ καὶ τοῦ Ἐλωείμ, τοῦ τε Ἢλ καὶ τοῦ Σαδδαῒ τοῦ τε Ἐλλιὼν τοῦ τε Ῥαββωνὶ τοῦ τε Ἰὰ τοῦ τε Ἀδωναῒ τοῦ τε Ἰαβέ, ὡς ὀνομασίαι εἰσὶ δοξολογιῶν ἅπασαι ἑρμηνευόμεναι καὶ οὐκ ὀνόματά ἐστι θετὰ ὡς εἰπεῖν τῇ θεότητι, ἅτινα καὶ ἐνταυθοῖ σπουδασθήσονται ἑρμηνευθέντα κεῖσθαι· τὸ Ἢλ θεός, τὸ Ἐλωεὶμ θεὸς ἀεί, τὸ Ἠλὶ θεός μου, τὸ Σαδδαῒ ὁ ἱκανός, τὸ Ῥαββωνὶ ὁ κύριος, τὸ Ἰὰ κύριος, τὸ Ἀδωναῒ ὁ ὢν κύριος, τὸ Ἰαβὲ ὃς ἦν καὶ ἔστιν ὁ ἀεὶ ὤν, ὡς ἑρμηνεύει τῷ Μωυσῇ «ὁ ὢν ἀπέσταλκέ με, ἐρεῖς πρὸς αὐτούς», καὶ τὸ Ἐλλιὼν ὕψιστος, καὶ τὸ Σαβαὼθ δυνάμεων ἑρμηνεύεται. κύριος οὖν Σαβαὼθ κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων. πάντῃ γὰρ <κύριος> πρόσκειται ὅπου τοῦ Σαβαὼθ ὄνομα λέγει ἡ γραφή· <ἡ γὰρ γραφὴ> οὐ μόνον ἐκφωνεῖ λέγουσα· «εἶπέ μοι Σαβαὼθ ἢ ἐλάλησε Σα-

AI-based translation

"They say foolishly that he is Sabaoth, believing that Sabaoth is a name of some god, as has already been widely explained to us in the previous heresies about the interpretation of Sabaoth and other names, of both Eli and Elohim, both El and Saddai, both Elyon and Rabboni, both Ya and Adonai, both Yave, as they are interpreted as doxologies and are not names assigned, so to speak, to the deity, which will also be zealously interpreted here; El is God, Elohim is the eternal God, Eli is my God, Saddai is the able one, Rabboni is the lord, Ya is lord, Adonai is the being lord, Yave is who was and is the always being, as he interprets to Moses 'the one who is has sent me, you will say to them', and Elyon is the highest, and Sabaoth is interpreted as of hosts. Therefore, Lord Sabaoth is the Lord of the hosts. For 'Lord' applies everywhere where the scripture speaks the name of Sabaoth; for not only does the scripture express saying: 'Tell me, Sabaoth, or speak, Sa-..."

Human translation (source)

... The fools say, in blasphemy against their own head, that this is Sabaoth himself,

5:8 since they suppose that Sabaoth is a name for some god. Already in the previous Sects I have dealt at length with the translation of Sabaoth and other names—Eli and Elohim, El and Shaddai, Elyon, Rabboni, Jah, Adonai and Jahveh—

5:9 since they are all to be translated as terms of praise, and are not as it were given names for the Godhead. Here too I hasten to give them in translation.

5:10 'El' means 'God'; 'Elohim,' 'God forever'; 'Eli,' 'my God'; 'Shaddai,' 'the Sufficient'; 'Rabboni,' 'the Lord'; 'Jah,' 'Lord'; 'Adonai,' 'He who is existent Lord.' 'Jahveh' means, 'He who was and is, He who forever is,' as he translates for Moses, ' 'He who is' hath sent me, shalt thou say unto them.'15 'Elyon' is 'highest.' And 'Sabaoth' means, 'of hosts'; hence 'Lord Sabaoth,' means, 'Lord of Hosts.'

5:11 For wherever scripture uses the expression, 'Sabaoth,' 'Lord' is put next to it. Scripture does not merely cry, 'Sabaoth said to me,' or, 'Sabaoth spoke,' ...

4. THEODORETUS Scr. Eccl. et Theol. Quaestiones in Octateuchum {4089.022} (A.D. 4th-5th) Page 112 line 18

πρὸς αὐτόν, «ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ὤν». τοῦτο δὲ παρ’ ἑβραίοις ἄφραστον ὀνομάζεται· ἀπείρηται γὰρ αὐτοῖς τοῦτο διὰ τῆς γλώττης προφέρειν, γράφεται δὲ διὰ τῶν τεσσάρων στοιχείων· διὸ καὶ τετράγραμμον αὐτὸ λέγουσι. τοῦτο καὶ τῷ πετάλῳ ἐπεγέγραπτο τῷ χρυσῷ, ὃ τῷ μετώπῳ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ἐπετίθετο τῇ ταινίᾳ τῆς κεφαλῆς προσδεσμούμενον. καλοῦσι δὲ αὐτὸ σαμαρεῖται μὲν Ἰαβέ, ἰουδαῖοι δὲ Ἰά.

XVI    

Τί δήποτε τῆς τοῦ Ἀαρὼν γυναικός, οὐ τὸν πατέρα μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸν ἀδελφὸν δῆλον ἡμῖν πεποίηκεν; Τῆς βασιλικῆς καὶ τῆς ἱερατικῆς φυλῆς τὴν ἐπιμιξίαν διδάσκει. ὁ γὰρ Ναασσῶν υἱὸς τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ· ὁ δὲ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀράμ· ὁ δὲ Ἀρὰμ

AI-based translation

"He said to him, "I am the one who is." However, this is unutterable among the Hebrews; for it is forbidden for them to pronounce this with their tongue, but it is written with the four elements; therefore, they also call it the Tetragrammaton. It was also inscribed on the gold plate, which was fastened to the forehead of the high priest with a headband. The Samaritans call it Yave, while the Jews call it Ya.

XVI

What, then, has the wife of Aaron made clear to us, not only about the father, but also about the brother? It teaches the mixture of the royal and priestly tribes. For Naasson is the son of Amminadab, and Amminadab is the son of Aram, and Aram..."

[BONUS]. THEODORETUS Scr. Eccl. et Theol. Quaestiones in Octateuchum {4089.022} (A.D. 4-5) Page 143 line 23

μενον. διά τοι τοῦτο καὶ τοῦ ἀέρος ὁ ποδήρης εἶχε τὸ χρῶμα· ὑακίνθινος γὰρ ἦν ὡς ἂν καὶ εἰς τοῦτον ἀφορῶν μετάρσιος γένηται. ἐπέκειτο δὲ τῇ κεφαλῇ κίδαρις τὸν οὐρανὸν μιμουμένη. ἐκάλυπτε δὲ καὶ ταινία τὸ μέτωπον, ἣν «μίτραν» εἶπον οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα. εἶχε δὲ ἐν μέσῳ πέταλον αὕτη χρυσοῦν, ἐγγεγραμμένον ἔχον τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸ ἄφραστον ὄνομα ὃ καλοῦσιν ἑβραῖοι τετράγραμμον. εὐλάβειαν δὲ τὸν λαὸν ἐκπαιδεύων ὁ δεσπότης Θεὸς δι’ αἰνίγματος τοῦτο δεδήλωκεν· «ἐπιγράψεις γὰρ αὐτῷ, φησίν, ἁγίασμα Κυρίου». ἐκέλευσε δὲ αὐτῷ καὶ ἐφεστρίδα γενέσθαι, ἣν οἱ ἑβδομήκοντα «ἐπωμίδα» ἐκάλεσαν· ἐν δὲ ταῖς βασιλείαις εὑρίσκομεν «ἐφοὺδ» αὐτὴν κατὰ τὴν τῶν ἑβραίων γλῶτταν ὠνομασμένην. αὕτη εἶχεν ἐφ’ ἑκατέρου μὲν ὤμου δύο λίθους πολυτελεῖς, ἔχοντας τῶν

AI-based translation

"For this reason, the tunic had the color of air; for it was hyacinth, so that whoever looks at it might be reminded of this element. A turban that imitates the sky lay on the head. It also covered the forehead with a band, which the Seventy called a "mitre". In the middle, this had a golden petal, which had the ineffable name of God engraved on it, which the Hebrews call the tetragrammaton. God, the Lord, educating the people in reverence, indicated this through the riddle: "For you shall engrave on it, he says, the sanctification of the Lord." He also commanded him to have an ephod, which the Seventy called a "shoulder-piece"; in the books of Kings, we find it called "ephod" in the language of the Hebrews. It had on each shoulder two precious stones, carrying the..."

5. THEODORETUS Theol. et Scr. Eccl. Haereticarum fabularum compendium {4089.031} (A.D. 4th-5th) Volume 83 page 460 line 15

καὶ αὐτὸ δηλοῖ τὸν Θεὸν, δασυνόμενον δὲ τὸν ἰσχυρόν·   

τὸ δὲ Ἀδωναῒ, τὸν Κύριον· τὸ δὲ Κύριος Σαβαὼθ, Κύριος τῶν δυνάμεων ἑρμηνεύεται, ἢ Κύριος στρατιῶν. Καὶ γὰρ παρ’ Ἕλλησι τὰ στρατιωτικὰ τάγματα, δυνάμεις καλοῦνται. Τὸ δὲ Σαδδαῒ, τὸν ἱκανὸν καὶ δυνατὸν σημαίνει· τὸ δὲ Ἀϊὰ τὸν ὄντα. Τοῦτο καὶ ἀνεκφώνητον ἦν παρ’ Ἑβραίοις. Σαμαρεῖται δὲ Ἰαβαὶ αὐτὸ λέγουσιν, ἀγνοοῦντες τὴν τοῦ ῥήματος δύναμιν. Ταῦτα μὴ νενοηκότες οἱ παραπλῆγες θεοὺς διαφόρους ἐκάλεσαν. Ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐπὶ τὰ λοιπὰ τοῦ συγγράμματος βαδιούμεθα.

Δʹ. —Περὶ δημιουργίας.

Ἐπιδεῖξαι δὲ χρὴ πρὸ τῶν ἁπάντων, ὡς τῆς κτίσεως ὑπάρχει δημιουργὸς, οὐχ ὁ μορφωθεὶς, κατὰ τὸν Βαλεντίνου μῦθον, ἐκ τοῦ πάθους τῆς Ἀχαμὼθ,

AI-based translation

But Adonai means the Lord; and the Lord Sabaoth is interpreted as the Lord of powers, or the Lord of armies. Indeed, in Greek, military units are called powers. Saddai signifies the sufficient and powerful one, and Aia means the existing one. This too was unpronounceable among the Hebrews. The Samaritans call it Iavai, not understanding the power of the word. Not having understood these things, the paralytics have called various gods. But we will proceed to the rest of the writing.

IV. - On Creation.

First and foremost, it must be demonstrated that there is a creator of the creation, not the one who was formed, according to the myth of Valentinus, from the suffering of Achamoth,..."

Formal Sufficiency of Scripture: Third Century Fathers (Guest Series)

Formal Sufficiency of Scripture
Stated and Examined from Scripture and the Fathers, with scholarly confirmation regarding the Fathers' views.

After explaining the nature of formal sufficiency (i.e. the Reformed view) in an introduction section (link), we explored Scripture's own testimony to its sufficiency (link). Although we could have stopped there, we have begun to explore the patristic testimony to the matter, beginning with the earliest Christian writers (link to discussion), and now continuing with the fathers of the 3rd century - some of whom were born in the 2nd century.

The writings of the 3rd century are in may respects better preserved than the writings of the preceding centuries. Consequently, we have a larger pool from which to draw. This larger pool also necessarily means that we have more specific discussions on more areas of theology, including discussion of Scripture. The following are some examples of what one finds in the third century.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):

It is now time, as we have dispatched in order the other points, to go to the prophetic Scriptures; for the oracles present us with the appliances necessary for the attainment of piety, and so establish the truth. The divine Scriptures and institutions of wisdom form the short road to salvation. Devoid of embellishment, of outward beauty of diction, of wordiness and seductiveness, they raise up humanity strangled by wickedness, teaching men to despise the casualties of life; and with one and the same voice remedying many evils, they at once dissuade us from pernicious deceit, and clearly exhort us to the attainment of the salvation set before us.

ANF: Vol. II, Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 8.

Clement is here affirming not only that Scripture has the content necessary, but also the form necessary, to bring believers to a saving knowledge of the truth.

We see something similar in the next quotation.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):

But godliness, that makes man as far as can be like God, designates God as our suitable teacher, who alone can worthily assimilate man to God. This teaching the apostle knows as truly divine. “Thou, O Timothy,” he says, “from a child hast known the holy letters, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith that is in Christ Jesus.” For truly holy are those letters that sanctify and deify; and the writings or volumes that consist of those holy letters and syllables, the same apostle consequently calls “inspired of God, being profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to every good work.” No one will be so impressed by the exhortations of any of the saints, as he is by the words of the Lord Himself, the lover of man. For this, and nothing but this, is His only work — the salvation of man. Therefore He Himself, urging them on to salvation, cries, “The kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Those men that draw near through fear, He converts. Thus also the apostle of the Lord, beseeching the Macedonians, becomes the interpreter of the divine voice, when he says, “The Lord is at hand; take care that ye be not apprehended empty.” But are ye so devoid of fear, or rather of faith, as not to believe the Lord Himself, or Paul, who in Christ’s stead thus entreats: “Taste and see that Christ is God?” Faith will lead you in; experience will teach you; Scripture will train you, for it says, “Come hither, O children; listen to me, and I will teach you the fear of the LORD.” Then, as to those who already believe, it briefly adds, “What man is he that desireth life, that loveth to see good days?” It is we, we shall say — we who are the devotees of good, we who eagerly desire good things. Hear, then, ye who are far off, hear ye who are near: the word has not been hidden from any; light is common, it shines “on all men.”

ANF: Vol. II, Exhortation to the Heathen, Chapter 9.

Observe that Clement ascribes a magisterial function to the Scriptures themselves. Who will train you? Scriptures will. And, of course, Clement appeals to the same Scripture we do to glean the same doctrine we glean.

Clement provides a slightly different twist on the same theme in the next quotation.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):

And now we must look also at this, that if ever those who know not how to do well, live well; for they have lighted on well-doing. Some, too, have aimed well at the word of truth through understanding. “But Abraham was not justified by works, but by faith.” It is therefore of no advantage to them after the end of life, even if they do good works now, if they have not faith. Wherefore also the Scriptures were translated into the language of the Greeks, in order that they might never be able to allege the excuse of ignorance, inasmuch as they are able to hear also what we have in our hands, if they only wish. One speaks in one way of the truth, in another way the truth interprets itself. The guessing at truth is one thing, and truth itself is another. Resemblance is one thing, the thing itself is another. And the one results from learning and practice, the other from power and faith. For the teaching of piety is a gift, but faith is grace. “For by doing the will of God we know the will of God.” “Open, then,” says the Scripture, “the gates of righteousness; and I will enter in, and confess to the LORD.”

ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book I, Chapter 7.—The Eclectic Philosophy Paves the Way for Divine Virtue.

Notice how Clement affirms that the Greeks cannot allege ignorance. This implies that the truth is discernible from the Scriptures themselves, and "the truth interprets itself" confirms that this is Clement's meaning.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):

But if from any creature they received in any way whatever the seeds of the Truth, they did not nourish them; but committing them to a barren and rainless soil, they choked them with weeds, as the Pharisees revolted from the Law, by introducing human teachings, — the cause of these being not the Teacher, but those who choose to disobey. But those of them who believed the Lord’s advent and the plain teaching of the Scriptures, attain to the knowledge of the law; as also those addicted to philosophy, by the teaching of the Lord, are introduced into the knowledge of the true philosophy: “For the oracles of the Lord are pure oracles, melted in the fire, tried in the earth, purified seven times.” Just as silver often purified, so is the just man brought to the test, becoming the Lord’s coin and receiving the royal image.

ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book VI, Chapter 7.

I haven't placed anything in bold in the quotation above, because I'd have to put almost everything in bold. Notice how Scripture is treated as being the seeds of the Truth, the Law (the books of Moses) is referred to as a Teacher, believers are those who "believed in the Lord's advent and the plain teaching of the Scriptures" and these attain to knowledge of the law.

Clement also puts the idea of formal sufficiency another way:

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):

Therefore, in the divine education, it is necessary that duties be imposed upon us, as things commanded by God and provided for our salvation. But, since of things that are necessary, some are for this life alone, while others cause the soul to aspire after a good life in the next world, it is but right that some obligations be imposed merely for living, and others for living well. Whatever is imposed for material life is binding upon the multitude, but what is adapted to living well, that is, the things by which eternal life is gained, should be able to be gathered from the Scriptures by those who read them, gathered at least in their general outline.

FC, Vol. 23, Clement of Alexandria: Christ the Educator, Chapter 13, §103 (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954), p. 91.

This is not a surprising doctrine, of course. It is just what the Scriptures themselves teach, but the point that we can gain a knowledge of those things necessary for eternal life from reading the Scriptures is plainly Clement's teaching.

Clement of Alexandria (150 - c. 215):

But if philosophy contributes remotely to the discovery of truth, by reaching, by diverse essays, after the knowledge which touches close on the truth, the knowledge possessed by us, it aids him who aims at grasping it, in accordance with the Word, to apprehend knowledge. But the Hellenic truth is distinct from that held by us (although it has got the same name), both in respect of extent of knowledge, certainly of demonstration, divine power, and the like. For we are taught of God, being instructed in the truly “sacred letters” by the Son of God.

Greek:
Εἰ δὲ καὶ πόῤῥωθεν συλλαμβάνεται φιλοσοφία πρὸς τὴν ἀληθείας εὕρεσιν, κατὰ διαφόρους ἐπιβολὰς διατείνουσα ἐπὶ τὴν προσεχῶς ἁπτομένην τῆς ἀληθείας τῆς καθʼ ἡμᾶς εἴδησιν, ἀλλὰ συλλαμβάνεταί γε τῷ λογικῶς ἐπιχειρεῖν ἐσπουδακότι ἀνθάπτεσθαι γνώσεως. χωρίζεται δὲ ἡ Ἑλληνικὴ ἀλήθεια τῆς καθ' ἡμᾶς, εἰ καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ μετείληφεν ὀνόματος, καὶ μεγέθει γνώσεως καὶ ἀποδείξει κυριωτέρᾳ καὶ θείᾳ δυνάμει καὶ τοῖς ὁμοίοις· θεοδίδακτοι γὰρ ἡμεῖς, ἱερὰ ὄντως γράμματα παρὰ τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ θεοῦ παιδευόμενοι·

Stromatum, Liber Primus, Caput 20, PG 8:816; translation in ANF: Vol. II, The Stromata, Book I, Chapter 20.

Notice that Clement is here affirming that God himself teaches us, and this is described as being instruction in the "sacred letters."

Turning from Clement in Alexandria, we can travel west across Africa to Tertullian, who is often called the "Father of Latin Christianity." The earliest major father who wrote in Latin, Tertullian had significant influence in the West, even though he eventually fell into Montanism.

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220):

But what hinders them from readily perceiving this community of the Father’s titles in the Son, is the statement of Scripture, whenever it determines God to be but One; as if the selfsame Scripture had not also set forth Two both as God and Lord, as we have shown above. Their argument is: Since we find Two and One, therefore Both are One and the Same, both Father and Son. Now the Scripture is not in danger of requiring the aid of any one’s argument, lest it should seem to be self-contradictory. It has a method of its own, both when it sets forth one only God, and also when it shows that there are Two, Father and Son; and is consistent with itself [i.e. sufficient itself, suficit sibi, PL 2:177]. It is clear that the Son is mentioned by it. For, without any detriment to the Son, it is quite possible for it to have rightly determined that God is only One, to whom the Son belongs; since He who has a Son ceases not on that account to exist, — Himself being One only, that is, on His own account, whenever He is named without the Son.

ANF: Vol. III, Against Praxeas, Chapter 18.

Notice Tertullian's confidence in the Scriptures. Although he obviously is explaining the Scriptures, he is bold to state that the Scriptures are sufficient to themselves - they don't require someone's supporting argument.

As excellent as those comments are, Tertullian's next comments are even more appropriate in dealing with modern Rome.

Tertullian (c. 160-c. 220):

He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground. For that which commends men’s common sense is its very simplicity, and its participation in the same feelings, and its community of opinions; and it is deemed to be all the more trustworthy, inasmuch as its definitive statements are naked and open, and known to all. Divine reason, on the contrary, lies in the very pith and marrow of things, not on the surface, and very often is at variance with appearances.

ANF: Vol. III, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, Chapter 3.

Notice that Tertullian seems to suggest "scriptures alone" as the solution to heresies. His comment about taking away the wisdom they share with the heathen reminds me of the issue of transubstantiation - a dogma that is only possible by importing Aristotelean categories into the text of Scripture, but I digress.

Heading back to Alexandria, we encounter a man 35 years younger than Clement and 20 years younger than Tertullian, but teaching the same doctrines. Again, we note that not everything that Origen taught was good. His hermeneutic of metaphor and his apparent universalism are not to be followed (and we might add some other things as well). Nevertheless, Origen was perhaps as influential in the East as Tertullian was the in West. Much of his vast body of work has been lost, but an enormous amount still remains.

Origen (c. 185-c. 254):

Celsus next proceeds to say, that the system of doctrine, viz., Judaism, upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous in its origin. And with an appearance of fairness, he does not reproach Christianity because of its origin among barbarians, but gives the latter credit for their ability in discovering (such) doctrines. To this, however, he adds the statement, that the Greeks are more skillful than any others in judging, establishing, and reducing to practice the discoveries of barbarous nations. Now this is our answer to his allegations, and our defense of the truths contained in Christianity, that if any one were to come from the study of Grecian opinions and usages to the Gospel, he would not only decide that its doctrines were true, but would by practice establish their truth, and supply whatever seemed wanting, from a Grecian point of view, to their demonstration, and thus confirm the truth of Christianity. We have to say, moreover, that the Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than any established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is called by the apostle the “manifestation of the Spirit and of power”of “the Spirit,” on account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith in any one who reads them, especially in those things which relate to Christ; and of “power,” because of the signs and wonders which we must believe to have been performed, both on many other grounds, and on this, that traces of them are still preserved among those who regulate their lives by the precepts of the Gospel.

ANF: Vol. IV, Origen against Celsus, Book I, Chapter II.

Notice how Origen is quite bold to proclaim the power of the Scriptures not only to establish their own truth, but also to produce saving faith in anyone who reads them. That's one way of expressing the formal sufficiency of Scripture, as we've already explained it.

That is, of course, not the only time Origen makes this kind of claim for Scripture. Here's another example.

Origen (c. 185-c. 254):

The more one reads the Scriptures daily and the greater one’s understanding is, the more renewed always and every day. I doubt whether a mind which is lazy toward the holy Scriptures and the exercise of spiritual knowledge can be renewed at all.

Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), p. 308.

The point here is slightly tangential at first glance. But consider the point that what Origen is saying is that reading the Scriptures is the way to better understand the Scriptures.

That's why we also find Origen saying this:

Origen (c. 185-c. 254), commenting on Romans 9:20:

If we want to know something of the secret and hidden things of God and if we are not people of lusts and contentions, then let us inquire faithfully and humbly into the judgments of God which are contained more secretly in holy Scripture. For even the Lord said: Search the Scriptures, knowing that these things are applicable not to those who are busy with other matters and only hear or read the Bible from time to time, but to those who with a pure and simple heart endeavor to open up the holy Scriptures by their labor and constant attention. I know well enough that I am not one of them! But anyone who is, let him seek and he will find.

Gerald Bray, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Romans (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998), pp. 259-260.

It's hard to imagine the Bible being more formally sufficient than that. Origen is quite explicit that anyone who is willing to give constant attention to the Scriptures can seek and find the truth in them.

We might add, at this point, that Origen also viewed the authority of Scripture as sufficient to refute heretics.

Origen (c. 185-c. 254):

And now, what we have drawn from the authority of Scripture ought to be sufficient to refute the arguments of the heretics.

ANF: Vol. IV, Origen De Principiis, Book II, Chapter 5, §3.

It might not appear that this is directly related to the sufficiency of Scripture, but consider that if Scripture cannot be properly understood without tradition and the magisterium, any argument that is only based on the authority of Scripture would inherently be insufficient. Thus, by affirming the sufficiency of the authority of Scripture, Origen is affirming the formal sufficiency of Scripture.

Heading north from Egypt, we can turn to Firmilian, who naturally teaches the same doctrine on this point.

Firmilian, Bishop of Caesaria (c. 200-268):

But to what they allege and say on behalf of the heretics, that the apostle said, “Whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached,” it is idle for us to reply; when it is manifest that the apostle, in his epistle wherein he said this, made mention neither of heretics nor of baptism of heretics, but spoke of brethren only, whether as perfidiously speaking in agreement with himself, or as persevering in sincere faith; nor is it needful to discuss this in a long argument, but it is sufficient to read the epistle itself, and to gather from the apostle himself what the apostle said.

ANF: Vol. V, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 74 - To Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephan 254 A.D., §20.

Obviously, the scope of Firmilian's comment is related to a specific doctrinal issue, but it is evidence of his overall hermeneutic, in which it is not necessary to supplement the authority of Scripture with additional sources of authority - nor is it necessary to do more than read Scripture to determine the meaning of Scripture.

The following quotations are the two prefaces to Cyprian's treatise XII, the first from Book I, the second from Book III. The remainder of the three book treatise is essentially just verbatim quotations from Scripture (excluding the chapter headings).

Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258):

Cyprian to his son Quirinus, greeting. It was necessary, my beloved son, that I should obey your spiritual desire, which asked with most urgent petition for those divine teachings wherewith the Lord has condescended to teach and instruct us by the Holy Scriptures, that, being led away from the darkness of error, and enlightened by His pure and shining light, we may keep the way of life through the saving sacraments. And indeed, as you have asked, so has this discourse been arranged by me; and this treatise has been ordered in an abridged compendium, so that I should not scatter what was written in too diffuse an abundance, but, as far as my poor memory suggested, might collect all that was necessary in selected and connected heads, under which I may seem, not so much to have treated the subject, as to have afforded material for others to treat it. Moreover, to readers also, brevity of the same kind is of very great advantage, in that a treatise of too great length dissipates the understanding and perception of the reader, while a tenacious memory keeps that which is read in a more exact compendium. But I have comprised in my undertaking two books of equally moderate length: one wherein I have endeavoured to show that the Jews, according to what had before been foretold, had departed from God, and had lost God's favour, which had been given them in past time, and had been promised them for the future; while the Christians had succeeded to their place, deserving well of the Lord by faith, and coming out of all nations and from the whole world. The second book likewise contains the sacrament of Christ, that He has come who was announced according to the Scriptures, and has done and perfected all those things whereby He was foretold as being able to be perceived and known. And these things may be of advantage to you meanwhile, as you read, for forming the first lineaments of your faith. More strength will be given you, and the intelligence of the heart will be effected more and more, as you examine more fully the Scriptures, old and new, and read through the complete volumes of the spiritual books. For now we have filled a small measure from the divine fountains, which in the meantime we would send to you. You will be able to drink more plentifully, and to be more abundantly satisfied, if you also will approach to drink together with us at the same springs of the divine fullness. I bid you, beloved son, always heartily farewell.

- Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise XII, Book 1, Preface, ANF5

Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258):

Cyprian to his son Quirinus, greeting. Of your faith and devotion which you manifest to the Lord God, beloved son, you asked me to gather out for your instruction from the Holy Scriptures some heads bearing upon the religious teaching of our school; seeking for a succinct course of sacred reading, so that your mind, surrendered to God, might not be wearied with long or numerous volumes of books, but, instructed with a summary of heavenly precepts, might have a wholesome and large compendium for nourishing its memory. And because I owe you a plentiful and loving obedience, I have done what you wished. I have laboured for once, that you might not always labour. Therefore, as much as my small ability could embrace, I have collected certain precepts of the Lord, and divine teachings, which may be easy and useful to the readers, in that a few things digested into a short space are both quickly read through, and are frequently repeated. I bid you, beloved son, ever heartily farewell.

Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise XII, Book 3, Preface, ANF5

Notice the way that Cyprian views these Scriptures as sufficient in themselves to provide instruction, once they have been brought to the reader's attention. He provides a compendium, yes, but he's providing a list of verses - not a commentary on the verses.

Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258):

These things were before declared to us, and predicted. But we, forgetful of the law and obedience required of us, have so acted by our sins, that while we despise the Lord's commandments, we have come by severer remedies to the correction of our sin and probation of our faith. Nor indeed have we at last been converted to the fear of the Lord, so as to undergo patiently and courageously this our correction and divine proof. Immediately at the first words of the threatening foe, the greatest number of the brethren betrayed their faith, and were cast down, not by the onset of persecution, but cast themselves down by voluntary lapse. What unheard-of thing, I beg of you, what new thing had happened, that, as if on the occurrence of things unknown and unexpected, the obligation to Christ should be dissolved with headlong rashness? Have not prophets aforetime, and subsequently apostles, told of these things? Have not they, full of the Holy Spirit, predicted the afflictions of the righteous, and always the injuries of the heathens? Does not the sacred Scripture, which ever arms our faith and strengthens with a voice from heaven the servants of God, say, "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve? " [Deuteronomy 6:13] Does it not again show the anger of the divine indignation, and warn of the fear of punishment beforehand, when it says, "They worshipped them whom their fingers have made; and the mean man bows down, and the great man humbles himself, and I will forgive them not? " [Isaiah 2:8-9] And again, God speaks, and says, "He that sacrifices unto any gods, save unto the Lord only, shall be destroyed." [Exodus 22:20] In the Gospel also subsequently, the Lord, who instructs by His words and fulfils by His deeds, teaching what should be done, and doing whatever He had taught, did He not before admonish us of whatever is now done and shall be done? Did He not before ordain both for those who deny Him eternal punishments, and for those that confess Him saving rewards?

- Cyprian of Carthage, Treatise 3, Section 7

I know that some of the Roman communion will be tempted to say that Cyprian's words above simply reflect a high view of Scripture. They do reflect a high view of Scripture, of course, but they actually go so far as to describe the Scripture as teaching and to attribute to Scripture the very actions of arming our faith and strengthening it with a voice from heaven. I'm not sure it would be possible to have a higher view of Scripture than that.

From Carthage we can journey north to Rome, and slightly back in time. Hippolytus was born approximately in the middle between Tertullian and Origen, but obviously has a significant overlap with each, in terms of his lifespan.

Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236):

In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has the one party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced, when they say without shame, the Father is Himself Christ, Himself the Son, Himself was born, Himself suffered, Himself raised Himself. But it is not so. The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated. For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy (i.e., the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity). The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages by these men, and then to explain their real meaning. For it is right, in the first place, to expound the truth that the Father is one God, "of whom is every family," "by whom are all things, of whom are all things, and we in Him." Let us, as I said, see how he is confuted, and then let us set forth the truth. Now he quotes the words, "Egypt has laboured, and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans," and so forth on to the words, "For Thou art the God of Israel, the Saviour." And these words he cites without understanding what precedes them. For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it.

ANF: Vol. V, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, §§3-4.

Notice, in the quotation above, that Hippolytus not only ascribes to the Scriptures themselves the power to confute heresy, but also explains that when one simply reads the passage of Scripture as a whole, the meaning becomes clear. Of course, he's only applying this principle to this specific passage, but there is not something special about this passage or about the way he is writing that make us think that this is an isolated case.

Indeed, later in the same treatise, we find the following:

Hippolytus (c. 170-c. 236):

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them.

ANF: Vol. V, Against the Heresy of One Noetus, §9

Someone may wish to claim that the sola Scriptura reference at the beginning of the preceding quotation is just referring to material sufficiency. But it is not simply saying that Scriptures have everything we need to know - it is saying it is the one source. There are not, for Hippolytus, two sources (Scripture and Tradition) or three sources (Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium). And while someone might say that he is simply saying that there is a single source, but he's not denying the need to have that single source opened by a non-source Magisterium, his comments about learning from none but Scripture, and especially his final comment about learning in the way in which God teaches them by the Scriptures should seal the matter.

Next, we can turn back east to Asia Minor and Gregory Thaumaturgus, also known as Gregory the Wonderworker.

Gregory Thaumaturgus (213-270):

With respect to these human teachers, indeed, he counseled us to attach ourselves to none of them, not even though they were attested as most wise by all men, but to devote ourselves to God alone, and to the prophets. And he himself became the interpreter of the prophets (ὑποφητεύων) to us, and explained whatsoever was dark or enigmatical in them. For there are many things of that kind in the sacred words; and whether it be that God is pleased to hold communication with men in such a way as that the divine word may not enter all naked and uncovered into an unworthy soul, such as many are, or whether it be, that while every divine oracle is in its own nature most clear and perspicuous, it seems obscure and dark to us, who have apostatized from God, and have lost the faculty of hearing through time and age, I cannot tell. But however the case may stand, if it be that there are some words really enigmatical, he explained all such, and set them in the light, as being himself a skilled and most discerning hearer of God; or if it be that none of them are really obscure in their own nature, they were also not unintelligible to him, who alone of all men of the present time with whom I have myself been acquainted, or of whom I have heard by the report of others, has so deeply studied the clear and luminous oracles of God, as to be able at once to receive their meaning into his own mind, and to convey it to others. For that Leader of all men, who inspires (ὑπηχῶν) God’s dear prophets, and suggests all their prophecies and their mystic and heavenly words, has honoured this man as He would a friend, and has constituted him an expositor of these same oracles; and things of which He only gave a hint by others, He made matters of full instruction by this man’s instrumentality; and in things which He, who is worthy of all trust, either enjoined in regal fashion, or simply enunciated, He imparted to this man the gift of investigating and unfolding and explaining them: so that, if there chanced to be any one of obtuse and incredulous mind, or one again thirsting for instruction, he might learn from this man, and in some manner be constrained to understand and to decide for belief, and to follow God. These things, moreover, as I judge, he gives forth only and truly by participation in the Divine Spirit: for there is need of the same power for those who prophesy and for those who hear the prophets; and no one can rightly hear a prophet, unless the same Spirit who prophesies bestows on him the capacity of apprehending His words. And this principle is expressed indeed in the Holy Scriptures themselves, when it is said that only He who shutteth openeth, and no other one whatever (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7); and what is shut is opened when the word of inspiration explains mysteries. Now that greatest gift this man has received from God, and that noblest of all endowments he has had bestowed upon him from heaven, that he should be an interpreter of the oracles of God to men (Eph. 3:8-9), and that he might understand the words of God, even as if God spake them to him, and that he might recount them to men in such wise as that they may hear them with intelligence (The text gives ὡς ἀκούσωσιν with Voss. and Bengel. The Paris editor gives ἀκούουσιν). Therefore to us there was no forbidden subject of speech (ἄῤῥητον); for there was no matter of knowledge hidden or inaccessible to us, but we had it in our power to learn every kind of discourse, both foreign (Barbarian) and Greek, both spiritual and political, both divine and human; and we were permitted with all freedom to go round the whole circle of knowledge, and investigate it, and satisfy ourselves with all kinds of doctrines, and enjoy the sweets of intellect. And whether it was some ancient system of truth, or whether it was something one might otherwise name that was before us, we had in him an apparatus and a power at once admirable and full of the most beautiful views. And to speak in brief, he was truly a paradise to us after the similitude of the paradise of God, wherein we were not set indeed to till the soil beneath us, or to make ourselves gross with bodily nurture (σωματοτροφεῖν παχυνομένους), but only to increase the acquisitions of mind with all gladness and enjoyment,—planting, so to speak, some fair growths ourselves, or having them planted in us by the Author of all things.

ANF: Vol. VI, Acknowledged Writings, The Oration and Panegyric Addressed to Origin, Argument XV.

The discussion above mentions the fact that the Scriptures may be clear in their own nature (as one of two possibilities) and that men are simply blind to it. Gregory goes on to explain that the solution to this blindness is the work of the Holy Spirit. It is essentially the same presentation we made in our explanation of what formal sufficiency means, although Gregory does not use precisely the same words.

Finally, we can go even further east to Archelaus from Caschar in Mesopotamia.

Archelaus (circa 277):

But now, what it is necessary for me to say on the subject of the inner and the outer man, may be expressed in the words of the Saviour to those who swallow a camel, and wear the outward garb of the hypocrite, begirt with blandishments and flatteries. It is to them that Jesus addresses Himself when He says: "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of uncleanness. Or know you not, that He that made that which is without, made that which is within also? " Now why did He speak of the cup and of the platter? Was He who uttered these words a glassworker, or a potter who made vessels of clay? Did He not speak most manifestly of the body and the soul? For the Pharisees truly looked to the "tithing of anise and cummin, and left undone the weightier matters of the law; " and while devoting great care to the things which were external, they overlooked those which bore upon the salvation of the soul. For they also had respect to "greetings in the market-place," and "to the uppermost seats at feasts:" and to them the Lord Jesus, knowing their perdition, made this declaration, that they attended to those things only which were without, and despised as strange things those which were within, and understood not that He who made the body made also the soul. And who is so unimpressible and stolid in intellect, as not to see that those sayings of our Lord may suffice him for all cases? Moreover, it is in perfect harmony with these sayings that Paul speaks, when he interprets to the following intent certain things written in the law: "You shall not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the grain. Does God take care for oxen? Or says He it altogether for our sakes? " But why should we waste further time upon this subject?

ANF: Vol. VI, The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes, §21.

Archelaus does go on to add some additional thoughts, but notice that he does speak as though he believes that the plain reading of Scripture, in harmony with itself, is sufficient. Thus, this final quotation (for this segment) is really more of an illustration of someone using the Scriptures as though they are formally sufficient, rather than an explicit teaching that they are formally sufficient.

(to be continued)