Cyprian of Carthage, Eugenius Voulgaris, and "The Three are One"

Two arguments recur in contemporary defenses of the Johannine Comma (the “Heavenly Witnesses” in 1 John 5:7–8): Cyprian’s quotation of “the three are one” and the claim that the masculine grammar of the earthly witnesses requires the heavenly witnesses of v. 7. The latter argument is often associated with a 1780 letter of Eugenios Voulgaris (aka Eugenius Bulgaris).  KJV advocates (the usual defenders of the Comma) object to the idea that Cyprian may have been referring to the spirit, water, and blood as the Father, Son, and Spirit.  What is particularly interesting, however, is that Voulgaris himself interprets the earthly witnesses—the spirit, the blood, and the water—as symbols of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. 

Usually, the appeal to Voulgaris' letter comes in the form of bolstering an attack on the text of 1 John 5:6-8 as containing (it is alleged) a grammatical solecism in the absence of the interpolation. Students of John's writings, especially the book of Revelation, recognize that John's writing often violates the standards of Attic Greek, but does so intentionally, and with some purpose in these "violations."  Such departures from strict Attic norms are referred to as solecisms, apparently from the negative view that Athenians had of the Greek spoken by the people of Soloi (a Greek colony of Cilicia, in modern-day Turkey) (source).  

Cyprian's Reference to "The Three are One"

On the idea that Cyprian of Carthage may have been quoting 1 John 5:7, the specific quotation is from Cyprian's Treatise 1 (On the Unity of the Church), Section 6 (source), which states:

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.” He who breaks the peace and the concord of Christ, does so in opposition to Christ; he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church, scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says, “I and the Father are one;” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” And does any one believe that this unity which thus comes from the divine strength and coheres in celestial sacraments, can be divided in the Church, and can be separated by the parting asunder of opposing wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold God’s law, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation.

Adulterari non potest sponsa Christi, incorrupta est et pudica. Unam domum novit, unius cubiculi sanctitatem casto pudore custodit. Haec nos Deo servat, haec filios regno, quos generavit, assignat. Quisquis ab ecclesia segregatus adulterae iungitur, a promissis ecclesiae separatur, nec perveniet ad Christi praemia, qui relinquit ecclesiam Christi. Alienus est, profanus est, hostis est. Habere iam non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem. Si potuit evadere quisquam, qui extra arcam Noe fuit, et qui extra ecclesiam foris fuerit, evadit. Monet Dominus et dicit: Qui non est mecum, adversus me est, et qui non mecum colligit, spargit. Qui pacem Christi et concordiam rumpit, adversus Christum facit; qui alibi praeter ecclesiam colligit, Christi ecclesiam spargit. Dicit Dominus: Ego et pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: Et hi tres unum sunt; et quisquam credit hanc unitatem de divina firmitate venientem, sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem scindi in ecclesia posse et voluntatum collidentium divortio separari? Hanc unitatem qui non tenet, non tenet Dei legem, non tenet Patris et Filii fidem, vitam non tenet et salutem.

(Latin Text Source and Alternative Translation)(Alternative Source)

I've tried to use text highlighting to emphasize the structure of Cyprian's argument.  In particular, note that Cyprian's last sentence wraps up the rest of this section: 

He who does not hold this unity (i.e., the unity of the church) does not hold God’s law (a reference to the adultery/treason motif), does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son (a reference to the gather/scatter statement and to the "I and the Father we are one" statement), does not hold life and salvation (a reference to the sacraments).  

Cyprian's quotation of 1 John 5:8 "and these three are one" is said to be about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  In what way is that?  Some have proposed that it is because John is symbolically referring to the Father, Word, and Spirit as spirit, blood, and water.  Typically, King James defenders balk (or even scoff) at this view.  Before investigating how Comma Defender Voulgaris endorsed such a view, let's consider some other reasonable alternatives. 

Alternatives to the Symbolic View - The Sacramental View

While the explanation of the symbolic interpretation of spirit, blood, and water is the most straightforward explanation of Cyprian's reference that does not require hypothesizing that the Johannine Comma had already been invented, there is another explanation: Cyprian may see the reference to water and blood as references to the sacraments of the Lord's Supper (the body and blood of Christ) and Baptism (water), through which the Spirit works - or perhaps to the Baptism (water) and Death (blood) of Jesus himself.  

Recall that the text says:

1 John 5:5-12 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; [and] he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

You may recall that God's witness to the Son ("my beloved Son") was given at Jesus' own Baptism (Matthew 3:17; Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22).  A weakness of this interpretation of John's epistle is that John is the only evangelist not to mention this particular verbal witness (unless this is the time he is mentioning it).  On the other hand, John could be referring to the inspired witness that John the Baptist gave to Jesus (see, for example, John 3:26) or to the visual witness of the Spirit that John does record (John 1:33).  The strength of this interpretation is that this is a sense in which Jesus "came by water." 

Origen's (185-253) Commentary on John's Gospel, Book VI, Section 26, makes a similar connection between the Baptism of Jesus and 1 John 5:8 (source):

Now, it may very well be that some one not versed in the various aspects of the Saviour may stumble at the interpretation given above of the Jordan; because John says, I baptize with water, but He that comes after me is stronger than I; He shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit. To this we reply that, as the Word of God in His character as something to be drunk is to one set of men water, and to another wine, making glad the heart of man, and to others blood, since it is said, Unless you drink My blood, you have no life in you, and as in His character as food He is variously conceived as living bread or as flesh, so also He, the same person, is baptism of water, and baptism of Holy Spirit and of fire, and to some, also, of blood. It is of His last baptism, as some hold, that He speaks in the words, I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished? And it agrees with this that the disciple John speaks in his Epistle of the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, as being one.

Origen was approximately a contemporary of Cyprian.  

Another interpretation is that "come by water" here refers to Jesus baptizing (or overseeing baptism) as John's gospel records (John 3:22; 3:26; and 4:1-2).  This could then be connected (by Cyprian) with the triune name of God associated with Baptism in Matthew's gospel (Matthew 28:19).

Ambrose, for example, makes a connection of all three witnesses to Christian Baptism.  He does not do so in the way Origen does, but seems to be completely uninfluenced by his view. 

Ambrose (339-397) in On the Holy Spirit, Book I, Chapter 6 (sections 76-77) writes (source):

There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God. And so these three witnesses are one, as John said: The water, the blood, and the Spirit. One in the mystery, not in nature. The water, then, is a witness of burial, the blood is a witness of death, the Spirit is a witness of life. If, then, there be any grace in the water, it is not from the nature of water, but from the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Ambrose goes on in Book III, Chapter 10 (Sections 65-68) to write (source):

I ask, however, why, if there be no doubt that we are born again by the Holy Spirit, there should be any doubt that we are born of the Holy Spirit, since the Lord Jesus Himself was both born and born again of the Holy Spirit. And if you confess that He was born of the Holy Spirit, because you are not able to deny it, but deny that He was born again, it is great folly to confess what is peculiar to God, and deny what is common to men. And therefore that is well said to you which was said to the Jews: If I told you earthly things and you believe not, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things? And yet we find each passage so written in Greek, that He said not, through the Spirit, but of the Spirit. For it stands thus: ἀμήν, ἀμήν, λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὓδατος και Πνεύματος, that is, of water and the Spirit. Therefore, since one ought not to doubt that that which is born of the Spirit is written of the Holy Spirit; there is no doubt but that the Holy Spirit also is God, according to that which is written, the Spirit is God.  But the same Evangelist, that he might make it plain that he wrote this concerning the Holy Spirit, says elsewhere: Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not in the water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit bears witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are one. Hear how they are witnesses: The Spirit renews the mind, the water is serviceable for the laver, and the blood refers to the price. For the Spirit made us children by adoption, the water of the sacred Font washed us, the blood of the Lord redeemed us. So we obtain one invisible and one visible testimony in a spiritual sacrament, for the Spirit Himself bears witness to our spirit. Though the fullness of the sacrament be in each, yet there is a distinction of office; so where there is distinction of office, there certainly is not equality of witness.

Notice the sacramental connection, as well as this explicit and positive testimony against the Comma, by quoting from before its insertion point to after without including it, particularly when it would have suited Ambrose's argument if it were known to him.

Consider the way that Ambrose makes a Trinitarian connection to the passage in On the Mysteries, Chapter 4 (Section 20)(source):

Therefore read that the three witnesses in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, are one, for if you take away one of these, the Sacrament of Baptism does not exist. For what is water without the cross of Christ? A common element, without any sacramental effect. Nor, again, is there the Sacrament of Regeneration without water: For except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. Now, even the catechumen believes in the cross of the Lord Jesus, wherewith he too is signed; but unless he be baptized in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, he cannot receive remission of sins nor gain the gift of spiritual grace.

In another place (Concerning Virginity, Book III, Chapter 5, section 22, link to source), Ambrose does not make an explicit citation of 1 John 5:7-8, but nevertheless makes a similar connection:

And since I have inserted a clause in which mention is made of the Lord's Body, lest any one should be troubled at reading that the Lord took a body of pain, let him remember that the Lord grieved and wept over the death of Lazarus, and was wounded in His passion, and that from the wound there went forth blood and water, and that He gave up His Spirit. Water for washing, Blood for drink, the Spirit for His rising again. For Christ alone is to us hope, faith, and love— hope in His resurrection, faith in the laver, and love in the sacrament.

The Spear Piercing - Double Baptism View

Why go down the sacramental path at all?  Partly this is because of the slight obscurity of what it means for Jesus to "come by water" or by both water and blood.  Other interpretations have suggested that Jesus was born of water in the sense of being naturally born from his mother's womb (based on an interpretation of John 3:5).  Another Biblical mention of water and blood is in John 19:34 (and Matthew 27:49b in more Greek manuscripts than have the TR comma), where blood and water flowed out of Jesus' side upon His side being pierced with a spear (Rufinus (344-411) in his Commentary on the Apostles' Creed, section 23, refers to both this blood and water from the spear-piercing as baptism - link to source).

Considering that John's gospel just summarily says that the Word was made Flesh, and does not provide any infancy narrative, the "came by water" as relating to his birth seems less likely as a viable explanation.  On the other hand, there is mention of testimony associated with piercing of Jesus' side:

John 19:31-37 The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and [that] they might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs: But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water. And he that saw [it] bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken. And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.  

Here, the record of the water and blood is supported by the Evangelist, but also aligned with the inspired Old Testament Scriptures.

Tertullian (155 - 220), in On Baptism, Chapter 16, connects the spear-piercing with Baptism (source):

We have indeed, likewise, a second font, (itself withal one with the former,) of blood, to wit; concerning which the Lord said, I have to be baptized with a baptism, when He had been baptized already. For He had come by means of water and blood,  just as John has written; that He might be baptized by the water, glorified by the blood; to make us, in like manner, called by water, chosen by blood. These two baptisms He sent out from the wound in His pierced side, in order that they who believed in His blood might be bathed with the water; they who had been bathed in the water might likewise drink the blood. This is the baptism which both stands in lieu of the fontal bathing when that has not been received, and restores it when lost.

An anonymous author (writing in the third or fourth century) offers these thoughts in On Re-Baptism, sections 14, 15, 18, and 19 (source):

14. And even to this point the whole of that heretical baptism may be amended, after the intervention of some space of time, if a man should survive and amend his faith, as our God, in the Gospel according to Luke, spoke to His disciples, saying, But I have another baptism to be baptized with. Also according to Mark He said, with the same purpose, to the sons of Zebedee: Are you able to drink of the cup which I drink of, or to be baptized with the baptism wherewith I am baptized?  Because He knew that those men had to be baptized not only with water, but also in their own blood; so that, as well baptized in this baptism only, they might attain the sound faith and the simple love of the laver, and, baptized in both ways, they might in like manner to the same extent attain the baptism of salvation and glory. For what was said by the Lord, I have another baptism to be baptized with, signifies in this place not a second baptism, as if there were two baptisms, but demonstrates that there is moreover a baptism of another kind given to us, concurring to the same salvation. And it was fitting that both these kinds should first of all be initiated and sanctified by our Lord Himself, so that either one of the two or both kinds might afford to us this one twofold saving and glorifying baptism; and certain ways of the one baptism might so be laid open to us, that at times some one of them might be wanting without mischief, even as in the case of martyrs that hear the word, the baptism of water is wanting without evil; and yet we are certain that these, if they had any indulgence, would also be used to be baptized with water. And also to those who are made lawful believers, the baptism of their own blood is wanting without mischief, because, being baptized in the name of Christ, they have been redeemed with the most precious blood of the Lord; since both of these rivers of the baptism of the Lord proceed out of one and the same fountain, that every one who thirsts may come and drink, as says the Scripture, From his belly flowed rivers of living water;  which rivers were manifested first of all in the Lord's passion, when from His side, pierced by the soldier's spear, flowed blood and water, so that the one side of the same person emitted two rivers of a different kind, that whosoever should believe and drink of both rivers might be filled with the Holy Spirit. For, speaking of these rivers, the Lord set this forth, signifying the Holy Spirit whom they should receive who should believe in Him: But the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified. And when He thus said how baptism might be produced, which the apostle declares to be one, it is assuredly manifest on that principle that there are different kinds of one and the same baptism that flow from one wound into water and blood; since there are there two baptisms of water of which we have spoken, that is, of one and the same kind, although the baptism of each kind ought to be one, as we have more fully spoken.

15. And since we seem to have divided all spiritual baptism in a threefold manner, let us come also to the proof of the statement proposed, that we may not appear to have done this of our own judgment, and with rashness. For John says of our Lord in his epistle, teaching us: This is He who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood: and it is the Spirit that bears witness, because the Spirit is truth. For three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one;  — that we may gather from these words both that water is wont to confer the Spirit, and that men's own blood is wont to confer the Spirit, and that the Spirit Himself also is wont to confer the Spirit. For since water is poured forth even as blood, the Spirit also was poured out by the Lord upon all who believed. Assuredly both in water, and none the less in their own blood, and then especially in the Holy Spirit, men may be baptized. 

...

18. ...  From all which things it is shown that hearts are purified by faith, but that souls are washed by the Spirit; further, also, that bodies are washed by water, and moreover that by blood we may more readily attain at once to the rewards of salvation.

19. I think that we have fully followed out the announcement of John the Baptist, whence we began our discourse, when he said to the Jews, I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but He who comes after me is greater than I, whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire. Moreover, I think also that we have not unsuitably set in order the teaching of the Apostle John, who says that three bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one. And, unless I am mistaken, we have also explained what our Lord says: John indeed baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Moreover, I think that we have given no weak reason as the cause of the custom. Let us have a care, although we do that in a subsequent place, that none may think that we are stirring up the present debate on a single article; although this custom even alone ought, among men who have the fear of God, and are lowly, to maintain a chief place.

I don't adopt this author's views (cf. Basil (330-379), On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 15, Section 36 - link to source), but merely offer them as being roughly contemporaneous with Cyprian, testifying to a sacrament-related (and even spear-related) view of the text, as well as providing an explicit testimony to the non-interpolation of the Johannine Comma.  Incidentally, Cyprian himself referred to a baptism of blood, referring to the death of the person himself in his Epistle 72, at sections 21-22 (link to source).

Leo's Life of Christ View 

Leo the Great (391– 461) makes a similar reference to both the spear-piercing and 1 John 5:8 in his famous "Tome of Leo," which was received by the Council of Chalcedon of 451 (often referred to as the 4th Ecumenical Council)(source), which is a clear positive testimony against the Comma:

If therefore he receives the Christian faith, and does not turn away his ears from the preaching of the Gospel: let him see what was the nature that hung pierced with nails on the wooden cross, and, when the side of the Crucified was opened by the soldier's spear, let him understand whence it was that blood and water flowed, that the Church of God might be watered from the font and from the cup. Let him hear also the blessed Apostle Peter, proclaiming that the sanctification of the Spirit takes place through the sprinkling of Christ's blood. And let him not read cursorily the same Apostle's words when he says, Knowing that not with corruptible things, such as silver and gold, have you been redeemed from your vain manner of life which is part of your fathers' tradition, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ as of a lamb without spot and blemish. Let him not resist too the witness of the blessed Apostle John, who says: and the blood of Jesus the Son of God cleanses us from all sin. And again: this is the victory which overcomes the world, our faith. And who is He that overcomes the world save He that believes that Jesus is the Son of God. This is He that came by water and blood, Jesus Christ: not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that testifies, because the Spirit is the truth, because there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the water and the blood, and the three are one.  The Spirit, that is, of sanctification, and the blood of redemption, and the water of baptism: because the three are one, and remain undivided, and none of them is separated from this connection; because the Catholic Church lives and progresses by this faith, so that in Christ Jesus neither the manhood without the true Godhead nor the Godhead without the true manhood is believed in.

But - of course - the primary reason to go down the sacramental path is because of Cyprian's statement that God's unity "coheres in celestial sacraments" (sacramentis coelestibus cohaerentem).  That's seen in both the unity of the Sacrament of the Lord's table, in which we consume the one loaf that we are (1 Corinthians 10:17; cf. Cyprian, Epistle 62, section 13 - link to source), and the unity of the Sacrament of Baptism, in which "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5) we are baptized in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:19).  Connecting the death of Christ and Baptism to church unity has Scriptural precedent -- Paul writes: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:13)

You only have to read the rest of Cyprian's treatise (available here) to get the same sense of Cyprian's willingness to follow Paul's point and also to develop the same themes from Scriptural passages that are not necessarily directly about the point being considered.  For example, in the very next section of the treatise, Cyprian argues for the necessary unity of the Church from Jesus' garment remaining undivided (e.g., "By the sacrament and sign of His garment, He has declared the unity of the Church.").

Incidentally, this broader use of the term "sacrament" suggests that Cyprian may just be speaking symbolically, not necessarily referring strictly to the two Sacraments of the New Covenant.

Cyprian in Context - the Unity of the Church 

One must also consider Cyprian's point in citing 1 John 5:8.  Was it to establish the unity of essence of the Triune persons?  The argument seems to be about unity of purpose and mission, a sense that fits well with his quotation of John 10:30 ("I and my Father are one"), and does not require Cyprian to be taking John out of context there.  In context "the three are one" relates to the unity of agreement of the three bearing witness, not their unity of essence.  Moreover, in context, that unity of testimonial agreement serves the purpose of bringing life through faith, which is the main point of the church in Cyprian's view as well.

Likewise, while it is not perfectly clear that Spirit points to Father, Blood points to the Son, and Water points to the Holy Spirit, it is certainly easy to see how someone who sees the undivided garment of Christ as being a sacrament of Christian unity could see the context of 1 John 5:8 as pointing in this direction, for John writes: "And there are three that bear witness: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." (1 John 5:7-9).  It would be easy for Cyprian to see "the witness of God" and "the three are one" and to infer that Spirit, water, and blood refer to the persons of the Most Holy Trinity.

Gregory Nazianzen: Trinitarian with a Non-Trinitarian Interpretation 

Gregory Nazianzen (329-390), however, takes a view that John is not speaking about the Trinity in his Fifth Theological Oration (Oration 31) (source):

XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

At some point, our KJV advocacy friends throw up their hands and exclaim that we are being wholly unreasonable to make a linkage between the Spirit, Water, and Blood and the persons of the Trinity - and following Leo or Gregory on the interpretation of the text, we may agree with them about the right sense.  

On the other hand, I would like them to consider their own champion on the grammatical argument (one who stands opposed to Gregory Nazianzen, whose text did not include the Comma): because that's exactly how their champion, Voulgaris, interprets the text!

I'm not suggesting that Voulgaris is infallible, or even right - surely Gregory Nazianzen's and Leo the Great's takes on the text are each better than Cyprian's.  However, considering that Voulgaris is one of the go-to sources for the grammatical argument, KJV advocates ought not lightly set aside his interpretation of the text.  Even if they disagree with it, saying it is wholly unreasonable - or something that only opponents of the Comma would suggest - seems like it is hereby demonstrated to be untenable.

In particular, Voulgaris argues that the heavenly witnesses are what the earthly witnesses symbolize. He made these claims long before the boogey-men, Westcott and Hort were on the scene.  He also made these claims in defense of the verse against being an interpolation. See the details of his claims in the letter that follows. 

My (amateur) Translation of the Text of Voulgaris 

In some places, I've slightly departed from the accents/breathings provided in the printed text (see my transcription of the printed text below). First, I provide a translation of the Latin of the document, and then I offer a translation of the Greek portions. 

This alone I could add at present, which by no one (that I know) has hitherto been observed. So far indeed is it from being the case that that passage crept in through interpolation, that not even the eighth verse, which follows, would stand, unless the seventh verse, about which the matter is, preceded.

For what in the Latin version is rightly expressed by the masculine gender of speech, that, in the original Greek text itself, the preceding verse not being presupposed, would by no means stand, except with a certain violence of diction and through a most manifest solecism. For since

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [1]

are nouns of the neuter gender, in what way will that which immediately precedes agree with them:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [2];

and that which immediately follows:

Καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ. τ. λ. [3]

That masculine nouns, indeed, and feminine ones are construed with adjectives and pronouns expressed in the neuter gender, regard being had to

τὰ πράγματα [4],

is certainly a peculiar genius of our language, most well known to all who know it; but that, conversely, neuter substantive nouns are indicated by masculine or feminine adjectives or pronouns, no one would say.

Further, here in the eighth verse we read thus:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [5]

But would not, I ask, the natural and proper expression here rather be:

Τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν? [6]

Yet that is written, not this. What other account, therefore, can be brought forward for the occurrence of this

ἀκαταλληλίας [7],

except solely the expression of the preceding seventh verse, which through this immediately following eighth verse is symbolically explained and plainly repeated, an allusion having been made to that which had preceded?

The three, therefore, who bear testimony in heaven are first placed in the seventh verse:

Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἓν εἰσι. [8]

Then, however, immediately brought forward, the very same witnesses, insofar as they also confirm the same testimony on earth, through these three symbols in the eighth verse:

Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα· καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [9]

As if our Evangelist were saying:

Οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες [10]

(which is sufficiently indicated by the particle καὶ [11], whose force in the present passage is not simply copulative, but plainly identificative)

περὶ ὧν ἐν τῷ ἀνωτέρῳ ἐδαφίῳ εἴρηται· δηλαδὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα· οἱ αὐτοὶ μαρτυροῦντες εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ, δι’ ὧν ἡμῖν συμβόλων ἀπεκαλύφθησαν· ταῦτα δὲ τὰ σύμβολά ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, δι’ οὗ δηλοῦται ὁ Πατήρ· τὸ αἷμα, δι’ οὗ ὁ Υἱός· τὸ ὕδωρ, δι’ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι, οἵτινες ἀνωτέρω μὲν ἀνακεκαλυμμένως δι’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὀνομάτων, ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες παρίστανται οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ διὰ τῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μνήσεως, συμβολικῶς ἐπαναλαμβανόμενοι· οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι. [12]

But oh! I have undertaken a pitcher, not an amphora!

At Poltava, on the 10th day of December, 1780.

And my (again amateur) translation of the Greek portions:

1. τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα

the spirit and the water and the blood

2. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness.

3. Καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς κ. τ. λ.

And these three, etc.

4. τὰ πράγματα

the things [i.e., the nature of those things]

5. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

and the three are unto the one.

6. Τρία εἰσι τὰ μαρτυροῦντα ἐν τῇ γῇ,

Three [neut.] are the things [neut.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ τὰ τρία εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσιν?

and the three [neut.] are unto the one?

7. ἀκαταλληλίας

of incongruity / of lack of agreement

8. Τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ,

Three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness in heaven,

ὁ Πατὴρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα·

the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit;

καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἓν εἰσι.

and these three are one.

9. Καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ,

And three [masc.] are the ones [masc.] bearing witness on the earth,

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα·

the spirit and the water and the blood;

καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

and the three are unto the one.

10. Οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐκεῖνοι οἱ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες

Those very same ones, the ones bearing witness in heaven

11. καὶ

Most commonly, this word means "and" or "also," but here Voulgaris is saying it has the sense of "namely" 

12. περὶ ὧν ἐν τῷ ἀνωτέρῳ ἐδαφίῳ εἴρηται·

concerning whom it has been said in the passage above;

δηλαδὴ ὁ Πατὴρ ὁ Λόγος καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα·

namely, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit;

οἱ αὐτοὶ μαρτυροῦντες εἰσι καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ,

the same ones are bearing witness also on the earth,

δι’ ὧν ἡμῖν συμβόλων ἀπεκαλύφθησαν·

through which symbols they were revealed to us;

ταῦτα δὲ τὰ σύμβολά ἐστι τὸ πνεῦμα, δι’ οὗ δηλοῦται ὁ Πατήρ·

and these symbols are the spirit, through which the Father is indicated;

τὸ αἷμα, δι’ οὗ ὁ Υἱός·

the blood, through which the Son [is indicated];

τὸ ὕδωρ, δι’ οὗ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.

the water, through which the Holy Spirit [is indicated].

Καὶ οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι, οἵτινες ἀνωτέρω μὲν

And these three, who above indeed,

ἀνακεκαλυμμένως δι’ αὐτῶν τῶν θεαρχικῶν ὀνομάτων,

in an unveiled manner, through the thearchic names themselves,

ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ μαρτυροῦντες παρίστανται

are presented as bearing witness in heaven,

οἱ αὐτοὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ

the same [are presented] on the earth,

διὰ τῆς ἐν τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ μνήσεως,

through the mention in the economy,

συμβολικῶς ἐπαναλαμβανόμενοι·

being repeated symbolically;

οἱ τρεῖς οὗτοι εἰς τὸ ἓν εἰσι.

these three are unto the one.

Source Text (trying to stay faithful to the printed text)

Hoc ego tantummodo in præsenti addere possem, quod a nemine (quod sciam) hactenùs observatum. Tantum scilicet abesse, per interpolationem locum illum surrepsisse, ut ne quidem versus octavus, qui sequitur, staret, nisi versus septimus præcederet, de quo agitur. Quod enim in versione Latina rectè exprimitur masculino sermonis genere, id in ipso textu Græco originali, non præsupposito superiore versiculo, haud planè consisteret, nisi cum violentia quadam dictionis, ac per solœcismum patentissimum. Cum etenim το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα nomina neutrius generis sunt, qua ratione concordabit cum iis, quod immediatè præcedit: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες; et quod illico sequitur: Και οὑτοι οἱ τρεις κ. τ. λ.  Masculina equidem nomina, et fœminina, nominibus adjectivis, pronominibusque in neutro genere expressis construi, respectu habito ad τα πραγματα, id sane linguæ nostræ peculiare genium esse omnibus eam callentibus notissimum est; sed quod etiam reciprocè neutra nomina substantiva adjectivis vel pronominibus masculinis aut fœmininis indicentur, nemo dixerit. Porro hic versu octavo sic legimus: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἓν εισι. Sed nonne quæso dictio naturalis hic et propria potius esset: Τρια εισι τα μαρτυρουντα εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και τα τρια εις το ἓν εισιν? At illud tamen est scriptum non hoc. Quæ igitur alia ratio occurrentis istius ακαταλληλιας afferri potest, nisi sola præcedentis versus septimi expressio, quæ per hunc immediate sequentem versum octavum, symbolicè explicatur et planè replicatur, allusione facta ad id, quod præcesserat? Tres, igitur, qui in cœlo testimonium perhibent, primo positi sunt versu septimo: Τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῳ ουρανῳ, ὁ Πατηρ, ὁ Λογος, και το ἁγιον Πνευμα· και οὑτοι οἱ τρεις ἓν εισι. Deinceps vero immediatè adducti, iidem ipsi testes, quatenus in terra etiam testimonium idem confirment, per tria hæc symbola versu octavo: Και τρεις εισιν οἱ μαρτυρουντες εν τῃ γῃ, το πνευμα και το ὑδωρ και το αἱμα· και οἱ τρεις εις το ἓν εισιν. Ac si diceret Evangelista noster: Οἱ αυτοι εκεινοι οἱ εν τῳ ουρανῳ μαρτυρουντες (quod satis indicatur per particulam και, cujus vis in præsenti non simpliciter copulativa est, sed planè identifica) περι ὡν εν τῳ ανωτερῳ εδαφιῳ ειρηται· δηλαδη ὁ Πατηρ ὁ Λογος και το Πνευμα· οἱ αυτοι μαρτυρουντες εισι και εν τῃ γῃ, δι’ ὡν ἡμιν συμβολων απεκαλυφθησαν· ταυτα δε τα συμβολα εστι το πνευμα, δι’ ου δηλουται ὁ Πατηρ· το αἱμα, δι’ ου ὁ Υἱος· το ὑδωρ, δι’ ου το Πνευμα το ἁγιον. Και οἱ τρεις οὑτοι, οἱτινες ανωτερῳ μεν ανακεκαλυμμενως δι’ αυτων των θεαρχικων ονοματων, εν τῳ ουρανῳ μαρτυρουντες παριστανται οἱ αὐτοι εν τῃ γῃ δια της εν τῃ οικονομιᾳ μνησεως, συμβολικως επαναλαμβανομενοι· οἱ τρεις οὑτοι εις το ἓν εισι. Sed ohe! urceum institui, non amphoram!

Poltaviæ, ad d. 10 Decemb. 1780

 

Gregory of Nazianzen and the Grammar of the Johannine Comma

Gregory Nazianzen (aka Gregory of Nazianzus) (329-390), in his Fifth Theological Oration (Oration 31), section XIX, is sometimes quoted in the battle over the Johannine Comma, because he provides one of the more notable citations of 1 John 5:7-8.  As Gregory was a Greek speaker, one presumes he did not have access to the Latin interpolation, known as the Johannine Comma, but only to the original Greek of the epistle.

Recently, certain folks have tried to argue that there is some kind of glaring grammatical error in the text of 1 John, one that would be obvious to any Greek speaker, and consequently one that would call out for correction.  The Latin interpolation is then brought forward as the possible correction to this supposed error in God's Word.

Gregory provides useful insight as someone who was fluent in Greek and who was specifically interested in Greek grammatical rules.  It is worthwhile, therefore, to consider his comments: not as being an infallible interpreter, but rather as being someone who commented on the grammatical issue before the grammar of the text was ever used to try to justify the Latin interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses. 

First, a word about the translation.  I found this interesting observation from Stephen Reynolds, who provided his own translation (link).  Reynolds writes:

The standard English translation of Gregory’s Five Theological Orations has been the one produced by Charles Gordon Browne and James Edward Swallow for the Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, volume 7 (1893). I have used this translation in the past, but with mounting misgivings. So, for this course, I went back to the Greek text and began to revise Browne and Swallow’s version. It turned out to be a major undertaking. Browne and Swallow produced a truly awful translation – it is so literal as to be incomprehensible as English, and at many others points it is not only inaccurate but downright wrong. In my revision, I have used The Five Theological Orations of Gregory of Nazianzus, ed. Arthur James Mason (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1899); and besides the Greek text there established, it will be clear that I have been heavily indebted to Mason’s notes on the text.

For those who would like to check the Greek, Mason's Greek is this (link):

I am not here to focus on the claims of Reynolds, as such, but rather to highlight the value of updating translations of works that were previously translated in the Schaff series (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers).

First, the Browne and Swallow translation (from the CCEL):

XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

Stephen Reynolds' translation:

§ 19. “But to my mind,” our opponent says, “those things are said to be numbered together and of the same essence when they are reciprocally designated by the same name – for example, ‘three humans’ or ‘three gods’. But this does not apply to a group of three composed of different things.” What does this retort amount to? It befits someone laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. I also will concede that Peter, Paul, and John are not three and are not “of the same being [homoousioi],” insofar as I cannot say “three Peters,” or “three Pauls,” or “three Johns”. counting them under one designation [i.e. “master”] despite the vast difference between them, I should probably be even more ridiculous in your eyes for my method of numbering things together.

What does John say? In his Catholic Epistles he says: There are three that bear witness: the Spirit and the water and the blood. For what you have reserved for names which are common to a general class of things, we claim – in conformity with your analytical figment – for proper names as well; otherwise, you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you arrogate for yourself.  Do you think he is talking nonsense? – Talking nonsense, first, because he has been so bold as to assign a single numeral to things which are not “of the same being [homoousia],” though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are “of the same being”. For who would assert that these three “witnesses” have the same essence? Talking nonsense, secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he happened upon his terms. For after using three in the masculine gender [τρεις – treis], he adds three words which are neuter [τα τρια – ta tria], contrary to the rules and regulations which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine-gender three first, and then adding one and one and one in the neuter gender, or after a masculine-gender one and one and one to use the three not in the masculine but in the neuter gender? Is this not what you yourself reject in the case of the divinity?

What have you to say about the word καρκινος [karkinos], which can mean an animal, an instrument, and a constellation? And what about the word “dog”? – now something which runs on the ground, now something which swims in the sea, now something which sits in the heavens? Do you not see that three crabs or three dogs are being spoken of? – “Why, certainly.” – Well then, are they therefore of the same essence [homoousia]? – “Only a fool would say that.” – So you see how completely your argument – that only things of the same essence [homoousia] can be counted together – has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things of same essence are not always designated by the same numeral, and things not of the same essence can be designated by the same numeral, and if the nouns in both cases are stated with the numerals – what remains of your teachings?

There is also a Williams & Wickham translation:

But, someone may say, what I am talking about is things of the same substance being counted together that have nouns, which are mentioned as well, to match them. For example: Three men, three gods—not three odds and ends.

What answer are we to make? This is the behavior of a man who lays down the law for words, not one who uses them to speak the truth. What I am talking about is Peter, Paul, and John’s not being three or consubstantial, so long as three Pauls, three Peters, and as many Johns cannot be spoken of. We shall demand that you apply to more specific nouns the new-fangled rule you have kept to in the case of the more generic ones. Or will you break the rule by not conceding whatever rights you have assumed? Why does John in the Catholic Epistles say that there are “three who bear witness, the Spirit, the water, and the blood?” Is he not talking nonsense in your opinion? First, because he has been rash enough to count together things that are not consubstantial—and that right you only allow to things that are consubstantial. Who could call these “of one substance”? Secondly, because he happens to have got his grammar wrong. He puts the Greek word for “three” in the masculine and then tacks on three words in the neuter, in defiance of your definitive rules of grammar. Yet what is the difference between putting “three” in the masculine and tacking on single things in the neuter, and using “one” thrice in the masculine without calling them “three” in the masculine but instead “three” in the neuter? This is the very proposition you reject in the case of the Godhead!

What do we make of the fact that the same Greek word can mean the animal a crab, a pair of tongs, or the sign of the zodiac, Cancer? What about the word that can denote a dog, a dog-fish, or the dog-star in the sky? Do you not agree that people talk about “three crabs” or “three dogs”? Of course you do. Does that mean that they are of the same substance? What man in his senses would assert that? You see how your argument about counting things together has collapsed under the weight of so many proofs to the contrary. If consubstantial things are not always counted together and nonconsubstantial things are counted together, and if in both cases nouns are used along with the numerals, what is left of your doctrinaire pronouncement?

Gregory's explanation is significant in three respects.

First, Gregory is not aware of any interpretation of "Spirit, water, and blood" as being Father (who is spirit), Spirit (who hovered over the water), and Son (who shed his blood on the cross).  If He did hold to such an interpretation, he would certainly not deny that Spirit, water, and blood are consubstantial.  In context, Gregory is arguing that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are consubstantial, but his opponent is arguing that they are not.

Second, Gregory is aware of the difference in gender between "three" and the nouns that follow, and of the fact that this violates the gender agreement rule, but he does not think this means that the text needs to be corrected.  

Third, Gregory discards the supposed "consubstantiality rule" as a being a legitimate grammatical rule.  This is, of course, less relevant to the argument of the advocates of the Latin interpolation. 

I suppose we could add that if Gregory were aware of the so-called TR reading of 1 John 5:7-8, it would be so helpful to his argument on this point, that it seems impossible that he would not cite it.  It would satisfy his objector's so-called rule, and it would support his view that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

So, Gregory's citation is a powerful testimony that the Greek of 1 John 5:7-8 as it is found in the Greek manuscripts today was also the Greek of 1 John 5:7-8 in the 4th century.  This conclusion is further supported by the fourth century manuscripts of 1 John that we have. 

Epiphanius didn't Fall for the Collyridian Teaching of the Bodily Assumption

Assumptionist argument: Epiphanius claims May was bodily assumed, because he compares her to Elijah, based on Panarion 79. This, they assert, shows that Epiphanius changed his mind between Panarion 78 and Panarion 79, even though the two are chapters of the same tome of the same book.

We respond (as explained in the video linked here):

First, in the immediately preceding chapter, Epiphanius had said no one knows the end of Mary.  Normal rules of hermeneutics dictate against interpreting Panarion 79 in such a way as to contradict Panarion 78.  Instead, the clear statement should drive our understanding, and the less clear statement should be interpreted accordingly.  The Assumptionist argument is based on what is viewed as an implication in Panarion 79, whereas the direct statement in Panarion 78 contradicts that alleged implication. 

Second, just because Epiphanius compares Mary to Elijah, we should not jump to conclusions, because there is an important reason as to why Epiphanius is comparing to Elijah rather than to, for example, Enoch:

In “Against Valesians” (38, but 58 of the series), at 4,8 Epiphanus cites Elijah in the Old Testament, alongside Paul in the New Testament as examples of holy virginity. Notably, this is right after similarly citing John and James, the sons of Zebedee at 4,6 (source, p. 103):

4,5 “And there be eunuchs,” says the Savior, “which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”6 Who can these be but the noble apostles, and the virgins and monks after them? (6) John and James, the sons of Zebedee, who remained virgin, surely did not cut their members off with their own hands, and did not contract marriage either; they engaged in the struggle in their own hearts, and admirably won the fame of the crown of this contest. (7) And all the millions after them who lived in the world without spouses and won the fame of this contest in monasteries and convents. They had no relations with women, but competed in the most perfect of contests.

4,8 So it is with Elijah in the Old Testament, and with Paul, who says, “To the unmarried I say that it is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot contain, let them marry.”7 (9) Now in what state did he “remain?” For if he had been a eunuch, and his imitators had remained like him in obedience to his “Remain as I”—how could a eunuch marry if he could no longer contain himself, in accordance with “Let them marry and not burn?”8 You see that he is speaking of continence, not of the mutilation of one’s members.

Similarly, in “Against the first type of Origenists, who are shameful as well” (43, but 63 of the series) he again cites Elijah and John:

4,4 Nor did those of them who practiced chastity and virginity debase the contest and make something else of it, as though to evade by trickery the virtuous mode of competing. (5) Elijah too never lightly entered towns or associated with women, but lived in deserts. Elisha, John, and all who [ exhibited ] this great mark of the imitation of the angels, made themselves eunuchs in the right way for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, in accordance with the Lord’s ordinance in the Gospel.

In “Against Origen also called Adamantius” (44, but 64 of the series), Epiphanius encounters the perfect place to cite Mary as an example of someone who was assumed into heaven like Enoch or Elijah, or who bodily ascended into heaven after resurrection, like Jesus.  Nevertheless, she does not come up: 

63,14 [ Anyone with a sound mind can see* ] that, [ just] because there is a spiritual body and an ensouled body, the spiritual body is not one thing and the ensouled body something else; the ensouled and the spiritual body are the same. (15) We have ensouled bodies while we are in the world and doing the corruptible deeds of the flesh; for in the world we are enslaved to the soul in its wicked deeds, as you too have said up to a point. (16) When we are raised, however, there is no more enslavement to the soul but there is a following of the Spirit, for from that time on they have the Earnest as scripture says, “If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit; and if we walk by the Spirit, by mortifying the deeds of the body we shall live.” (17) There will be no more marriages, no more lusts, no more struggles for those who profess continence. There will be no more of the transgressions which run counter to purity, and no more of the sorts of deeds that are done here; as the Lord says, “They that are accounted worthy of that resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels.”

64,1 And thus Enoch was translated so as not to see death, and was not found. But at his translation he didn’t leave his body, or part of his body, behind. If he had left his body he would have seen death, but being translated with his body, he did not see death. For he is in a living body, and because of his translation his state is spiritual, not ensouled, though, to be sure, he is in a spiritual body.

64,2 The same [ has been said* ] of Elijah, moreover, because he was taken up in a chariot of fire and is still in the flesh—but in a spiritual flesh which will never again need, [ as ] it did when it was in this world to be fed by ravens, drink from the brook of Kerith, and wear a fleece. It is fed by another, spiritual nourishment the supplier of which is God, who knows secrets and has created things unseen; and it has food which is immortal and pure.

64,3 And you see that the ensouled body is the same as the spiritual body, just as our Lord arose from the dead, not by raising a different body, but his own body and not different from his own. But he had changed his own actual body to spiritual fineness and united a spiritual whole, and he entered where doors were barred, (4) as our bodies here cannot because they are gross, and not yet united with spiritual fineness.

64,8 Why, then, did he enter where doors were barred? Why but to prove that the thing they saw was a body, not a spirit—but a spiritual body, not a material one, even though it was accompanied by its soul, Godhead, and entire incarnate humanity. (9) It was the same body, but spiritual; the same body, once gross, now fine; the same body, once crucified, now [ brought to life* ]; the same body, once conquered, now unconquerable. It was united and commingled with his divine nature and never again to be destroyed, but forever abiding, never again to die. (10) For “Christ is risen from the dead, the firstfruits of them that slept.” [ But once risen ] “He dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.” 65,1 But also, to show you why Christ is called “the firstfruits of them that slept” even though he was not the first to rise—Lazarus and the widow’s son arose before him by his aid, and others by the aid of Elijah and Elisha. (2) But since they all died again after rising, Christ is the firstfruits of them that slept. For after his resurrection “He dieth no more,” since, through his life and lovingkindness, he is to be our resurrection.

65,3 Now if he is the firstfruits of them that slept, and if his body arose in its entirety together with his Godhead, his human nature [ must appear in its entirety ] after its resurrection with none of it left behind,neither its body nor anything else. “For thou shalt not leave my soul in hades, neither shalt thou give thine holy one to see corruption.” (4) And what is said about the soul in hades means that nothing has been left behind; but “holy one” is said to show that the holy body has not seen corruption, but has risen uncorrupted after the three days, forever united with incorruption.

So, when he says in “Against the Collyridians, who make offerings to Mary” (59, but 79 of the series) that he is comparing Mary to Elijah, John, and Thecla (each of whose lives ended differently, according to Epiphanius), considering the common thread and the contextual evidence: 

4,6 Yes, of course Mary’s body was holy, but she was not God. Yes, the Virgin was indeed a virgin and honored as such, but she was not given us to worship; she worships Him who, though born of her flesh, has come from heaven, from the bosom of his Father. (7) And the Gospel therefore protects us by telling us so on the occasion when the Lord himself said, “Woman, what is between me and thee? Mine hour is not yet come.” [ For ] to make sure that no one would suppose, because of the words, “What is between me and thee?” that the holy Virgin is anything more [than a woman], he called her “Woman” as if by prophecy, because of the schisms and sects that were to appear on earth. Otherwise some might stumble into the nonsense of the sect from excessive awe of the saint.

5,1 For what this sect has to say is complete nonsense and, as it were, an old wives’ tale. Which scripture has spoken of it? Which prophet permitted the worship of a man, let alone a woman? (2) The vessel is choice but a woman, and by nature no different [from others]. Like the bodies of the saints, however, she has been held in honor for her character and understanding. And if I should say anything more in her praise, [she is] like Elijah, who was virgin from his mother’s womb, always remained so, and was taken up and has not seen death. She is like John who leaned on the Lord’s breast, “the disciple whom Jesus loved.” She is like St. Thecla; and Mary is still more honored than she, because of the providence vouchsafed her. (3) But Elijah is not to be worshiped, even though he is alive. And John is not to be worshiped, even though by his own prayer— or rather, by receiving the grace from God—he made an awesome thing of his falling asleep. But neither is Thecla worshiped, nor any of the Saints.

For the age-old error of forgetting the living God and worshiping his creatures will not get the better of me. (4) They served and worshiped the creature more than the creator,” and “were made fools.” If it is not his will that angels be worshiped, how much more the woman born of Ann, who was given to Ann by Joachim and granted to her father and mother by promise, after prayer and all diligence? She was surely not born other than normally, but of a man’s seed and a woman’s womb like everyone else. (5) For even though the story and traditions of Mary say that her father Joachim was told in the wilderness, “Your wife has conceived,” it was not because this had come about without conjugal intercourse or a man’s seed. The angel who was sent to him predicted the coming event, so that there would be no doubt. The thing had truly happened, had already been decreed by God, and had been promised to the righteous.

For those unfamiliar with the legend of John's Repose, and though I (not Epiphanius, clearly) think the story is complete nonsense, you can find the orignal? Coptic account at this link (original? Coptic version).  Notice that the story asserts that John maintained his virginity from youth to old age.  He prayed to God and then jumped down into the deep hole the brethren had dug at his command.  When the brethren returned they found his sandal and fresh dirt. (compare the sanitized versions promoted today, which try to suggest that John too was translated: OCA  Antiochian )

Similarly, you can read about Thecla in "The Acts of Paul and Thecla" (fiction, though Epiphanius seems to have believed it or perhaps some less fanciful version of it).  In that story, Thecla decides to break her engagement in order remain a virgin and follow the teachings of Paul.  Thecla gets condemned to be burned to death, but God puts out the fire with rain and hail.  She then accompanies Paul on his journey, where she is condemned to face the wild beasts in the arena, but the lioness just licks her feet.  Then she is again condemned to face the wild beasts.  This time the lioness not only comes to her feet, but fights off a bear and a lion for her, but the lioness is killed by the lion while killing the lion.  She then baptizes herself in a ditch of water and gets enveloped by a cloud of fire, which protects her modesty and wards off the wild animals. Another time, to allow her to escape persecution the rocks opened up and then closed behind her to protect her.  The account calls her "the first martyr of God" although, oddly enough, it only seems to include accounts of her avoiding martyrdom.  The account does acknowledge her eventual death, however.  Moreover, as far as I can tell, there is no tradition of Thecla being assumed, either in the East or the West.

With this background, we can see that Epiphanius is citing Elijah, John, and Thecla (each of whose lives ended differently) because of their holy character exemplified by virginity.

Moreover, while Epiphanius seems to adopt the legends of John and of Thecla, he does not buy the Collyridian Transitus Literature, which he refers to as "complete nonsense" and "as it were, an old wives' tale":

Furthermore, note that the verb for "worship" used by Epiphanius is the more general προσκυνέω.  Epiphanius' position is in direct contradiction to the later position of John of Damascus and the rest of the iconophiles.

Returning to the clear statement of Epiphanius, in “Against Antidicomarians” (58, but 78 of the series), Epiphanius reproduces his “letter to Arabia,” in which he states:

11,3 For I dare not say—though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin. (4) In one passage Simeon says of her, “And a sword shall pierce through thine own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.” And elsewhere the Revelation of John says, “And the dragon hastened after the woman who had born the man child, and she was given the wings of an eagle and was taken to the wilderness, that the dragon might not seize her.”  Perhaps this can be applied to her; I cannot decide for certain, and am not saying that she remained immortal. But neither am I affirming that she died.

11,5 For scripture went beyond man’s understanding and left it in suspense with regard to the precious and choice vessel, so that no one would suspect carnal behavior of her. Whether she died, I don’t know; and [even] if she was buried, she never had carnal relations, perish the thought! (6) Who will choose, from self-inflicted insanity, to cast a blasphemous suspicion [on her], raise his voice, give free rein to his tongue, flap his mouth with evil intent, invent insults instead of hymns and glory, hurl abuse at the holy Virgin, and deny honor to the precious Vessel?

Thus, Epiphanius' position is unmistakable.  There is no reason to set aside this statement for wishful thinking.  

Third, poetic or incomplete comparisons to Elijah are not foreign to the writers of the patristic era:

Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 21, on Athanasius, section 7

7. … nor can I say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of virtue, or to be the fountain and life of the Church. For she, like Ishmael, Genesis 21:19 fainting from her thirst for the truth, needed to be given to drink, or, like Elijah, 1 Kings 17:4 to be refreshed from the brook, when the land was parched by drought; and, when but faintly breathing, to be restored to life and left as a seed to Israel, Isaiah 1:9 that we might not become like Sodom and Gomorrah, Genesis 19:24 whose destruction by the rain of fire and brimstone is only more notorious than their wickedness. …

Jerome’s letter To Eustochium, section 3, he states:

When the hosts of the enemy distress you, when your frame is fevered and your passions roused, when you say in your heart, What shall I do? Elisha's words shall give you your answer, Fear not, for they that be with us are more than they that be with them. 2 Kings 6:16 He shall pray, Lord, open the eyes of your handmaid that she may see. And then when your eyes have been opened you shall see a fiery chariot like Elijah's waiting to carry you to heaven, and shall joyfully sing: Our soul is escaped as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers: the snare is broken and we are escaped.

Aphrahat, Demonstration 6,

Whosoever is invited to the Bridegroom, let him prepare himself. Whosoever has lighted his lamp, let him not suffer it to go out. Whosoever is expectant of the marriage-cry, let him take oil in his vessel. Matthew 25:6 Whosoever is keeper of the door, let him be on the watch for his Master. Whosoever loves virginity, let him become like Elijah. Whosoever takes up the yoke of the Saints, let him sit and be silent. Whosoever loves peace, let him look for his Master as the hope of life.

Chrysostom, Homily 68 on Matthew, section 3:

So that if it seem good, let us leave Adam, and inquire what is the difference between the angels and this company of them who on earth sing and say, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will towards men.

And their dress is suitable to their manliness. For not indeed, like those with trailing garments, the enervated and mincing, are they dressed, but like those blessed angels, Elijah, Elisha, John, like the apostles; their garments being made for them, for some of goat's hair, for some of camel's hair, and there are some for whom skins suffice alone, and these long worn.

Pseudo-Clement (before Jerome but not 2nd century), Two Epistles on Virginity, 1st Epistle, Chapter 6

The womb of a holy virgin carried our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; and the body which our Lord wore, and in which He carried on the conflict in this world, He put on from a holy virgin. From this, therefore, understand the greatness and dignity of virginity. Do you wish to be a Christian? Imitate Christ in everything. John, the ambassador, he who came before our Lord, he than whom there was not a greater among those born of women, Matthew 11:11 the holy messenger of our Lord, was a virgin. Imitate, therefore, the ambassador of our Lord, and be his follower in every thing. That John, again, who reclined on the bosom of our Lord, and whom He greatly loved, John 21:20 — he, too, was a holy person. For it was not without reason that our Lord loved him. Paul, also, and Barnabas, and Timothy, with all the others, whose names are written in the book of life, Philippians 4:3 — these, I say, all cherished and loved sanctity, and ran in the contest, and finished their course without blemish, as imitators of Christ, and as sons of the living God. Moreover, also, Elijah and Elisha, and many other holy men, we find to have lived a holy and spotless life. If, therefore, you desire to be like these, imitate them with all your power. For the Scripture has said, The elders who are among you, honour; and, seeing their manner of life and conduct, imitate their faith. Hebrews 13:7 And again it says, Imitate me, my brethren, as I imitate Christ. 1 Corinthians 11:1

The point of all this should be clear.  Epiphanius was in no way withdrawing his previous comments, he was reinforcing them.  References to Elijah are because of his holy character and repute.

There's Something about ... Luigi Gambero

 Luigi Gambero is one of the leading Mariologists of our time.  His book, "Mary and the Fathers of the Church," (Ignatius Press, 1999 based on the Italian original of 1991) is one of the more exhaustive treatments of the subject that one can find from a Roman Catholic perspective.  Sorry to my younger readers for whom the 1990s are not "our time."  Gambero's work received cover endorsements from folks like Peter Stravinskas.  He's not some random guy who happens to be Roman Catholic.

The subject matter index of his book (p. 428), however, reveals a paucity of citations on the topic of the immaculate conception.  Only six authors are identified.  I have rearranged the list from alphabetical order to appearance order in the book (which is also approximately chronological order of birth of the various authors):
1. Ephrem the Syrian (c. A.D. 306-73) p. 110
Gambero writes:

Ephrem's insistence on Mary's spiritual beauty and holiness, and on her freedom from any stain of sin, has led some scholars to hold that he was aware of the privilege of the Immaculate Conception and to point to him as a witness to the dogma. Yet it does not appear that our author was familiar with the problem, at least not in the terms in which it was made clear by later tradition and the dogmatic definition of 1854. In one passage he even uses the term "baptized" to indicate her Son's saving intervention in her regard:

Handmaid and daughter of blood and water [am I] whom You redeemed and baptized.

(Hymns on the Nativity 16, 10)

There's not much to respond to here.  I agree that Ephrem represents one of the earlier examples of high views of Mary.  I also agree that Ephrem did not know of the idea of an immaculate conception of Mary.  Terms like "redeemed" and "baptized" imply that Mary was not always pure, but became so.  As such, while Ephrem does not represent a "Protestant" position, He also does not reflect a view of accepting Mary as always sinless, even with respect to her conception.
I would add that "redeemed" is poetically paired with "blood" and "baptized" with "water."  So, we are not talking about redemption in some other sense than the sacrifice of Christ, and - of course - the Baptism is a baptism related to the forgiveness of sins.

2. Gregory Nazianzen (c. A.D. 329-90) pp. 162-63
Gambero writes:

In the mystery of the Incarnation, the bishop of Nazianzus discerns a wondrous exchange between God and Mary. She offered him the gift of her undiminished virginity, while the Lord, for his part, intervened in an extraordinary manner to bring about her purification, in advance. He empowered her human abilities, to make her worthy of the unique event of the Incarnation:

He was conceived by the Virgin, who had first been purified by the Spirit in soul and body; for, as it was fitting that childbearing should receive its share of honor, so it was necessary that virginity should receive even greater honor.[fn3]

From this doctrine of Mary's purification before the conception of Christ emerges an intuition of the truth which, in 1854, the Church would define as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.

[fn3: Sermon 38, 13; PG 36, 325B]

The sense in which Gambero's claim that from Gregory's sermon "emerges an intuition of ..." the Immaculate Conception, is that the Immaculate Conception goes far beyond what Gregory claims.  For Gregory, Mary is in need of purification, body and soul, and she receives it prior to Christ's conception.  The dogma of the Immaculate Conception goes much further.  That dogma does not teach that Mary was purified from original sin, but that she was preserved from original.  Gregory's elevation of Mary to being specially purified is a step in the wrong direction toward the immaculate conception, perhaps, but it is still fundamentally inconsistent with the immaculate conception.  So is every author, patristic or otherwise, that takes the position that Mary was purified from something that she had, rather than taking the position that Mary was preserved from ever having original sin the in the first place.

3. Augustine of Hippo(A.D. 354-430) p. 226 (and 226 n. 25)

There seems no doubt that Augustine considered Mary's exemption from sin to be a great grace. But what sins does he mean? Undoubtedly he excludes any personal sin from Mary. Is it possible to hypothesize that Augustine also intended to exclude original sin? Some scholars think so and make him a forerunner of the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. A full treatment of the question would call for a lengthy discussion. To us it seems safer to adopt the contrary position, which held by many experts and appears more in accord with numerous Augustinian texts. [fn25]

I would disagree with Gambero's contention that Augustine was saying that Mary was exempt from personal sin.  That said, as Gambero correctly concedes, Augustine nowhere teaches that Mary was exempt from original sin, rather he held the contrary view.  Perhaps in another post, we will consider the question of the famous place where Augustine says he will not discuss the sins of Mary.

4. Romanos the Melodist (Late 5th century to late 6th century) pp. 328-29 (and 329 n. 8)
Gambero has a section entitled, "The Birth of Mary." Gambero writes:

Romans' hymn on the birth of the Virgin may serve as an ancient witness to the introduction of the feast (September 8) in the Church of Constantinople, under the emperor Justinian. The poet sings of this event as a triumph of grace over the weakness and failings of human nature, as revealed in the sterility of Mary's aged parents:

The prayers of Joachim and Anna and the weeping of sterility reached the ears of God and were well received. Thus they gave a life-giving fruit to the world. For while he [Joachim] was praying on the mountain, she [Anna] hid her mortification in the garden. But the barren woman then joyfully brings to light the Mother of God, the nourisher of life.[FN: On the Birth of Mary 1.]

Considering the future mission of Mary, her birth to barren parents is considered a reason for great rejoicing, which the people of Israel already share by anticipation, unwittingly:

Then the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one. So everyone took part in the rejoicing. Joachim gave a banquet, and great was the merriment in the garden. He invited the priests and Levites to prayer; then he called Mary into the center of the crowd, that she might be magnified. [FN: Ibid. 4.]

In this hymn, Romanos recalls two important moments of Mary's infancy and youth: the years she spent in the Temple and  her betrothal to Joseph. Apparently Romanos takes his inspiration from the apocrypha, in particular from the Protoevangelium of James. Later on, addressing Anna directly, the poet weaves a marvelous praise of her extraordinary little daughter:

Your birth is worthy of veneration, O holy woman, because you brought to light the joy of the world, the powerful mediatrix of graces for men. Indeed she is the rampart, the defense, and the haven of whoever trusts in her. Every Christian finds in her, in your fruit, a protector, a defense, and the hope of salvation [FN: Ibid., 10.]

I certainly agree that literary source of this ode is the heretical forgery, the Protoevangelium of James.  Romanos does have a song on the Nativity of the Virgin Mary.  It's listed as hymn 35 in Maas' and Trypanis' edition (they also note it is 28 in Krumbacher's).  Based on a quick check, I think this is the same one quoted by Gambero.

The song does seem to be the first hint in history of any Christians celebrating the Birth of Mary.  Later, with Andrew of Crete and John of Damascus, we see that the practice apparently begun in the 6th century had caught on more widely in the 7th and 8th centuries.  Note, however, that this is the feast of the Birth of Mary, not her Conception.  There is a reason that Bernard of Clairvaux expressed concerns over the idea of celebrating such a feast, centuries later.

Of the presented material, the phrase, "ἒτεκεν τὴν ἄχραντον," translated by Gambero (or his source or his translator from Italian to English) as "had conceived the immaculate one" is the more obviously interesting.  The first issue with this translation is that ἒτεκεν means to give birth, not to conceive.  The second issue is that while ἄχραντον, which means "undefiled," can reasonably be translated here as "immaculate," it does not necessarily have anything to do with Mary's connection to original sin (or not).  That's only an issue for folks who are eager to see her as immaculately conceived and who forget that she was also viewed as an immaculate virgin.  

Moreover, while the text says that Anna gave birth to the Immaculate, this is not a commentary on when Mary became (in Romanos' understanding) Immaculate.  For example, in the first stanza we see: "But the barren woman then joyfully brings to light the Mother of God."  Surely no one would be so foolish as to think that Mary was born already a mother.  So, if one does not assume that, one should be careful what one assumes about the title, Immaculate.  

So, while Romanos is an example of relatively high Mariology, particularly for his century, he still falls short of knowing of the immaculate conception.

5. Andrew of Crete (A.D. 650-740) pp. 392-95
In a section entitled, "Mary, Spotless Creature," Gambero writes:

Andrew's witness to the Church's faith in the exceptional holiness of the Mother of the Lord is absolutely remarkable. He affirms more than once that the Blessed Virgin lived her whole life without being contaminated by any moral sin. The insistence with which the bishop of Crete returns to this point is so strong that some have seen him as an exponent of the Immaculate Conception. Even if we cannot accept this thesis without hesitation, we must at least recognize that Andrew had a highly elevated concept of the Virgin's sinlessness and holiness. We cite one of the numerous texts:

It was right, then, that the admirable Joachim and his spouse, Anna, inspired by divine thoughts, did obtain her as the fruit of their prayer, her, I say, the queen of nature, the firstfruits of our race, whose birthday we celebrate, whose swaddling clothes we honor, and whom we venerate as the source of the restoration of our fallen race. [FN: Homily 3 on Mary's Nativity, PG 97, 860 B-C]

This text presents Mary as the firstfruits of the human race; that is, the first creature who received the gift of salvation. But Andrew explains it even more clearly:

This Mary the Theotokos, the common refuge of all Christians, the first to be liberated from the original fall of our first parents. [FN: Homily 4 on Mary's Nativity, PG 97, 880 C]

We could present many more passages in which Andrew expresses this concept. However, when our author speaks of Mary as the first person to be redeemed, or as the first to be liberated from original sin, he does not define the nature of the intervention God wrought in her. Hence we would not be justified to attribute to him the concept of preservation from original sin as we understand the concept today, precisely as the solemn Magisterium of the Church has defined it. It is true that Andrew is mentioned in the bull Ineffabilis Deus as being among the witnesses to the Immaculate Conception. More than anything else, however, his testimony witness to the development of the faith of the Christian people, on their journey toward a light that would illuminate the mystery ever more clearly.

I interrupt the section here to comment.  Mary being "liberated from the original fall" seems to imply that she was under it and then subsequently freed, not preserved from it.  While Andrew's excessively high view of Mary is definitely a step in the direction that ultimately became the error of the Immaculate Conception, the evidence of him adopting such a view is not there. 

Gambero continues:

Also, we have to keep in mind that the bishop of Crete did not share the notion of original sin that the Latin theologians had already formed. Therefore, it is understandable that he could speak in these terms without considering the problem of the presence or absence of original sin in Mary.

Instead, Andrew appears to have believed that God prepared the holy Virgin in advance, on both the moral and personal level, to make her worthy and capable of being God's Mother:

A place had to be prepared before the King's arrival. The royal garments had to be woven before they could receive the royal Child at his birth. Finally, the clay had to be prepared before the Potter's arrival.[FN: Homily 3 on the Nativity, PG 97, 860 B]

We have already seen, in more than one place, how this concept of Mary's purification at the moment of the Annunciation was shared by other Fathers of the Church in preceding centuries.

This acknowledges the key point: one of the early stages of the increasing Marian devotion was to say that Mary was purified at the Annunciation, namely just before Christ's conception.  This view is inconsistent with the doctrine of the immaculate conception.  While people can certainly speculate a notion of Mary being already perfectly pure and just getting more "grace" infused into her, it is hard to conceptualize the purification of something already perfectly pure.  

6. John Damascene (c. A.D. 675 - c. A.D. 749) pp. 401-02
Gambero writes:

John Damascene often speaks of Mary as a sublime creature, filled with spiritual treasures. Accordingly, his homily on the Nativity, for example, goes so far as to make clear and explicit allusions--unprecedented in previous centuries--to the mystery of the Immaculate Conception. Naturally, it is necessary to keep in mind the different view of original sin that already divided Byzantine theology from Western thought.

For John, both the Virgin Mary's conception and her birth took place completely under the influence of divine grace. These two events also shaped the role played by her parents, Joachim and Anna. Their previous sterility is explained thus:

Because it would come to pass that the Virgin Theotokos would be born of Anna, nature did not dare anticipate the seed of grace but remained unfruitful until grace bore fruit.[FN: Homily on the Nativity 2, PG 96, 664A]

Anna's sterility was, therefore, a condition previously arranged in the divine plan, so that the role of grace would appear fully predominant. This is why Damascene always names the Virgin's parents with profound respect: they would offer themselves as the passive instruments of God's miraculous intervention:

O blessed loins of Joachim, whence the all-pure seed was poured out! O glorious womb of Anna, in which the most holy fetus grew and was formed, silently increasing! O womb in which was conceived the living heaven, wider than the wideness of the heavens [FN: Ibid., 2, PG 96, 664B]

It is worth noting here that even at the very end of the Patristic era, one must look to the very high Marian views of John of Damascus to find something approaching the Immaculate Conception.  This is not the actual doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, because of John of Damascus different view on original sin, but it is at least close.

You may recall from other discussions that for most of the fathers, Mary was not an exception because was generated the usual way: from a physical relationship between her parents.  John of Damascus finds a way around this by naming and claiming the immaculate ejaculate of Joachim.  Thankfully, that's not a dogma that Rome adopted.  If it was ever considered in Western thought, I would speculate that they would realize that this escape clause would eliminate the original need for Mary's virginity.  If Jesus could be born of Joseph's seed, some how immaculate-d beforehand, and if that would have resolved the issue, there would not have been a need for Jesus to be born of a virgin in the first place.  

We have now completed this particular survey.  Consider how little there was to review, and how far it was from demonstrating a continuous belief in the immaculate conception in the church from the time of the apostles onward.

-TurretinFan