heavenly witnesses - full use in extant writings before Priscillian - Isaac the Jew

Steven Avery said:
His time machine was on the blink?
Click to expand...

Your King James version has "Holy" with "Holy Spirit" in the Comma, why does the said pseudographic paratextual commentary which was added to a Latin translation three hundred years+ after the original, omitt "Holy" from "Holy Spirit" in the context of complaining about the "words" of the Comma being "omitted" (supposedly)?
 
logos1560 said:
Does he have to quote himself concerning his claimed only one alternative to excuse or rationalize his use of the fallacy of false dilemma?
Click to expand...

Quotes have quote marks, or are put in a quote box.

The true dichotomy was clearly demonstrated after Rick offered feeble alternatives.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Your King James version has "Holy" with "Holy Spirit" in the Comma, why does the said pseudographic paratextual commentary which was added to a Latin translation three hundred years+ after the original, omitt "Holy" from "Holy Spirit" in the context of complaining about the "words" of the Comma being "omitted" (supposedly)?
Click to expand...
Hasn’t this been asked and answered?
 
Steven Avery said:
Quotes have quote marks, or are put in a quote box.
Click to expand...
Not always. Quotations in most KJV editions do not have quote marks. A person can repeat words or phrases he earlier used without putting them in quote marks. You will repeat some or portions of your same prior remarks and accusations without putting them in quote marks or in a quote box.
 
logos1560 said:
You have not answered nor refuted the scholarly assertions by Latin NT scholar H. A. G. Houghton so why try to divert by asking for quotes from someone else?
Click to expand...
Probably because he hasn't read Chapman for himself. He always tries to trick his opponent into doing the leg work for him. Lazy.
 
logos1560 said:
H. A. G. Houghton wrote: "There are several indications that Jerome was responsible for the revision of the Gospels only and not the rest of the New Testament. When he [Jerome] discusses questions of translation affecting the Gospels he quotes forms matching his revised version, but he never cites readings characteristic of the Vulgate in the other New Testament books. What is more, in his commentary on four of the Pauline Epistles, he criticizes the existing Latin translation and provides his own alternative" (The Latin New Testament, p. 34).
Click to expand...

Interesting.

I suspect Mr Avery will never be as well read on this subject, no matter how much he reads i English, for the simple reason that Professor Houghton interacts with the manuscripts themselves (perhaps even on a daily basis) and can read Latin (unlike Steven).
 
logos1560 said:
You have not answered nor refuted the scholarly assertions by Latin NT scholar H. A. G. Houghton so why try to divert by asking for quotes from someone else?
Click to expand...

Hugh Houghton references the most important work by John Chapman on this issue. However, he gets the year wrong and does not interact with it in his book.

Hugh Houghton bibliography
Chapman, H.J. (1933). ‘St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament JTS 24: 33-51 113-25, 283-99.

Actually Volume XXIII is 1922, Volume XXIV is 1923.
I sent the date correction out and he thanked me, and he will note it in the corrigenda.
 
Last edited:
Unbound68 said:
You can't possibly know in all honesty if he "handled this very well" or not, since:

1. you can't read Latin,

2. you dont know where to find all the original manuscipts to see the extent of the erasure marks and other forms of tampering, beyond what was provided by TNC,

3. you don't know what numbers are assigned to the manuscripts,

4. and you wouldn't know where in the manuscripts to find the prologue if they all fell in your lap!


All you have is McDonald's opinion.
Click to expand...

I see no collation of images of any of the earliest most valuable Vulgate manuscripts that disprove "committentes" was not the original reading, and without traces of errasier, Scribal editing and notae etc of any kind - on his part whatsoever.

In fact I would welcome this, because (and he probably knows this too) I guarantee the same pattern of corruption would become even more evident and magnified.
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
I see no collation of images of any of the earliest most valuable Vulgate manuscripts that disprove "committentes" was not the original reading, and without traces of errasier, Scribal editing and notae etc of any kind - on his part whatsoever.
Click to expand...

With 150 years before the first extant text, nothing can be proved or disproved about the original reading.

Again, see Grantley.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Only an opinion. Opinions can be wrong, and yours certainly is.
Click to expand...

The full verse reference ascribed to Isaac the Jew is solidly dated to before Priscillian and the Vulgate. The authorship may be uncertain, but the date stays pretty much identical whomever the author. This is explained because it is dated around the time of the dispute of Ursinus and Damasus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top