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

Nobody has a Vulgate Prologue manuscript before Fuldensis, about 150 years after the original publication.
There probably were a large number of mss. , but we see through a glass darkly.

Thanks for admitting in effect that your so-called absolute confirmation is mere speculation or assumption on your part. You have not absolutely proven your non-scholarly opinion to be true.
 
Thanks for admitting in effect that your so-called absolute confirmation is mere speculation or assumption on your part. You have not absolutely proven your non-scholarly opinion to be true.

Clearly, anyone who fights the basic issue of the true dichotomy, Jerome or a crafty, skillful, deceptive forger with clout, will never understand the evidence for Jerome’s authorship of the Vulgate Prologue/
 
Clearly, anyone who fights the basic issue of the true dichotomy, Jerome or a crafty, skillful, deceptive forger with clout, will never understand the evidence for Jerome’s authorship of the Vulgate Prologue/
What a joke. Why not deal with the Epistle to the Laodiceans, Avery? There's just as much "evidence" that Paul authored that epistle as you claim there is for the forged prologue!

Plus, the Epistle to the Laodiceans actually made its way into Latin Bibles, German Bibles, and English Bibles!

So why aren't you arguing against interpolation here?

And why aren't you asking where the outcry was for Bibles "dropping" the Epistle to the Laodiceans in later Bibles?

Why aren't you mentioning the "crafty, skillful, deceptive forger" here?

Or do you accept Pauline authorship of that Epistle?
 
Clearly, anyone who fights the basic issue of the true dichotomy, Jerome or a crafty, skillful, deceptive forger with clout, will never understand the evidence for Jerome’s authorship of the Vulgate Prologue/

The lack of "Holy" (Sanctus) with "Spirit" (Spiritus) is very wide spread across the early references and in a surprising amount of the more valuable Vulgate manuscripts.

Of course you realise Steven, "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus" makes a far better syntactic parallel to "aqua, sanguine, et Spiritus" than "Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus".

Syntactic structure parallelism

Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus
aqua, sanguine, et Spiritus
Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus (Sanctus)


So the later addition of "Sanctus" to the later Vulgate copies that include the Comma Johanneum, may be more theologically correct, sure (that's why it was added), but, it is inferior in its syntactic design or parallelism compared to the more original older versions of the Comma.

This is another pattern of evidence that clearly emerges from the existing (contra fantasy manuscripts) manuscript evidence, both for the ECW (Early Church Writers) references and NT manuscripts themselves.

NOTE: Any similarity to Tim Mahoney's movie titles etc, is purely coincidental.
 
Last edited:
So the later addition of "Sanctus" to the later Vulgate copies that include the Comma Johanneum, may be more theologically correct, sure (that's why it was added), but, it is inferior in its syntactic design or parallelism compared to the more original older versions of the Comma.

Holy Spirit was already in Cyprian's Bible used in both references, Unity of the Church and Ad Jubaianum, also in Hundredfold Martyrs, and the Eusebius usage, and De Trinitare Book 1.50 ascribed to Eusebius of Vercelli, and where Jerome discusses the omission of the testimony

It is funny when you spin your wheels over nothing.

And yet you refuse to make the simplest corrections.
You simply try to dance around.
 
Holy Spirit was already in Cyprian's Bible used in both references, also in Hundredfold Martyrs, and the Eusebius usage, and De Trinitare Book 1.50 ascribed to Eusebius of Vercelli, and where Jerome discusses the omission of the testimony

It is funny when you spin your wheels over nothing.

And yet you make the simplest corrections.


The context of eisegesis does not constitute the Comma itself Steven.

That's where you are trying to mislead people above.
 
Clearly, anyone who fights the basic issue of the true dichotomy, Jerome or a crafty, skillful, deceptive forger with clout, will never understand the evidence for Jerome’s authorship of the Vulgate Prologue/
You make poor excuses for your illogical use of the fallacy of false dilemma.

You try to dismiss and avoid the actual sound scholarly evidence that Jerome only translated the Gospels of the Latin Vulgate New Testament and that someone else translated the rest of the New Testament. That translator would likely be the one to write any prologues to the books that he translated. That translator writing a prologue would not be a forger so your incorrect speculation of a supposed "true dichotomy" collapses. There are more than two possibilities so you try to mislead readers. Some later copiers may have assumed that Jerome was the translator and may have sometimes mistakenly ascribed those prologues to him. Considering the fact that entire book (the Epistle to the Laodiceans) was added in the oldest manuscript that has the prologues, it is not unreasonable to consider the possibility that someone could add a statement or statements to the prologue to the Catholic Epistles. One hundred and fifty years was enough time for the Epistle to the Laodiceans to be added to the Latin Vulgate New Testament unless you suggest that Jerome was the one who included it. If an entire book could be added, prologues could be added or statements could be added to prologues written by a translator other than Jerome. Someone could also ascribe the prologue to Jerome without that ascribing being correct.

You do not have any actual firsthand copy of any prologue to the Catholic Epistles written by Jerome. You offer your non-scholarly speculations. You ignore and avoid the scholarly, evidence-supported assertion of textual and translation differences between the Gospels of the Latin Vulgate NT and the rest of the NT books. You fail to prove your non-scholarly opinions to be true.
 
H. A. G. Houghton wrote:
"For example, at Galatians 5:9, he [Jerome] adjusts the lemma of his commentary to read modicum fermentum totam conspersionem fermentat ('a little yeast leavens the whole mixture') and observes:

male in nostris codicibus habetur: modicum fermentum totam massam corrumpit, et sensum potius interpres suum,
quam uerba apostoli transtulit (HI Ga. 3:5)

Our manuscripts are wrong in reading 'a little yeast spoils the whole lump' as the translator has conveyed his own understanding rather
than the words of the apostle.

It is most unlikely that Jerome would have allowed this form to persist in this letter and the identical phrase at 1 Corinthians 5:6 if he had been responsible for the Vulgate text of these Epistles" (The Latin New Testament, pp. 34-35).

Steven Avery danced around and avoided this evidence.
 
As I in effect said, eisegetical context does not constitute a quotation of the words of the Comma itself Steven, in the Prologue, in De Trinitate, in Cyprian and in Pseudo-Cyprian.

The earliest quotations of 1 John 5:7(Clause-C) in the Latin ECW do not (or at least the majority do not) have "Sanctus" with "Spiritus" and "Pater, Verbum".

There is a pattern. Go check your references before 600 PBF blog post and see for yourself.

P.S. I reserve the right to qualify all and any statements and/or posts I make. There's more nuance to what I'm arguing above.



Reply
 
You do not have any actual firsthand copy of any prologue to the Catholic Epistles written by Jerome. You offer your non-scholarly speculations. You ignore and avoid the scholarly, evidence-supported assertion of textual and translation differences between the Gospels of the Latin Vulgate NT and the rest of the NT books. You fail to prove your non-scholarly opinions to be true.

What a worthless paragraph. Nobody has the original Prologue.

You offered one scholar's opinions, which has huge omissions

There is not even a theory as to who would be the forger who/when/where/why wrote the Vulgate Prologue.

Nothing was ignored.
Again, I suggest you read the material from John Chapman.

Then you will understand more than just a few quote-snippets.
 
Nothing was ignored.
Again, I suggest you read the material from John Chapman.
Perhaps you should read it and share what he stated. At least in his 1908 edition of his book NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS, John Chapman did not agree with your opinion that Jerome wrote the prologue to the Catholic Epistles.

John Chapman wrote: "Let us look at the common Prologue (Pseudo-Jerome) to the seven canonical Epistles" (p. 262).

John Chapman asserted: "I think it may be safely inferred that Pseudo-Jerome had before him a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles in which Priscillian defended this text (Comma--1 John 5:7), but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expression orthodox" (p. 264).

John Chapman wrote: "It is well known that it [the Comma Iohanneum] is founded on a mystical interpretation which St. Cyprian seems to assume as a commonplace, and which St. Augustine propagated" (p. 263).

You have ignored, dodged, evaded, or omitted a great deal of sound evidence.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you should read it and share what he stated. At least in his 1908 edition of his book NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS, John Chapman did not agree with your opinion that Jerome wrote the prologue to the Catholic Epistles.

John Chapman wrote: "Let us look at the common Prologue (Pseudo-Jerome) to the seven canonical Epistles" (p. 262).

John Chapman asserted: "I think it may be safely inferred that Pseudo-Jerome had before him a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles in which Priscillian defended this text (Comma--1 John 5:7), but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expression orthodox" (p. 264).

John Chapman wrote: "It is well known that it [the Comma Iohanneum] is founded on a mystical interpretation which St. Cyprian seems to assume as a commonplace, and which St. Augustine propagated" (p. 263).

You have ignored, dodged, evaded, or omitted a great deal of sound evidence.
Great post!
 
Another Maurice Robinson moment for Steven Avery. (For those who don't know what I'm talking about, see the Rev. 16:5 thread).
 
Back
Top