You are the one who complains about posters dealing honestly with the actual evidence, and you improperly attempt to attack their honesty and integrity.All you are complaining about is my honesty in dealing with information.
You are the one who complains about posters dealing honestly with the actual evidence, and you improperly attempt to attack their honesty and integrity.All you are complaining about is my honesty in dealing with information.
What you claim as absolute confirmation turns out to be only your supposing, speculating, or assuming without verifiable proof.My studies have absolutely confirmed Jerome's authorship.
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.
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!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/
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, 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.
You make poor excuses for your illogical use of the fallacy of false dilemma.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/
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).
Time after time, readers can see that you are guilty of what you accuse others.And yet you refuse to make the simplest corrections.
You simply try to dance around.
Why do you continue to mislead readers by your omission of the Leon Palimpsest from your manuscript list?
Oh Twister Extraordinaire. It is thee who distorteth the sense of my word's, not I.
P.S. I reserve the right to qualify all and any statements and/or posts I make
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.
You do not make corrections when your errors or false allegations are shown to you.If I show you your error, again, will you make the correction?
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.Nothing was ignored.
Again, I suggest you read the material from John Chapman.
Great post!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.