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

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.

We'll done. He's been misrepresenting so many people. Good post.
 
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).




Cyprian of Carthage

De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate

Chapter 6

Henry Thomas Armfeild, 1883.


“The Lord saith, 'I and the Father are One;' and again of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost it is written, 'and these three are One.' And does any one believe that this unity, proceeding from the divine immutability, cohering by heavenly mysteries, can be rent in the Church, and separated by the divorce of contending wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation."​
 
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).

We are mixing issues.
John Chapman had the normal textcrit nonsense approach on the issue of Cyprian and the heavenly witnesses.

Yet even Scrivener, a fierce opponent of authenticity, said in all his editions of Plain Introduction (1861 to 1894):

Plain Introduction (1861)
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=6pOl5kos2O0C&pg=PA461

"it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read v. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on v. 8 a spiritual meaning"

And Henry Thomas Armstrong and Franz Pieper express this in a far more forceful manner, as part of their verse authenticity positions.

The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield
http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/104/mode/2up

—tho truth (so we are to believe) of a certain mystical interpretation which he has not given or alluded to

The Armfield section I believe remains today the best study of the Cyprian two references, Unity of the Church and Ad Jubaianum, along with the related Tertullian reference in Against Praxeas. Plus discussion of how the Latin of Tertullian was corrected by Greek copies. On p. 137 Armfield points out that the mystical interpretation began 150 years later, with Augustine, and I would add that it was formed because of the historical inclusion of the heavenly witnesses.

And the Cyprian mystical theory must rely on the absurd nonsense of his expressing an invisible allegory.

===========================

Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931) is an example of clear thinking from 20th-century scholarship. For the Lutheran scholar Pieper the Cyprian citation is a key element leading to his acceptance of authenticity. Pieper disagrees with the Karl Ströbel claim (and all the hortians) that the old codices must be the judge in textual criticism, instead Pieper says:

"a quotation from the Fathers is often of decisive importance"
(Christian Dogmatics, 1950, p. 241, trans. from German ed. c. 1920.)

Francis Pieper wrote emphasizing the antiquity and significance of the Cyprian reference.

"In our opinion the decision as to the authenticity or the spuriousness of these words depends on the understanding of certain words of Cyprian (p. 340)... Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds:

‘Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: “Et tres unum sunt”’ (“and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: 'And the Three are One’”)

Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. "The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one,’ but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.” p.341 (1950 English edition).

Amen. Sometimes simple words are so clear.
"Cyprian states distinctly ... That will hardly do... the objective facts".
?


===========================

Afawk, John Chapman did not do any special studies on the heavenly witnesses, so his comment here is really of no relevance. Other than to show the normal textcrit indoctrination on the issue, very common after the publishing of the corrupt Westcott-Hort recension text..
 
Last edited:
In his preface, John Chapman wrote: "The idea struck me that Priscillian must be the author of the Monarchian Prologues" (Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, p. iii).

John Chapman wrote: "It was necessary to determine how such heretical documents managed to attach themselves to the Vulgate of St. Jerome" (p. iii).

John Chapman wrote: "The heresy of Priscillian--Monarchianism, Panchristian, Apollinarianism--is accurately given in the Prologues" (pp. 250-251).

One of his chapter headings was "Later manipulation of the prologues of Priscillian" (Chapter XIV in Table of Contents).

John Chapman's studies suggested that the prologues in Latin Vulgate manuscripts had been manipulated, altered, or changed.

John Chapman wrote: "In this Prologue [to the Catholic Epistles], Pseudo-Jerome must either have used a Spanish Bible [referring to a Latin Bible copied in Spain], or here utilized a previous Prologue by Priscillian" (p. 264) and then he explained why he considered the later or second option the correct one.
 
John Chapman wrote: "It was from the first Epistle of St. John that Priscillian took the main texts for his Apollinarianism and Monarchianism" (Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, p. 262).

John Chapman wrote: "That [prologue] to the Epistles is by a downright forger, probably a different person. He not only speaks in the name of St. Jerome, but he addresses Eustuchium; his first sentence is modelled on St. Jerome's Prologue to the Minor Prophets" (p. 266).

John Chapman added: "His last paragraph is a clever imitation of St. Jerome's repeated complaints of the enemies who attack his old age, on account of his new translations" (p. 266).

John Chapman claimed: "The Pseudo-Jerome may be the author of the correction of the Prologue to John" (p. 266).
 
Afawk, John Chapman did not do any special studies on the heavenly witnesses, so his comment here is really of no relevance.
LOL!!!!!

Avery tells poster to read Chapman for himself, then tells poster what Chapman wrote is "really of no relevance!"

As I said, another Maurice Robinson moment for our scholar-wanna-be, who is always so quick to invoke the names of men whom he thinks are with him, but in reality are against his position.
 
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).

There is much that we can discuss in this section, and also combine his 1922-23 writing for a fuller analysis.

Let's first show how Chapman de facto confirms the true dichotomy, Jerome or a crafty forgery. Note that it is hard for Chapman to accept Jerome as the author, probably because of the heavenly witnesses section (when that occurs, it is circular reasonsing.)

The Prologue ... to the Epistles is by a downright forger, probably a different person. He not only speaks in the name of St Jerome, but he addresses Eustochium; his first sentence is modelled on St. Jerome’s Prologue to the Minor Prophets : 'Non idem ordo est duodecim prophetarum apud Hebraeos qui est apud nos.’ His last paragraph is a clever imitation of St. Jerome’s repeated complaints of the enemies who attack his old age, on account of his new translations.

All this makes perfect sense if Jerome is the author.

So the author must be:

1) Jerome or
2) a crafty, cunning, deceitful forger with clout.

And the attempts to pin this on an identifiable forger have been total failures.

Rick Norris had a hard time with this true dichotomy.
 
In his preface, John Chapman wrote: "The idea struck me that Priscillian must be the author of the Monarchian Prologues" (Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, p. iii).

Do you see these Old Latin Prologues as connected to the Vulgate Prologues?

You have a number of quote-snippets on this topic.
Are you aware that they have no textual relationship to the Vulgate Prologues?

Note: The Priscillian identification for those Prologues is quite tentative. The Monarchian Prologues are said at times to have been built on the Anti-Marcionite Prologues.

The Anti-Marcionite Prologues (1946)
Engelbert Gutwenger

Quite contrary to De Bruyne’s theory, there are several indications that the anti-Marcionite prologue is based on the Monarchian one.

This is an interesting area of study, but far removed from the Vulgate Prologues.
 
Last edited:
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).

This shows you the complexity of trying to find the “downright forger.” Here we had an unknown, phantom Priscillian prologue that has the heavenly witnesses and was plagiarized and modified, before adding the forgery touches to pretend to be Jerome. Wow. And then the brilliant scoundrel has the clout to get it into the Vulgate line!

Ockham has a much simpler explanation - written by Jerome!
 
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).

Houghton wrote: "There is a noticeable difference in translation technique between the Gospels and the other writings: while Jerome introduces various forms for which no basis can be discerned in Greek, almost all of the innovations in the Vulgate of the other books represent Greek readings. What is more, the alterations made to Acts and the Catholic Epistles appear to reflect a Greek text similar to that of the early majuscule manuscripts rather than the later Greek text used by Jerome in the Gospels" (p. 41).

Houghton noted: "The earliest evidence for the text of the first thirteen Pauline Epistles as found in the Vulgate is generally held to be the commentary by Pelagius composed in Rome between 406 and 410" (p. 39).

Houghton concluded: "The safest approach is to admit that the reviser of the books other than the Gospels in the Vulgate New Testament remains unknown, although the work appears to have been carried out in Rome after 393 (the quotation from HI ill 5 in the prologue) and before 410 (the latest date for Pelagius' commentary) (p. 41).

This is the question where John Chapman shines. When I return home later in the day, I plan to show you more information on Jerome as the author of the full Vulgate text, taken mostly from Chapman’s 1922-23 articles referenced earlier.

The third quote we can bypass, as Pelagius the British monk can use the Vulgate text whomever the author. The significance is to give us a terminus ante quem for the text, which fits well with Jerome authorship.

Other than the circularity argument (Jerome could not have the heavenly witnesses in his text) the only significant attempt to dispute Jerome’s authorship is to claim he did not write the Prologue because somebody unknown translated the Canonical Epistles. This is a rather new attempt, and given rather tentatively by Hugh Houghton. The earlier attempt focused on the lateness of the Prologue in extant manuscripts. It was thought that the earliest text was c. AD 800, and this argument was discarded when Ranke published Codex Fuldensis c. AD 1850.

So we will address this one remaining attempt. Ironically, since no forger is ever identified, the Vulgate Prologue with its accurate first-person elements, must be considered as a powerful evidence that Jerome was the author/translator of the Canonical Epistles.

In fact, I believe the circularity issue (otherwise we have the destruction of textual criticism’s supposedly most assured conclusion) is a main trigger for the tepid attempts to have a forgery author who is not Jerome.

When it is understood that modern pseudo-scientific textual criticism blunders even on the heavenly witnesses, is there anything that remains from the crumbling edifice of the Westcott-Hort recension?
 
Last edited:
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).


Cyprian of Carthage
De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate, Chapter 6
Henry Thomas Armfeild, 1883.


“The Lord saith, 'I and the Father are One;' and again of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost it is written, 'and these three are One.' And does any one believe that this unity, proceeding from the divine immutability, cohering by heavenly mysteries, can be rent in the Church, and separated by the divorce of contending wills? He who does not hold this unity does not hold the law of God, does not hold the faith of the Father and the Son, does not hold life and salvation."

Origen of Alexandria
Commentary On Matthew,” Book 2, Section 45, (commenting on Matthew 17:8)

“For I suppose that the law of Moses, and the prophecy of Elijah, has become one with the Gospel of Jesus, and so these did not remain as three, as they had been formerly, but instead they became “these three agree as to the one thing” [1 John 5:8(C) GNT].” But you will need to think these things out as [you follow along] with me, as to there relation to mystical matters. For in regards to the literal [Lit., “naked/bare” Or: “plain” “simple”] meaning of the text...”

Milan, Biblioteca Ambrosiana ms I 101 sup., (circa. 8th century A.D./C.E.)
Expositio Fidei Catholicae.


"We believe that there exists one God that must be believed in, which conforms to Scripture, but definitely not as a solitary being as either the Jews or the heretics [believe], but rather in the mystery of the Trinity, that is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, three persons, yet not three gods..."

Cassiodorus
“Complexiones in the Epistles of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. John, Acts of the Apostles.”
Prologue


“We have taken care to divide the Apocalypse into thirty-three chapters, matching the Lord Christ’s lifetime. In thirty-three, thirty symbolizes the lofty summit of heaven, and joined to it is the perfection, which we ought to worship, of the Holy Trinity. It is a difficult task to attempt a summary of things that are said in an obscure manner, since we usually need to expand on things that we wish to explain.”

Cassiodorus
“Complexiones in the Epistles of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. John, at Parthos.”
Chapter 10


“To which legal matter is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which in the suffering of the Lord, we are to read [Or: “which we interpret”] as having a fulfillment, whereas in heaven, as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, “and these three” persons are the one God.”​


LOL!!!!!

Avery tells poster to read Chapman for himself, then tells poster what Chapman wrote is "really of no relevance!"

As I said, another Maurice Robinson moment for our scholar-wanna-be, who is always so quick to invoke the names of men whom he thinks are with him, but in reality are against his position.

So true. He can't get away with it, it always catches up with him.
 
Last edited:
LOL!!!!!

Avery tells poster to read Chapman for himself, then tells poster what Chapman wrote is "really of no relevance!"

As I said, another Maurice Robinson moment for our scholar-wanna-be, who is always so quick to invoke the names of men whom he thinks are with him, but in reality are against his position.

He's now using his other tactic, spamming the thread, whenever a devastating point is given by the opposition.
 
He's now using his other tactic, spamming the thread, whenever a devastating point is given by the opposition.

Total fabrication.

Rick Norris had placed in a number of quotes from Hugh Houghton and John Chapman. And I am attempting to respond to each quote properly and to point.

The salient issue is Jerome as author of the Vulgate Canonical Epistles and the Prologue thereof.

========

TNC, nothing you write can be taken seriously, since you cannot even acknowledge that the Leon Palimpsest was missing from your ms. list. (I will still respond, on the rare occasions that your writing is substantive.)

Integrity first.
 
Last edited:
H. A. G. Houghton wrote: "The principal evidence for the identity of the translator is the prologue to the Pauline Epistles which begins Primum quaeritur; this includes views concerning Hebrews which run counter to Jerome and was written in Rome by someone at odds with the local community" (The Latin New Testament, p. 41).

There are a couple of quote-snippets from Rick relating to the Pauline Epistles.

1).Quite different from 1John and the Canonical Epistle.

2) Nonetheless, covered excellently by John Chapman.
 
Total fabrication.

Rick Norris had placed in a number of quotes from Hugh Houghton and John Chapman. And I am attempting to respond to each quote properly and to point.

The salient issue is Jerome as author of the Vulgate Canonical Epistles and the Prologue thereof.

========

TNC, nothing you write can be taken seriously, since you cannot even acknowledge that the Leon Palimpsest was missing from your ms. list.

Integrity first.

Do you have any manuscripts of the Prologue that you have collated, that show "COMMITTENTES" was not the original reading?

Oh I forgot, you don't work at "a manuscript level". So, no.

The tampering of this word "committentes" follows the same pattern of tampering as the Comma.
 
There are couple of quotes relating to the Pauline Epistles.

1). Quite different from 1John and the Canonical Epistle.

2) Nonetheless, covered excellently by John Chapman.

Do you have any Vulgate Prologue manuscripts which have "Sanctus" (Holy) with "Spiritus" in the clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (the sentence context of talking of the actual "words" of the Comma, not the eisegetical statements about faith and/or belief)?


Canonical Epistles Prologue

Tranlsated by Kevin Edgecome, 2006


"...the variety of words themselves, especially in that place where we read what is put down about the oneness of the Trinity in the First Epistle of John. In which we find many things to be mistaken of the truth of the faith by the unfaithful translators, who put down in their own edition only three words, that is, Water, Blood, and Spirit, and who omit the witness of the Father and Word and Spirit, by which both the Catholic faith is greatly strengthened and also the one substance of the Divinity of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is proved."​
 
Last edited:
From TNC, three much ado about very little.

committentes in the Vulgate Prologue
Spirit or Holy Spirit in the Vulgate Prologue
the word mystery in various places

Generally, your posturing on these three issues will be ignored.
Diversion from the real issues.

There are some others on BVDB.
 
From TNC, three much ado about very little.

committentes in the Vulgate Prologue
Spirit or Holy Spirit in the Vulgate Prologue
the word mystery in various places

Generally, your posturing on these three issues will be ignored.
Diversion from the real issues.

There are some others on BVDB.

It would be misleading to say "Omittentes" is written in the Fuldensis manuscript.

"Committentes" is the real and original reading in that Prologue manuscript.

It would be misleading to say "Sanctus" is written with "Spiritus" in the said clause, in the Fuldensis manuscript.

"Spiritus", not "Spiritus Sanctus" in the said clause, is the real and original reading in that Prologue manuscript.

These are real issues based on real manuscripts, not the fantasy manuscripts of your imagination and Comma conspiracy theories.
 
Back
Top