The Epistle to the Laodiceans and "Jerome’s" prologue

Shoonra said:
I honestly don't think that the 'author' of the Epistle to the Laodiceans was particularly "crafty, skillful. [or] deceptive". His forgery is rather dull and unimaginative and there's little evidence that he deceived many people. If not for the fact that Colossians mentions a letter from Laodicea, this forgery would not have gotten any traction at all.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact it's included in the oldest copy of Jerome's Vulgate, the Codex Fuldensis. Considering to that Jerome himself said it was to be universally rejected.

And, there appears to be NO (and I could be wrong) indications in the manuscript itself (the Codex Fuldensis) that the copyist himself, or Victor Caupa, thought that "the Epistle to the Laodiceans" was a forgery.
 
Shoonra said:
I am sorry. I was just so eager to participate in a thread that wasn't about the Johannine Comma.
Click to expand...

No need to apologise. Your point was valuable. It is a lame excuse for a work of Jerome. It doesn't reflect his personality and style of writing at all.

Yet. It made it into a copy of Jerome's Bible (apparently) unchallenged in the 6th century A.D.
 
Shoonra, TNC switched the discussion to Jerome’s Prologue to the canonical epistles.

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
It is a lame excuse for a work of Jerome. It doesn't reflect his personality and style of writing at all. Yet. It made it into a copy of Jerome's Bible (apparently) unchallenged in the 6th century A.D.
Click to expand...

Let’s remember your previous attempt.

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
the author, not knowing the chronology of Jerome’s work and life, says he “just now” (dudum) corrected the Evangelists, and yet addresses only Eustochium. At least twenty-two years previous is not “just now.” This dating contradiction is conclusive.
Click to expand...
 
Steven Avery said:
The liar accusations were totally bogus, and were based on your difficulties in reading comprehension.

Give a full and clear retraction, preferably with a simple apology, and your posts will no longer be unclean.

Integrity first.

You also look silly asking other posters to shill for you.
Click to expand...

1. You are not in any position to be demanding anything. I predict no apology because one isn't warranted.

2. You are not God and you cannot claim that anyone is unclean.

3. If anyone looks silly, it is you. Look at your last 50 posts. If you can't find them, I have them archived.

4. You have no supporters of KJVO nonsense.
 
Unbound68 said:
Asked several times of Avery, but avoided like the plague:

Do you accept Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Laodiceans?
Click to expand...

I have experience with this issue from discussions with Mormons, who try to argue that the Bible is incomplete, missing "many plain and precious parts", which they include the epistle to the Laodiceans as an example.

It seems to come from this verse:

Col. 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

The problem is that this does not mention any "letter TO the Laodiceans". It mentions a letter (unidentified) which they are to get FROM the Laodicean church.

If you look at a Bible map, you will see that Ephesus, Laodicea, and Colossae are all lined up, with Laodicea in the middle. Paul instructed that his letters be circulated among the churches, and so it makes sense to tell the Colossians to send their Letter to Laodicea. And the letter they received from Laodicea would likely be the one they received from Ephesus, namely the book we know as "Ephesians".
 
Theo1689 said:
I have experience with this issue from discussions with Mormons, who try to argue that the Bible is incomplete, missing "many plain and precious parts", which they include the epistle to the Laodiceans as an example.

It seems to come from this verse:

Col. 4:16 And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea.

The problem is that this does not mention any "letter TO the Laodiceans". It mentions a letter (unidentified) which they are to get FROM the Laodicean church.

If you look at a Bible map, you will see that Ephesus, Laodicea, and Colossae are all lined up, with Laodicea in the middle. Paul instructed that his letters be circulated among the churches, and so it makes sense to tell the Colossians to send their Letter to Laodicea. And the letter they received from Laodicea would likely be the one they received from Ephesus, namely the book we know as "Ephesians".
Click to expand...
Yup. I don't doubt it. I've only been hounding Avery about it because he has a double standard when it comes to his belief that Jerome authored the prologue to the Catholic Epistles.

He argues that it appears in the 6th century manuscript Fuldensis, wherein "Jerome" talks about the Comma being "dropped," and from that Avery says Jerome had Greek mss with the Comma, even though Fuldensis lacks it.

He argues that "Jerome" wrote the prologue in the 1st person.

So, using Avery's own argumentation, he either has to declare Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Laodiceans or give up Jerome authorship of the Prologue.

The Epistle to the Laodiceans is written in the first person.

It appears in 6th century Fuldensis.

It made its way into Latin, German, and English Bibles for over a millennium.


Furthermore, Jerome rejected the Epistle to the Laodiceans, yet it appears in Fuldensis with the prologue, supposedly written by him.

Avery cannot afford to deal with the Epistle to the Laodiceans honestly because he believes the Comma is genuine, and that errant belief is derived from his errant belief in one pure and perfect Bible.

No Comma, no KJVOism.
 
Last edited:
And seeing that Avery has now agreed with shoonra that the Epistle to the Laodiceans is a forgery, and that the forger need not have been "crafty," "skillful," or "deceptive," will he now admit the prologue is a forgery, and that it wasn't written by Jerome?

How does Avery explain the fact that Jerome rejected the Epistle to the Laodiceans, yet it appears in Fuldensis with his prologue?

The Epistle made its way into Bibles for over a millennium. So how skillful, crafty and deceptive does Avery think the forger of the prologue really had to be?
 
Last edited:
It is possible that Jerome's prologue to the Fulda ms was originally a separate essay by Jerome which was incorporated into the Fulda ms by its copyists. That might explain why Jerome's words reject the epistle that the Fulda contains.
 
Shoonra said:
It is possible that Jerome's prologue to the Fulda ms was originally a separate essay by Jerome which was incorporated into the Fulda ms by its copyists. That might explain why Jerome's words reject the epistle that the Fulda contains.
Click to expand...
That would be pretending that the prologue was actually written by him, when it was not.
 
Michael Maynard wrote: "Orme (p. 7) says that Father Jean Martianai (1647-1717) 'hath fully proved in his edition of Jerom's version' that the Prologue is not by Jerome, but 'is the work of a forger'" (Historical Defense of 1 John 5:7-8, p. 30).
 
logos1560 said:
Michael Maynard wrote: "Orme (p. 7) says that Father Jean Martianai (1647-1717) 'hath fully proved in his edition of Jerom's version' that the Prologue is not by Jerome, but 'is the work of a forger'" (Historical Defense of 1 John 5:7-8, p. 30).
Click to expand...

You could at least quote Michael Maynard’s 1995 hard-cover edition rather than a draft from years earlier.

He has a good section on the Prologue by William Sirlets (1514-1585).
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
You could at least quote Michael Maynard’s 1995 hard-cover edition rather than a draft from years earlier.
Click to expand...
How could I quote Maynard's 1995 hard-cover edition when I do not have it and have never seen a copy of it? I ordered a copy of it many years ago, but I never received it and later my check was returned. The 1995 edition is supposedly out of print, and the author was a librarian who has passed away. If you or another KJV-only advocates would send me a copy of that 1995 edition, I would read it.

The only copy that I could recently obtain was this uncorrected 1991 draft copy being printed by Waite's The Bible for Today.
 
Last edited:
logos1560 said:
How could I quote Maynard's 1995 hard-cover edition when I do not have it and have never seen a copy of it? I ordered a copy of it many years ago, but I never received it and later my check was returned. The 1995 edition is supposedly out of print, and the author was a librarian who has passed away. If you or another KJV-only advocates would send me a copy of that 1995 edition, I would read it.

The only copy that I could recently obtain was this uncorrected 1991 draft copy being printed by Waite's The Bible for Today.
Click to expand...
I've actually been trying to find a copy myself that isn't gonna cost me hundreds of dollars.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top