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

[Steven Avery]

You can't dismiss 10 years of research as "inferior".

If it adds anything to our studies, I will be happy to use the info.

Seems to be mostly about various Prologues and Prefaces, not the question of Jerome authorship of the Vulgate.
Maybe they will have interesting info on Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.

 

[cjab]

If it adds anything to our studies, I will be happy to use the info.

Seems to be mostly about various Prologues and Prefaces, not the question of Jerome authorship of the Vulgate.
Maybe they will have interesting info on Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.

May be. I guess you won't ever know unless someone tells you.

T HIS intricate volume, edited by Aline Canellis, professor of
Latin at the Universite ́ Jean Monnet, Saint- Etienne, brings to-
gether more than 20 short texts with which Jerome prefaced his
famous Bible translation, the Vulgate. They were transmitted to-
gether with the biblical texts throughout the Middle Ages and
were still included in the authoritative edition of the Vulgate pro-
mulgated by the Council of Trent in 1546. For more than ten
years, between 2007 and the publication of this volume in 2017,
they were the subject of intense study by a monthly seminar held
in Paris. The volume is in many respects a product of the work of
that seminar. In her foreword the editor dedicates the volume to
the founder and for many years convenor of the seminar, Yves-
Marie Duval, who sadly passed away in March 2007, and
acknowledges the contribution of the many colleagues who have
since participated, chiefly with work on the biblical prefaces, and
who are, as a consequence, contributors to the volume (that is to
the volume as a whole, not just to parts of it). Fifteen of them are
listed: Agnes Bastit, Carole Buchara, Re ́gis Courtray, Michel
Cozic, Beno^ıt Gain, Jean-Louis Gourdain, Pierre Jay, Beno^ıt
Jeanjean, Patrick Laurence, Laurence Mellerin, Marc Milhau,
Beno^ıt Mounier, Francesco Pieri, Clive Sweeting, and Delphine
Viellard. In addition, the foreword acknowledges the input of
Jacques Trublet, Pierre-Maurice Bogaert, Pierre Petitmengin,
and Gilles Dorival. The volume is divided between 300 pages of
introduction about about 220 pages of text and translation. Lists
of abbreviations and bibliographies of sources and secondary lit-
erature (pp. 15–50) are followed by chapters on the history of the
Bible (especially the Septuagint and Old Latin) before Jerome
(pp. 51–76), Jerome’s undertaking of learning the biblical lan-
guages and translating the Old Testament from the Hebrew
(pp. 77–156), Jerome’s method of translation (pp. 157–64), the
practice of writing prefaces and the possible intended readership
of those prefaces (pp. 165–201), the phenomenon of inauthentic
prefaces (pp. 201–11), the history of the Vulgate text from the
Carolingian era to the Council of Trent (pp. 212–25), the present
tradition (pp. 226–46), and bibliography relating to the edition
(pp. 247–300). The Latin text of the prefaces is taken from the
current Vulgate edition by Weber and others (Biblia sacra iuxta
vulgatam versionem, 5th edn. [Stuttgart, 2007]), and the modern
French translation is supplemented by copious notes and explana-
tions. Three texts which are not by Jerome but included in the
Stuttgart edition are printed in an appendix (pp. 484–511). These
are the prologue to Sirach (to which a Greek version is added),
the prologue to the Pauline Epistles, and Eusebius’s Letter to
Carpianus in both the original Greek and in Jerome’s Latin trans-
lation. This last text is also elucidated by a complementary note
and two coloured facsimile prints illustrating the Eusebian canon
tables as found in a medieval manuscript held in Lyon,
Bibliotheque municipale, MS 431 (9th c., after 835), fols. 7v
and 13r
.
The combination of a reliable critical text, excellent new trans-
lations, critical notes, and introduction with up-to-date bibliogra-
phies, many useful tables (e.g. pp. 97–8 on the chronology of the
prefaces, pp. 110–17 and 199–200 on the chronology of Jerome’s
translation efforts as reflected in his correspondence, or p. 179 on
excerpts of prefaces as cited in Contra Rufinum), and several
indexes and similar features makes this volume an excellent work-
ing tool for anyone who wants to study Jerome’s oeuvre more
generally or his endeavour to translate the Bible more specifically.
Students of patristic exegesis too will find it useful. It is thus not
only another volume in the priceless series Sources chre ́tiennes
but can also be seen and experienced as a valuable achievement in
Jerome scholarship in its own right.

 

[Steven Avery]

The book does not seem to cover the issues that are of concern for the studies of the heavenly witnesses:

Jerome's authorship of the Canonical Epistles
Jerome's authorship of the full Vulgate New Testament

Jerome's authorship of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles

(or proposed alternative authors)

 

[logos1560]

If it adds anything to our studies, I will be happy to use the info.

Some of your posts would contradict your statement since you attempt to dismiss and discredit sound information and research that adds to the study of the text of the Latin New Testament.

Houghton's research and study of the text and manuscripts of the Latin New Testament seems to be more extensive, thorough, and up-to-date than that of John Chapman who seemed to focus much of his study on the prologues. Your inconsistent, non-scholarly, KJV-only-biased opinions do not determine which information adds to this study. You have not answered nor refuted Houghton's honest conclusions based on actual examination of the evidence.

H. A. G. Houghton wrote: "Jerome was only responsible for the Gospels and even he seems to have made fewer alternations in the latter half of his work" (The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts, p. x).

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).

 

[Steven Avery]

dup

 

[Steven Avery]

Some of your posts would contradict your statement since you attempt to dismiss and discredit sound information and research that adds to the study of the text of the Latin New Testament.

Houghton's research and study of the text and manuscripts of the Latin New Testament seems to be more extensive, thorough, and up-to-date than that of John Chapman who seemed to focus much of his study on the prologues. Your inconsistent, non-scholarly, KJV-only-biased opinions do not determine which information adds to this study. You have not answered nor refuted Houghton's honest conclusions based on actual examination of the evidence. (SA: the last two sentences are the blah-blah)

You are not even paying attention.
So your blah-blah is embarrassing.

The 1908 work from John Chapman focused on the prologues.
You brought it up, and I responded.

The 1922-23 section from John Chapman is focused on the authorship of the Vulgate, and answered in depth the types of objections mentioned by Hugh Houghton (who gave no detail, while John Chapman looks at the specifics in depth).

Try going over the three sections from John Chapman, which were extensively quoted in earlier posts.

Note also that the Hugh Houghton words about the authorship of the Vulgate are tentative and equivocal. He placed the John Chapman section in his bibliography and my conjecture is that he did look it over and was aware that it makes a powerful case for Jerome authoring the full Vulgate.

This is even without the elephant in the living room, the fact that Jerome's Vulgate Prologue is a strong confirmation of his authorship of the canonical epistles. There is nobody known who is remotely a decent candidate for the skilled and cunning and crafty downright forger, with connections and lots of Vulgate textual clout (in order to get his forgery inserted into the Vulgate line.)

Journal of Theological Studies (1922)
St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
John Chapman
https://books.google.com/books?id=snETAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA33
p. 33-51
p. 113-125
p. 282-299

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.

Journal of Theological Studies (1922)
St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
John Chapman
https://books.google.com/books?id=snETAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA33

The question whether St Jerome is the author of the whole Vulgate New Testament, or only of the Gospels, has been much debated, and ought to be settled, if possible, as it is a matter of great practical importance for the editing of the Vulgate, and its elucidation touches a large number of interesting points.

The history of the debate is not worth recording here. Richard Simon’s arguments are as good as any which have been put forward since his day.1 Recently, Wordsworth and White have pronounced in favour of St Jerome as reviser of the Acts, Epistles, and Apocalypse. So also Mangenot. Lagrange has taken the opposite view, and a very elaborate study by Père Cavallera has claimed to decide the question in the same sense, while Dom De Bruyne has attributed the Vulgate St Paul to Pelagius. This last hypothesis need not be dealt with here. I hope to shew in the Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique that Pelagius was no textual critic, knew no Greek, and commented on an Old-Latin text, which he never attempted to improve. He has no point of contact with the Vulgate. I hold with Wordsworth and White that the whole Vulgate is St Jerome’s work.

1 Dom De Bruyne (Revut bibl. Oct. 1915) enumerates, as the earlier doubters on the subject, Erasmus, Faber Stapulensis, Pithocus, and Zegers. He has reproduced the arguments of the last of these.

This is the beginning of the John Chapman section.

Here is a section where John Chapman astutely discusses one of the proposed alternate translators for the Vulgate, Pelagius.

Journal of Theological Studies (1923)
John Chapman
https://books.google.com/books?id=snETAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA283

I am assuming already that St Jerome revised the whole New Testament. It is time to give the proofs. They are of overwhelming
strength.

The data are simple enough :

1. The ‘Vulgate’ New Testament is a revision of the whole New Testament—Gospels, Acts, St Paul, Catholic Epistles, Apocalypse—which has come down to us in an incomparably vast number of manuscripts. It was, in all these five portions, a revision of versions which existed before it in considerable variety. Its own varieties are due mainly to the infiltration of older readings. It is as definite a text as the Vulgate Old Testament.
....
Consequently, were it proved up to the hilt that Pelagius was all that he was not—a great textual scholar, a Hellenist, an explorer of manuscripts, a student of readings, a critic of Latin renderings—that his commentary’ (published before 410) was upon a pure Vulgate text—that Prologues, certainly by him, were prefixed to all Vulgate MSS of St Paul—one would still hesitate before admitting that the revision of the Apostle was due to him. For the question would arise : Who revised Acts? Who revised the Catholic Epistles? It would be difficult enough to have accepted Pelagius and St Jerome as authors each of a part. But that three or more authors, working on the same lines, with the same methods, revising according to the same type of Greek MSS, should have produced three or more homogeneous revisions of three or more divisions of the New Testament, and that these three ot more portions should have become the homogeneous whole which we know, and should have come down to us in one great tradition—this would be so improbable a priori, that one would have been inclined to put aside the most convincing proofs about Pelagius until something could be discovered as to the reviser of Acts and the rest, and some hypothesis (at least) could be suggested to account for the union of the parts in one dominant whole, which conquered and utterly destroyed all pre-existing versions.

But Pelagius is fortunately out of the question. There is no other claimant for St Paul; there is no claimant at all for the other portions, —except, of course, St Jerome.

It is admitted that the Gospels are by St Jerome. We are perfectly free to attribute the whole of the homogeneous revision to the same reviser. It is the obvious thing to do. I believe I have removed the only objections that could be raised.

5. Tradition is unanimous. Until the few rather hasty modem critics, not a voice was ever raised to suggest that St Jerome did not revise the whole New Testament. The victorious career of the Vulgate is entirely due to the fact that it was universally believed in early times to be a revision carried out by the most learned of Western Doctors at the bidding of Pope Damasus. It is true that the Old Latin did not immediately expire, and that St Gregory the Great at the very end of the sixth century declared that the Roman Church used the old version as well as the new. In theory, yes. But even from St Jerome’s time onwards, pure Old Latin is not often to be found for the N. T. We have Vulgate, impure Vulgate, and mixed Old Latin and Vulgate, but no longer a rival Old Latin. The Vulgate triumphs early, and eventually triumphs completely.

6. And behind this tradition we have absolutely definite and categorical statements by St Jerome himself, that he revised the whole New
'Testament.

p. 282-285

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Anyone could read through the other Prologues and put together something like the Canonical one, easily. And they could plagerise stuff from the correspondence between Jerome and Augustine, along with drawing on Jerome's countless other Epistles.The language in both literary corpuses contain similar phrases and idea's found in the CE-Prologue. There was no shortage of materials to draw from. Copies of his works were abundant and multiplied greatly after his death. Rufinus in his Apology against Jerome complains, in effect, that Jerome was spamming the Christian world with copies of both his Bible and accompanying letters recommending his version to whomever he sent a copy to.

It's not anywhere as hard as you make it out to be. You want to make it seem harder than really is because of your KJVO and Sabellian vested interests in this debate (not to mention your shameless craving for vainglory). It's only your own stunted and limited imagination that makes it SEEM a difficult task.

 

[logos1560]

There is nobody known who is remotely a decent candidate for the skilled and cunning and crafty downright forger, with connections and lots of Vulgate textual clout (in order to get his forgery inserted into the Vulgate line.)

It is a red herring to suggest that the actual person who wrote the prologue to the Catholic Epistles has to be identified. The person who counterfeits money does not have to be named and identified for the money to be identified as counterfeit.

It did not take anyone that cunning and crafty to borrow from Jerome's own writings such as his prologue to the Minor Prophets and to borrow from the prologue of Priscillian.

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" (Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, 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).

Verifiable facts also demonstrate that it was not that difficult for things to get inserted into the Latin Vulgate line as the example of the Epistle to the Laodiceans demonstrates. Things were also inserted into other prologues in copies of the Latin Vulgate, and readings from the Old Latin were also sometimes inserted.

 

[logos1560]

Anyone could read through the other Prologues and put together something like the Canonical one, easily. And they could plagerise stuff from the correspondence between Jerome and Augustine, along with drawing on Jerome's countless other Epistles.The language in both literary corpuses contain similar phrases and idea's found in the CE-Prologue. There was no shortage of materials to draw from. Copies of his works were abundant and multiplied greatly after his death. Rufinus in his Apology against Jerome complains, in effect, that Jerome was spamming the Christian world with copies of both his Bible and accompanying letters recommending his version to whomever he sent a copy to.

Another poster also clearly points out how it was not that complicated and difficult for someone to borrow from Jerome's own writings to make a prologue to the Catholic Epistles..

 

[Steven Avery]

H. A. G. Houghton wrote: "Jerome was only responsible for the Gospels and even he seems to have made fewer alternations in the latter half of his work" (The Latin New Testament: A Guide to its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts, p. x).

What do you see as the significance of this quote-snippet?

 

[Steven Avery]

Anyone could read through the other Prologues and put together something like the Canonical one, easily. And they could plagerise stuff from the correspondence between Jerome and Augustine, along with drawing on Jerome's countless other Epistles.The language in both literary corpuses contain similar phrases and idea's found in the CE-Prologue. There was no shortage of materials to draw from. Copies of his works were abundant and multiplied greatly after his death. Rufinus in his Apology against Jerome complains, in effect, that Jerome was spamming the Christian world with copies of both his Bible and accompanying letters recommending his version to whomever he sent a copy to.

It's not anywhere as hard as you make it out to be. You want to make it seem harder than really is because of your KJVO and Sabellian vested interests in this debate (not to mention your shameless craving for vainglory). It's only your own stunted and limited imagination that makes it SEEM a difficult task.

It is good to see you agree as to the basic dichotomy:

1) Jerome
2) a knowledgeable, skillful, clever and deceptive forger

Plus the forger would need textual clout to insert his scoundrel writing into the Vulgate text-line. It would definitely help if he was a translator or was someone like Victor of Capra, but he must be dishonest.

Do you place him as the author-translator of the Vulgate Canonical Epistles?
Do you have a why?
How about a who? When? Where?

There have been scholarship attempts to try to identify the theorized scoundrel and they were total failures.

Ockham offers the much simpler alternative - Jerome wrote his first-person Prologue when he was translating the Canonical Epistles. And his words were truthful and accurate.

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

Your snarky, gratuitous personal insults are reported.

It looks like your counter to avoid being honest about the Leon Palimpsest missing in your manuscript list. A unique darkness descends.

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

 

[cjab]

Plus the forger would need textual clout to insert his scoundrel writing into the Vulgate text-line.

I think you're over-egging it. There was hardly a central authority for the Vulgate. There was no authority. It was only a gradual process by which Jerome's version came to predominate. Even today the Vatican’s NT "vulgate" remains in a state of flux.

The Vatican’s Vulgate never was

It is a sign of our times that theological scholarship, as far as the use of Holy texts goes, has drifted away almost completely from the worship traditions that the Church, both in East and West, …

zuiddam.wordpress.com

Add to this the political chaos arising from sundry gothic invasions in the 5th century. The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts anything of any particular author to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.

 

[Steven Avery]

Add to this the political chaos arising from sundry gothic invasions in the 5th century. The burden of proof is on anyone who asserts anything of any particular author to prove it. The burden of proof is on you.

The burden of proof is on those who claim a forgery when the 1st-person author makes perfect sense.
(See Ockham above.)

Same as with 2 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles and other 1st-person writings that “scholars” in the Academy claim as forgeries.

 

[cjab]

The burden of proof is on those who claim a forgery when the 1st-person author makes perfect sense.
(See Ockham above.)

Same as with 2 Peter, the Pastoral Epistles and other 1st-person writings that “scholars” in the Academy claim as forgeries.

From the above article,

"For outsiders this resembles the Bill Clinton approach: “because he could”. Original sin, exclusive power and opportunity."

and

"Unbelievably, for the New Testaments readings there often isn’t one Latin manuscript to support the Vatican’s Vulgate, but the editors give their own Latin for what they suppose the original Greek text must have looked like. And claim, together with the Vatican, that this should be regarded as the Vulgate text!"

If these epitomize the tradition of the Vulgate NT, then who's to say who was doing what back in the 5th century AD and afterwards, after the death of Jerome September 30, A.D. 420? Who appointed him the authority? What is your contemporary evidence?

 

[Steven Avery]

From the above article,

The article is from a pro-Vulgate perspective, looking at the ultra-corrupt Nova Vulgata. The NV is a modern textual criticism corruption, using the Westcott-Hort recension, like you have on the NIV, ESV, NAS, etc.

The late Nazaroo had a good summary of the Nova Vulgate, using Ron Conte's info.

Even Roman Catholic Scholars are dumping the UBS text
http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/06/even-roman-catholic-scholars-are.html

 

[logos1560]

Anybody familiar with Jerome and his writings would identify his authorship.

Would you likewise claim that anybody familiar with the Apostle Paul and his writings would identify his authorship of the Epistle to the Laodiceans as found in Latin Codex Fuldensis? You fail to apply your reasoning consistently. Your statement does not prove what you seem to assume that it supposedly does.

First person statements borrowed or imitated from Jerome's prologue to the Minor Prophets and other of his writings does not prove that Jerome wrote the prologue to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis.

 

[logos1560]

The 1922-23 section from John Chapman is focused on the authorship of the Vulgate, and answered in depth the types of objections mentioned by Hugh Houghton (who gave no detail, while John Chapman looks at the specifics in depth).

Earlier in this thread you were already given some detail (Gal. 5:9, 1 Cor. 5:6) mentioned by Houghton that you have dodged and avoided, and you provide no quotations from John Chapman that shows that he answered in depth these examples.

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]

Would you likewise claim that anybody familiar with the Apostle Paul and his writings would identify his authorship of the Epistle to the Laodiceans as found in Latin Codex Fuldensis? You fail to apply your reasoning consistently. Your statement does not prove what you seem to assume that it supposedly does. First person statements borrowed or imitated from Jerome's prologue to the Minor Prophets and other of his writings does not prove that Jerome wrote the prologue to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis.

There are a number of compelling factors that support concluding that the Epistle to the Laodecians that we have today is not a Pauline writing.

Just to give one, the text that exists in Codex Fuldensis would have had a time gap from c. AD 60 to AD 546. If it was authentic, you would expect it to have had specific copying and frequent mentions including some text in the intervening period.

The distinction actually helps demonstrate by comparison the authenticity of Jerome's Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. Jerome's Vulgate Prologue is in our very first extant Vulgate edition.

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery said:


The 1922-23 section from John Chapman is focused on the authorship of the Vulgate, and answered in depth the types of objections mentioned by Hugh Houghton (who gave no detail, while John Chapman looks at the specifics in depth).

Try going over the three sections from John Chapman, which were extensively quoted in earlier posts.
....

Journal of Theological Studies (1922)
St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
John Chapman
https://books.google.com/books?id=snETAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA33
p. 33-51
p. 113-125
p. 282-299

logos1560 said:


Earlier in this thread you were already given some detail (Gal. 5:9, 1 Cor. 5:6) mentioned by Houghton that you have dodged and avoided, and you provide no quotations from John Chapman that shows that he answered in depth these examples.

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).

You really should look at John Chapman before putting in quote-snippets:

Journal of Theological Studies, Volumes 23-24 (1922-23)
St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
Galatians 5:9 and 1 Corinthians 5:6
https://books.google.com/books?id=snETAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA45

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

dup

See this here people. This is Avery calling you a "DUP[E]".