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

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

1) Jerome
2) a knowledgeable, skillful, clever and deceptive forger
There is no dichotomy. No one but YOU and other KJVOs believe Jerome authored the prologue CE, and only because you need him to explain why the Comma has no attestation in the Greek mss before the 14th century. Without Jerome, your KJV is not "pure."



Plus the forger would need textual clout to insert his scoundrel writing into the Vulgate text-line.
Kind of like the textual clout needed to insert the scoundrel Epistle to the Laodiceans into the Vulgate text-line, which then made its way into Bibles of various languages for over a millennium, including Wycliffe's!




It would definitely help if he was a translator or was someone like Victor of Capra, but he must be dishonest.
Kind of like the guy who willfully sidesteps the evidence that proves:

1. the Comma,
2. the ending to Rev. 17:8 (and yet is),
3. and the phrase in Rev. 16:5 (and shalt be)

were NOT written by a man named JOHN.


Do you place him as the author-translator of the Vulgate Canonical Epistles?
Do you have a why?
How about a who? When? Where?
Doesn't matter. What matters is the evidence proving Jerome was not the author of the prologue-CE ascribed to him, and that there were no Greek mss in his day that had the Comma.

Where are they all? Had there been some Greek mss that Jerome saw with his own eyes that contained the Comma, why weren't ANY of them put aside, saved and preserved? And how is it that no one else went forth with cries of scripture being wiped out?

How is it that the rest of God's word survived the excise-happy hands of those dastardly unfaithful translators?


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.
Therefore Paul wrote his first-person Epistle to the Laodiceans when he was finished writing Colossians. And his words were truthful and accurate.....so much so, that Christians for over a thousand years thought they belonged in the Bible!

Where were the cries that scripture was being dropped, omitted, excised, etc. when Bibles started leaving the Epistle to the Laodiceans OUT?



Your snarky, gratuitous personal insults are reported.
I got a good laugh when I read that. Coming from you, of all people. HA.


It looks like your counter to avoid being honest about the Leon Palimpsest missing in your manuscript list.
You obviously think you're making some earth shattering point here by continually bringing this up....like you've got TNC boxed into a corner or something. You had better read your KJV and pay attention to what it says about pride, haughtiness, and 1 cor 10:12 in particular.



A unique darkness descends.
Oh gawd.
 
"Team Jerome" please tell me you're joking...

Not at all. It is meant with a touch of humor, which flies right by you.

When Team Sinaiticus (Team Simoneidos) met in Saskatchewan a few years back, we had a wonderful time. David Daniels, Chris Pinto, Mark Michie and family and friends and yours truly. Picture on Facebook.

Read about Paula and Eustochium above, and the double monastery In Bethlehem.
 
You have not yet commented on the below. This seem to be the currently espoused theory as adopted by the editors of Wikipedia on the Vulgate as to the identity of the reviser of the Vg Pauline epistles cf.

"Revision of Vetus Latina by Pelagian groups or by Rufinus the Syrian, or by Rufinus of Aquileia (there is some confusion over their identities): Acts, Pauline epistles, Catholic epistles and the Apocalypse"

Nevertheless, reason Frede ("F.") and others engaged in the VL project, the Pelagian text of Paul is so close to that of the Vg that the Vg's Pauline reviser should be sought among the early promoters of Pelagian doctrine. The candidate whom B. Fischer originally and then W Thiele in VL 26 and F. in VL 24.2 and again here (pp. 99, 155) propose as reviser both of the catholic and of the Pauline epistles in the Vg is Rufinus "the Syrian," the person identified by B. Altaner (TQ 130 [1950] 432-49) both as the author of the doctrinally Pelagian Liber de fide (PL 21, 1123-54) and as the really Latin Rufinus who had been with Jerome in Bethlehem (hence his being said to have been provincial Palaestinae or natione syrus) before going to Rome between a.d, 399 and 402.
.
.
Frede ("F.") suspects that all of these textual types except X are derived ultimately from a single Latin translation of the entire Pauline corpus, of which K. and D are two separate but parallel derivatives, with Κ closer to the original (p. 146). He believes that from the "African" K's lost European-Italian line evolved "I", a Roman text discernible already with Novatian, characterized by changes toward what was becoming the standard Christian Latin vocabulary. Earlier "I" readings are often equivalent to those of D; later "I" readings are often equivalent to those of the Vg, F.'s view of the Vg's Pauline corpus as a work which was done once and for all by its reviser but which began to be contaminated with OL readings as soon as its divulgation got under way (already with Pelagius) is retained.




NB: The hypothetical question posed in the review.
With regard to such an identification we may perhaps ask: if we accept both (a) that the Vg reviser of the Pauline corpus was the author of the prologue Primum quaeritur, and (b) the identification of that reviser as Rufinus the Syrian, or even some other promoter of Pelagian doctrine, how are we to explain in Primum quaeritur the presence of the patently anti-Pelagian statement that "the Romans, for the most part, were so uncultivated that they did not understand that they were saved not by their merits but by God's grace"?
is surely misconceived as Pelagius never taught that mankind could be saved without divine grace (doubtless such was the slander of the Augustinians). The difference between the Pelagians and the Augustinians was more subtle, relating to the a priori notions of prevenient grace (Arminianism) / act of regeneration (Calvinism) being prerequiste for faith. This however seems to devolve to a question as to the definition of faith (i.e. not as to the necessity for grace).
 
Last edited:
I enjoyed the review, and mentioned it in post #33.

What do you think of this review by Aelred Cody of Vetus Latina: Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt und herausgegeben von der Erzabtei Beuron. Band 25: Epistulae ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum, Titum, Philemonem, Hebraeos, Pars I: Einleitung; Epistulae ad Thessalonicenses, Timotheum by Hermann Josef Frede?
_____________________

....

In F.'s current reasoning, when he deals with the question of who revised the Pauline corpus to produce its Vg text, the prologue Primum quaeritur, which intro- ducts that corpus in the Vg, is important, F. insists that the author of the prologue Primum quaeritur (text now in Biblia Sacra iuxia Vulgatam versionem [ed. R, Weber ct al.; Stuttgart: WUrttembergische Bibdanstalt, 1969] 2. 1748-49) was himself the Vg reviser of the corpus. He reasons that Jerome cannot be the reviser of the corpus because Jerome (Vir. ill. 5) is very sceptical about the Pauline authorship of Hebrews, while the author of Primum quaeritur accepts and defends Hebrews' Pauline authorship. That reason is not a bad one. although Jerome wrote De viris Illustribus in a.D, 393, and his opinion on the author of Hebrews later became a bit more open to Paul. Perhaps the best argument against his responsibility for the Pauline corpus is still this: several Latin readings in the Pauline epistles for which Jerome himself argued on the basis of a Greek text arc not those of the Vg, while the Vg, readings in those same places, whether peculiar to the Vg or not, are precisely those which Jerome criticized (examples collected by D. de Bruyne, RB n.s. 12 [1915] 363-64). Some may brush that argument aside, however, as J. Chapman did (RHE IS [1922] 469-81; 19 [1923] 25-42; JTS 24 [1923] 33-5J, II3-25, 282-99), by concluding that Jerome vacillated and changed his mind. Pelagius, then? Ε sees the form of the Pauline quotations in the original text of Pclagius* Expositions as one very close to the pure Vg text; but, unlike De Bruyne, he rules out Pelagius as the Vg reviser of the Pauline corpus because Pelagius in his Expositions follows the order Philippians Thessalonians Colossians (instead of the Vg order Philippians Colossians Thessalonians) and entirely omits Hebrews {so strongly defended by the author of Primum quaeritur).

Nevertheless, reason F and others engaged in the VL project, the Pelagian text of Paul is so close to that of the Vg that the Vg's Pauline reviser should be sought among the early promoters of Pelagian doctrine. The candidate whom B. Fischer originally and then W Thiele in VL 26 and Κ in VL 24.2 and again here (pp. 99, 155) propose as reviser both of the catholic and of the Pauline epistles in the Vg is Rufinus "the Syriani.e., the person identified by B. Altaner (TQ 130 [1950] 432-49) both as the author of the doctrinally Pelagian Liber de fide (PL 21, 1123-54) and as the really Latin Rufinus who had been with Jerome in Bethlehem (hence his being said to have been provincial Palaestinae or natione syrus) before going to Rome between a.d, 399 and 402. With regard to such an identification we may perhaps ask: if we accept both (a) that the Vg reviser of the Pauline corpus was the author of the prologue Primum quaeritur, and (b) the identification of that reviser as Rutin us the Syrian, or even some other promoter of Pelagian doctrine, how are we to explain in Primum quaeritur the presence of the patently anti-Pelagian statement that "the Romans, for the most part, were so uncultivated that they did not understand that they were saved not by their merits but by God's grace"?


In the years since F did the introductions and texts in VL 24.1-2, there has been some refinement of his views of the nature and textual history of the different types of OL text and of the Vg, and some modification of his choice of fundamental models for three of his texts. His X text continues to be based on Tertullian, who is not a witness to an OL text actually circulating, because he seems to have made his own rather free translations from a Greek text. ...
We salute F for the high quality of his work.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43717737?seq=1

And I have highlighted a bit.
 
And I have highlighted a bit.
As I highlighted in my last post here the conclusion by more recent researchers is that "the Pelagian text of Paul is so close to that of the Vg that the Vg's Pauline reviser should be sought among the early promoters of Pelagian doctrine." cf "F. sees the form of the Pauline quotations in the original text of Pelagius' Expositions as one very close to the pure Vg text."

What is your comment on these textual researchers? Are they missing something profound?
 
As I highlighted in my last post here the conclusion by more recent researchers is that "the Pelagian text of Paul is so close to that of the Vg that the Vg's Pauline reviser should be sought among the early promoters of Pelagian doctrine." cf "F. sees the form of the Pauline quotations in the original text of Pelagius' Expositions as one very close to the pure Vg text."

What is your comment on these textual researchers? Are they missing something profound?

It is all a stab in the dark, without really responding to the solid historical acceptance and defense of Jerome being the full NT author.

e.g. Even Hugh Houghton was very unimpressed.

The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts (2016)
Hugh Houghton
https://books.google.com/books?id=CXQqCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA41

More recently, the preferred candidate has been a Pelagian known as Rufinus the Syrian, who also had connections with Jerome and came to Rome around the same time as his namesake Rufinus of Aquileia. The only writing attributed to Rufinus the Syrian is a Liber de fide (PS-RUF fi), composed in Rome before 411 when it was the object of Augustine’s criticism in De peccatorum mentis (AU pec 1). However, both Augustine’s knowledge of this work and the very existence of Rufinus the Syrian are contested.

And see the section where John Chapman questioned the background and skill of Pelagius to pull this off, and apply the same objections to the possibility of this Rufinus.

Journal of Theological Studies, Volumes 23-24
St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
John Chapman
https://books.google.com/books?id=snETAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA283

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— (continues)

The ECF's don't belong in the KJVO forum. Take it to the Early Church Fathers forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is all a stab in the dark, without really responding to the solid historical acceptance and defense of Jerome being the full NT author.

e.g. Even Hugh Houghton was very unimpressed.

The Latin New Testament: A Guide to Its Early History, Texts, and Manuscripts (2016)
Hugh Houghton
https://books.google.com/books?id=CXQqCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA41



And see the section where John Chapman questioned the background and skill of Pelagius to pull this off, and apply the same objections to the possibility of this Rufinus.

Journal of Theological Studies, Volumes 23-24
St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
John Chapman
https://books.google.com/books?id=snETAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA283
According to Walter Dunphy, Rufinus the Syrian is the same person as Rufinus of Aqueleia, who was the NT translator after Jerome died or gave up due to infirmity. I don't think anyone is suggesting Pelagius himself as the translator: such is a red herring. I think you've got a lot of work to do to show Jerome as finishing the Vg NT himself.

RUFINUS THE SYRIAN: MYTH AND REALITY: Walter Dunphy
Augustiniana
Vol. 59, No. 1/2 (2009), pp. 79-157 (79 pages)


The ECF's don't belong in the KJVO forum. Take it to the Early Church Fathers forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not at all. It is meant with a touch of humor, which flies right by you.

When Team Sinaiticus (Team Simoneidos) met in Saskatchewan a few years back, we had a wonderful time. David Daniels, Chris Pinto, Mark Michie and family and friends and yours truly. Picture on Facebook.

Read about Paula and Eustochium above, and the double monastery In Bethlehem.

Clarify your position on this theory.

It comes across to us, as if you're saying Paula (who by then had died of starvation because of Jerome influencing her to become an extreme ascetic) and Eustochium were both together actually translators working along with Jerome on the Catholic Epistles and who were the very same "we" and "ours" in "but we have just now corrected" and "so we have restored" and "where we read" and "in which we find many things mistaken" and "the edition of the others differs from ours"?

Is that what you were saying?

Steven Avery: "Much of their time they (SA: Eustochium and Paula) spent in the study of scripture under the direction of Jerome. Eustochium spoke Latin and Classical Greek with equal ease and was able to read the scriptures in the Hebrew text. Many of Jerome's Biblical commentaries owe their existence to her influence and to her he dedicated his commentaries on the prophets Isaias and Ezekiel."

You actually expect us to swallow this ridiculous idea? That the guy (Jerome supposedly) who sends them a letter from the same monastery - in the same room - across the same table to tell them (the dead, but now miraculously resurrected Paula at Eustochim's side) about the translation work THEY just completed TOGETHER? Right?

How else are we to understand the non-sense you are making up? That he was addressing a dead woman? And telling the person who received the letter about the work they just completed together a few moments ago?

P.S. What happened to your "royal we" proposal?
P.S. Even if you ditch the dead woman Paula, it's absolutely ludacris to believe Eustochim was part of the translating "team" - if he wrote this Prologue FOR HER and the letter TO HER.

The ECF's don't belong in the KJVO forum. Take it to the Early Church Fathers forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So who is the other person or persons in "we" and "our" in the Prologue?

Who else worked on the Cannonical Epistles and are referred to as "we" and "our" in the Prologue?

Did "Jerome" (note the sarcastic quote marks here), or did "he" not, do the translating, correcting, and restoring alone according to the words of the Prologue?

Canonical Epistles Prologue

Translated by Kevin Edgecome, 2006


"The order of the seven Epistles, which are named Canonical, as is found in Latin books is not thus among the Greeks who believe rightly and follow the correct faith. For as Peter is first in the order of the Apostles, first also are his Epistles in the order of the others. But as we have just now corrected the Evangelists to the line of truth, so we have restored, with God helping, these to their proper order. For the first of them is one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude. Which, if they were arranged by them and thus were faithfully turned into Latin speech by interpreters, they would have neither made ambiguity for readers nor would they have attacked 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. Indeed, in the other Epistles, I leave to the judgment of the reader how much the edition of the others differs from ours. But you, O virgin of Christ Eustochium, while you zealously seek from me the truth of Scripture, you expose my old age, as it were, to the devouring teeth of the envious, who call me a falsifier and corruptor of the Holy Scriptures. But I, in such a work, am afraid of neither the envy of my rivals, nor will I refuse those requesting the truth of Holy Scripture."​
 
Last edited:
Ad why did the hypothetical "Jerome" omit "Sanctus" (English "Holy") from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the Prologue, in the context of the actually words of the Comma, and thereby unfaithfully transmitted the Comma by his/their own omission?

The very accusation which he/they throws at the other Latin "interpreters" and "translators".
 
Interesting link here.

https://rejectedscriptures.weebly.com/jeromes-prologue-to-the-canonical-epistles-and-more.html

"This is another of the multitude of Vulgate Prologues, but one which is now considered not to belong to Jerome, though it very obviously is intended to seem to be from him. The key interest in this prologue lies in its positive evaluation of the Johannine Comma. It appears in Codex Fuldensis, one of the earliest copies of the Vulgate NT, dating to 547, but curiously enough, the Comma does not! Since we have not a shred of information on Jerome’s opinion of the Comma, we’re left hanging without corroboration on whether this letter is his or is truly a forgery. Currently, as the Comma is considered not to have been included in the earliest editions of the Old Latin and Vulgate, it seems likely, but not absolutely certain, that Jerome would not have known of it. Also, we have no evidence that Jerome did any of the editorial work on the NT books outside of the Gospels, and in fact, evidence in his usage late in life of a contrary text. The decisive elements in this prologue for its inauthenticity are two, I think. Jerome did his work on the Gospels first out of all his Biblical translations/revisions in the Vulgate, in about 382. But here in this letter he addresses only Eustochium and not Paula and Eustochium. Paula, Eustochium’s mother and abbess, died in 404, only at which time did Jerome begin to address letters only to Eustochium. But here, 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. So, to determine the true date of this prologue, we’re left with a terminus ante quem of the publication of the Codex Fuldensis in 547. Would perhaps the reference to a Latin tradition of placing Peter’s Epistles first among the Catholic Epistles, him being “first in the order of the Apostles,” indicate a dating after the Leonine period, when Papal Primacy based on Petrine Primacy first came to such prominence? Maybe, maybe not. It seems easier to ask questions about this prologue than to answer them, as is the case in so many of the issues surrounding the history of the Vulgate. The text is from Migne, Patrologia Latina 4.1114A-1114C, where it was, for some reason, only included in a note by Migne among the doubtfully attributed works of Cyprian."
 
Last edited:
( F ) = Codex Fuldensis, (circa. 6th century C.E.), officially known as Hessian State Library, Codex Bonifatianus I, also known as the: “Victor Codex.”

Folios 443r, Page 869, 443v, Page 870, 434r, Page 871 = “Epistulae Canonice Prologus.”

“Inc Epistulae Canonice Inc Prologus”

Prologue to the Canonical Epistles begins on Folio 869:443r

https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN325289808/869/

Continues on Folio 870:433v

https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN325289808/870/

Ends on Folio 871:434r

https://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/object/PPN325289808/871/

Folio 870:433r = Prologue (Anonymous): "Sanctus" (English "Holy") is missing from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the context of the very words of the Comma testimony, contrasted to the generic eisegetical statement about the Catholic faith which follows in the next sentence of the Prologue.

Compare the received Latin Comma, which reads instead as "Patrer, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" with the "Holy" in "Holy Spirit".

Folio 463r, Page 929 = 1st John 5:7-8, Comma-J excluded.

http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/fullscreen/PPN325289808/929/

http://fuldig.hs-fulda.de/viewer/image/PPN325289808/929/

https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...ologue-to-the-catholic-or-canonical-epistles/

The ECF's don't belong in the KJVO forum. Take it to the Early Church Fathers forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
8th century C.E. Vulgate Manuscripts

BnF, Latin ms. 11505 (circa 8th-9th century A.D.)


Folio 206r = Prologue (Anonymous): "Sanctus" (English "Holy") is missing from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the context of the very words of the Comma testimony, contrasted to the generic eisegetical statement about the Catholic faith which follows in the next sentence of the Prologue.

Compare the received Latin Comma, which reads instead as "Patrer, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" with the "Holy" in "Holy Spirit".

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8426780x/f417.item.zoom

https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...ologue-to-the-catholic-or-canonical-epistles/

The ECF's don't belong in the KJVO forum. Take it to the Early Church Fathers forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
8th century C.E. Vulgate Manuscripts

BnF Latin ms. 9380 [Codex Theodulphianus] (circa 8th-9th century A.D.)


NOTE: This a revision of the Vulgate.

Folio 305r = Prologue (Anonymous): "Sanctus" (English "Holy") is missing from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the context of the very words of the Comma testimony, contrasted to the generic eisegetical statement about the Catholic faith which follows in the next sentence of the Prologue.

Compare the received Latin Comma, which reads instead as "Patrer, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" with the "Holy" in "Holy Spirit".

https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b8452776m/f615.image.r=Latin 9380

https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...ologue-to-the-catholic-or-canonical-epistles/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
8th century C.E. Vulgate Manuscripts

Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana B.25II [Codex Iuvenianus, Codex Vallicellianus] (circa. 8th-9th century A.D.)


Folio 45r = Prologue (Anonymous): "Sanctus" (English "Holy") is missing from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the context of the very words of the Comma testimony, contrasted to the generic eisegetical statement about the Catholic faith which follows in the next sentence of the Prologue.

Compare the received Latin Comma, which reads instead as "Patrer, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" with the "Holy" in "Holy Spirit".

http://www.internetculturale.it/jmm...turale.sbn.it/Teca:20:NT0000:CNMD\\0000016423

https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...ologue-to-the-catholic-or-canonical-epistles/
 
9th century C.E. Manuscripts

St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 75 (circa. 9th century A.D.)


Folio 769 = Prologue (Anonymous): "Sanctus" (English "Holy") is missing from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the context of the very words of the Comma testimony, contrasted to the generic eisegetical statement about the Catholic faith which follows in the next sentence of the Prologue.

Compare the received Latin Comma, which reads instead as "Patrer, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" with the "Holy" in "Holy Spirit

https://www.e-codices.unifr.ch/en/csg/0075/769

https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...ologue-to-the-catholic-or-canonical-epistles/
 
9th century C.E. Manuscripts

London, British Library, MS Add. 10546, (circa. 9th century A.D.)


Folios 402r-403v = Prologue (Anonymous): "Sanctus" (English "Holy") is missing from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the context of the very words of the Comma testimony, contrasted to the generic eisegetical statement about the Catholic faith which follows in the next sentence of the Prologue.

Compare the received Latin Comma, which reads instead as "Patrer, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" with the "Holy" in "Holy Spirit

https://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_10546_f001r

https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...ologue-to-the-catholic-or-canonical-epistles/
 
9th century C.E. Manuscripts

London, British Library, MS Add. 11852 [Codex Ulmensis] (circa 9th century A.D.)


NOTE: This is possibly a Hartmut revision of the Vulgate.

Folio 168v = Prologue number one (Anonymous), incomplete.

http://www.stgallplan.org/stgallmss...f1r&xmlstylesheet=TEITranscription.xsl&fileId

Folio 169r = Prologue two (attrib. Jerome) begins.

http://www.stgallplan.org/stgallmss...f1r&xmlstylesheet=TEITranscription.xsl&fileId

Folio 169v = "Sanctus" (English "Holy") is missing from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the context of the very words of the Comma testimony, contrasted to the generic eisegetical statement about the Catholic faith which follows in the next sentence of the Prologue.

Compare the received Latin Comma, which reads instead as "Patrer, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" with the "Holy" in "Holy Spirit

http://www.stgallplan.org/stgallmss...f1r&xmlstylesheet=TEITranscription.xsl&fileId

https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...ologue-to-the-catholic-or-canonical-epistles/
 
9th century C.E. Manuscripts

London, British Library, MS Add. 24142 (circa 9th-10th century A.D.)


NOTE: This is a revision by Theodolf of the Vulgate.

Folio 247r-247v = Prologue (Anonymous), "Sanctus" (English "Holy") is missing from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the context of the very words of the Comma testimony, contrasted to the generic eisegetical statement about the Catholic faith which follows in the next sentence of the Prologue.

Compare the received Latin Comma, which reads instead as "Patrer, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus" with the "Holy" in "Holy Spirit

http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_24142_f247r

https://thefathersmonarchy.wordpres...ologue-to-the-catholic-or-canonical-epistles/
 
So the question begs, why did the hypothetical "Jerome" (or perhaps we could say "Jerome's" plural) omit "Sanctus" (English "Holy") from the Comma clause "Patri, Verbique, ac Spiritus" (English "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit") in the Prologue, in the context of the actual words of the Comma, and thereby transmitted the Comma unfaithlly by virtue of his/their very own omission?

Which hypocritically, anomalously, and in effect is the very same accusation which he/they accuse the other Latin "interpreters" and "translators" of, which is unfaithfulness!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top