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

You are pretending. Everything you say goes against good scholarship, always. You always come to the wrong conclusions. Always, to support the error of KJVOnlyism.

This is the common big nothing from the contras.

They do not know the evidences, they do not know the history, so they fabricate motives.
 
They do not know the evidences, they do not know the history, so they fabricate motives.
You make unproven and false allegations. Your mere assumption and accusation is not proof. You avoided and evaded external and internal evidence presented from a Latin NT scholar that related to the prologue to the Catholic Epistles of the Latin Vulgate.

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).

You did not demonstrate that the reasons that a Latin NT scholar H. A. G. Houghton referred to "the pseudo-Hieronymian Prologue to the Catholic Epistles" are circular.

You are not engaged in serious discussion with your focus on throwing out accusations. In some of your posts, you fabricate and invent motives of those whom you accuse. There are times when you have start with incorrect premises and non-scholarly opinions and then jump to wrong conclusions in making your accusations and in making your claims.
 
Last edited:
You make unproven and false allegations. Your mere assumption and accusation is not proof. You avoided and evaded external and internal evidence presented from a Latin NT scholar that related to the prologue to the Catholic Epistles of the Latin Vulgate.

Yesterday I answered the part about the supposed false dilemma.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/hea...e-priscillian-isaac-the-jew.6515/#post-751229

You have not responded.

This is extremely important because the attempts to find a possible forger, with clout, skilled, knowledgeable and deceptive, has been a total failure. Notice that Hugh Houghton shies away from the question. And you do not show any knowledge of that scholarship history.

And I did reply earlier to the tentative position from Hugh Houghton on the authorship of the Vulgate beyond the Epistles, and plan more on the topic. If I remember, you did not give any scholarly referencing, such as papers, on the authorship question.
 
Last edited:
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).

William Kelly dates this writing to AD 387, just a few years after the Gospels and long before the Epistles, based on the Vulgate Prologue dating.
https://www.fourthcentury.com/jerome-commentaries-on-four-letters-of-paul/

This is more in support of Jerome translating the canonical Epistles than against.

Notice that the addressee was Paula and Eustochium. When Jerome wrote the Vulgate Prologue the addressee was Eustochium, and Paula (347-404) had passed away.

It would be interesting to compare any verses Jerome criticizes to the Vulgate text.
 
Last edited:
Yesterday I answered the part about the supposed false dilemma.
You did not answer nor refute my sound point that there may be more than the two possibilities concerning the prologue to the Catholic Epistles. One possibility I mentioned was another person [rather than Jerome] being the reviser/translator of the Catholic Epistles and that person writing the prologue for them. Another possibility might be one person writing the prologue with a copier or someone else adding some statements to it or making some changes to it. Someone later could copy statements by Jerome from any prologue to the Gospels and from other of his writings and add them into the prologue to the Catholic Epistles written by someone else.

Do you claim to have the original copy of that prologue and do you claim to have read it?

You did not prove that there were only two possibilities. which makes it possible that you made use of the fallacy of false dilemma.
 
Last edited:
It would be interesting to compare any verses Jerome criticizes to the Vulgate text.

Andrew Cain is very helpful!

Jerome's Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles and the Architecture of Exegetical Authority (2021)
Andrew Cain
https://books.google.com/books?id=hS5CEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA77

And I have not looked at any of these, since my AM today includes breakfast at Kelly’s in Poughkeepsie, using the iPad 12.9, and it is more a study for the home puter.
 
You did not prove that there were only two possibilities. which makes it possible that you made use of the fallacy of false dilemma.

Anybody can theorize highly unlikely scenarios.

Reminds me of all the special pleading of James Snapp describing his pseudo-authentic theories for the Mark ending.

And I did address your assistant theory above.
 
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).
 
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).
 
Andrew Cain is very helpful!

Jerome's Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles and the Architecture of Exegetical Authority (2021)
Andrew Cain
https://books.google.com/books?id=hS5CEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA77

And I have not looked at any of these,
You are the embodiment of contradiction. Declaring Cain to be "very helpful" while at the same time admitting you "haven't looked at any of these" is the height of absurdity. By the way, Cain is a single person, so your use of the word "these" further demonstrates your lack of comprehension pertaining to English grammar.

Of course you ALWAYS DO THIS.

You Google a bunch of book titles that may deal with the topic, and then you spam the forum with a litany of links to these works to make it look like

1. Youve actually READ THEM
2. You're actually bolstering your argument.

This is the kind of thing middle schoolers do. You don't know how to do any sort of real research.

As TNC said awhile back at another forum, all you do is "scramble your Google fighters" whenever certain evidence (not "evidences) for a given topic is broached that you've never heard before.

Trying to appear knowledgeable and actually having acquired knowledge are two entirely different things.
 
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).

This Prologue does not have any of the first-person material from Jerome, so it would not have to be either Jerome or a skilled, crafty, deceptiVe forger with lots of clout. So in that sense it is an excellent contrast to Jerome’s Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.

Here is the Prologue:

(Jerome), The Vulgate Preface to Paul's Letters (2006)
https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_preface_pauls_letters.htm

However, other scholars point out that the issue of Pauline authorship, or not, of Hebrews, could easily have been simply a shift of viewpoit by Jerome.

You can see that in the review of Hermann Josef Frede, reviewed by Aelred Cody, in 1988.

The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
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
Review by: Aelred Cody
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43717737

And I do not see any imperative that the Prologue would need to be written in Rome.
 
Last edited:
You are the embodiment of contradiction. Declaring Cain to be "very helpful" while at the same time admitting you "haven't looked at any of these" is the height of absurdity. By the way, Cain is a single person, so your use of the word "these" further demonstrates your lack of comprehension pertaining to English grammar.

More blah-blah, now expected after your multiple bogus liar accusations.

Also, you should learn to read and think, "these" referred to the various verses with variants. You even fail in your self-appointed role as our grammar police/nazi.

Andrew Cain is helpful because he gives the variants with analysis.
Have you seen that anywhere else? Short of reading through the whole commentary.
 
Last edited:
More blah-blah, now expected after your multiple bogus liar accusations.
Says you.


Also, you should learn to read and think, "these" referred to the various verses with variants.
The fault lies with you. Is that some sort of run-on sentence?


You even fail in your self-appointed role as our grammar police/nazi.
Nope. I appreciate the name calling though. And by the way, I know something about English grammar. So I'm much more qualified to say something about your bad English grammar than you are to say some wrong-headed garbage about someone else's GREEK GRAMMAR.



Andrew Cain is helpful because he gives the variants with analysis.
You don't know if he's helpful at all, by your own admission! And by the way, you keep pulling these no-names out of thin air as if they're some kind of authority. You did the same with that Pelikan dude.

Just because they popped up in one of your Google searches, doesn't mean they're an accepted authority on anything to anyone but you.


Short of reading through the whole commentary.
Learn how to construct a sentence in English.
 
Last edited:
More blah-blah, now expected after your multiple bogus liar accusations.

Says you.

The irony is that you could not even read a simple English sentence properly.

Here I identified who I knew to be JW Matt.


And in the next quote I clearly showed that I was not necessarily placing them as the same person.

Elsewhere I explained that I did not expect Matt's posts to be so juvenile, such as the inability of TNC to acknowledge the Leon Palimpsest correction to his ms. list. There were actually a number of differences in emphasis, so that I would not make an assumption that they were the same person.

However, I appreciate that you and Matt are accepting Jerome's authorship of the Latin Vulgate canonical/catholic epistles.

And you based your bogus liar accusations (two) on your inability to read this next simple sentence.

If the word is gibberish in the Prologue context then it was not the original text (unless the scribe slipped) and the JW Matt’s idea goes nowhere.

So you are in no position to talk about reading comprehension or grammar (plus your recent "these" error) or integrity (after the two liar accusations. These bogus liar accusations remain as your stain.
 
These bogus liar accusations remain as your stain.
Being called a liar by the guy who purposely altered Marco Conti's unambiguous reference to 1 john 5:8 -- changing it to say 1 John 5:7 instead -- is a badge I'll wear with honor the rest of my days.

The irony here is that you had purposely altered Conti's footnote in a ridiculous work you and your "team" entitled "The Witness of God...!"
 
Being called a liar by the guy who purposely altered Marco Conti's unambiguous reference to 1 john 5:8 -- changing it to say 1 John 5:7 instead -- is a badge I'll wear with honor the rest of my days. The irony here is that you had purposely altered Conti's footnote in a ridiculous work you and your "team" entitled "The Witness of God...!"

More fabrication, which has been covered here before as well. Even a contra pointed out that I was not the author.

I took the Conti referencing from Witness of God is Greater, where I am assisting, late in the day, but NOT the author. And then I pointed it out to the author. And I made sure that the referencing was reasonable on my own PBF site. Also, this was not listed as a footnote, but a verse reference inline.

Can you be truthful and honest about ANYTHING?

The stench of your bogus liar accusations just keeps stenching up more.

Especially after I showed you that the liar accusation was just caused by your inability to read clear English.


The integrity way is still there -- retract the accusations with an apology.
Be a mentsch.
 
Last edited:
My studies have absolutely confirmed Jerome's authorship.
You fail to provide any convincing, compelling evidence that "absolutely" confirms Jerome's authorship of the prologue to the Catholic Epistles.

Your non-scholarly, opinion is not convincing evidence. You returned to your carnal tactic of attacking the integrity, honesty, and intelligence of other posters instead of providing evidence to back up what you yourself claimed. Your personal attacks and accusations are not the integrity way of engaging in serious discussion.
 
You did not answer nor refute my sound point that there may be more than the two possibilities concerning the prologue to the Catholic Epistles. One possibility I mentioned was another person [rather than Jerome] being the reviser/translator of the Catholic Epistles and that person writing the prologue for them. Another possibility might be one person writing the prologue with a copier or someone else adding some statements to it or making some changes to it. Someone later could copy statements by Jerome from any prologue to the Gospels and from other of his writings and add them into the prologue to the Catholic Epistles written by someone else.

When you came up with this nonsense It became clear that the conversation was out of your league.

The “another person” would have to be a forger pretending to be Jerome.

The “copier” would be a forger pretending to be Jerome.

The “someone later” would be a forger pretending to be Jerome.

Which bings us right back to the true dichotomy:

1) Jerome

2)) A skillful, cunning, knowledgeable and deceptive forger.

===========

And afaik not one scholar from c. AD 1700 (the beginning of the forgery accusation, when the earliest Prologue was thought to be c. AD 800) to today has posited your ultra-hypotheticals.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top