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

logos1560

Well-known member
And I am attempting to respond to each quote properly and to point.
You fail. You have too high opinion of your own poor, inconsistent, non-scholarly opinions.

You provide no substantive, consistent, compelling, convincing evidence that answers and refutes the points soundly raised by John Chapman and H. A. G. Houghton. Your erroneous, circular KJV-only reasoning misleads and blinds you.

Did you blindly appeal to a scholar John Chapman without reading him and then later try to dismiss and discredit him when he provided no support for your KJV-only opinions?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You fail.
Have I missed any quotes?

Btw, a writer can be wonderful on one issue and so-so on others.
Happens all the time.

As I told you, John Chapman shines on the question of the Vulgate authorship of Jerome. On that, you have avoided any quote-snippets.

Try to pay attention. :)
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Have I missed any quotes?

Btw, a writer can be wonderful on one issue and so-so on others.
Happens all the time.

As I told you, John Chapman shines on the question of the Vulgate authorship of Jerome. On that, you have avoided any quote-snippets.

Try to pay attention. :)

And someone like you can misappropriate and misrepresent the intent and purpose of the author's comments, as you clearly have.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
It's interesting that Jerome himself states that he universally rejects the Epistle "to the Laodiceans".

Yet how does it turn up as part of his Vulgate in the Codex Fuldensis?

Jerome
De viris illustribus ("On Illustrious Men")

Caput IV [Chapter 4] "Paulus qui ante"


“Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur.”

"There are also certain people who choose to read [the Epistle] "to the Laodiceans", but it is to be universally rejected by all."
It's interesting that Jerome uses a Latin verb here, "exploditur", which literally means to drive an actor off stage by scornful clapping.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The question of what to include was decided by Victor of Capra. E,g. He decided to use a Diatessaron text for the Gospels that was unrelated to Jerome.
 

cjab

Well-known member
As I told you, John Chapman shines on the question of the Vulgate authorship of Jerome.
The Vulgate is "a composite collection which cannot be identified with only Jerome's work, "because the Vulgate contains Vetus Latina which are independent from Jerome's work" Canellis, Aline, ed. (2017). "Introduction : Du travail de Jérôme à la Vulgate" [Introduction: From Jerome's work to the Vulgate]. Jérôme : Préfaces aux livres de la Bible [Jerome : Preface to the books of the Bible] (in French). Abbeville: Éditions du Cerf. p. 217. ISBN 978-2-204-12618-2. (wiki)
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The Vulgate is "a composite collection which cannot be identified with only Jerome's work, "because the Vulgate contains Vetus Latina which are independent from Jerome's work" Canellis, Aline, ed. (2017). "Introduction : Du travail de Jérôme à la Vulgate" [Introduction: From Jerome's work to the Vulgate]. Jérôme : Préfaces aux livres de la Bible [Jerome : Preface to the books of the Bible] (in French). Abbeville: Éditions du Cerf. p. 217. ISBN 978-2-204-12618-2. (wiki)

Thanks.

This Wikipedia reference is of limited use.
It is hard to understand exactly what is the point, perhaps context in the book would help.

Note that John Chapman dealt directly with concerns over inconsistencies that are claimed if Jerome is the author of the full Vulgate. One major point Chapman emphasized was that the methodology was flawed, since it could also be used against Jerome's universally agreed authorship of the Gospels.

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

Here is another important point:

It is also entirely in harmony with the hypothesis that the ‘Vulgate' revision of St Paul was made by St Jerome some years later than his four commentaries on Pauline epistles. - p. 48
https://books.google.com/books?id=snETAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA48

Thus the Jerome commentary on the four Pauline Epistles will not have new Latin Vulgate readings.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Thanks.

This Wikipedia reference is of limited use.
It is hard to understand exactly what is the point, perhaps context in the book would help.

Note that John Chapman dealt directly with concerns over inconsistencies that are claimed if Jerome is the author of the full Vulgate. One major point Chapman emphasized was that the methodology was flawed, since it could also be used against Jerome's universally agreed authorship of the Gospels.
I agree, it's problematic not being able to access the original source, which costs $$$. What is added by way of context is:

The Alcuinian pandects contain:
.
.
5: Canellis, Aline, ed. (2017). Jérôme : Préfaces aux livres de la Bible [Jerome : Preface to the books of the Bible] (in French). Abbeville: Éditions du Cerf. pp. 89–90, 217. ISBN 978-2-204-12618-2.
7: Scherbenske, Eric W. (2013). Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Oxford University Press. p. 183.
8: Houghton, H. A. G. (2016). The Latin New Testament; a Guide to its Early History, Texts and Manuscripts. Oxford University Press. pp. 36, 41.
9: As above
10: Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice (2005). "Le livre de Baruch dans les manuscrits de la Bible latine. Disparition et réintégration". Revue Bénédictine. 115 (2): 286–342. doi:10.1484/J.RB.5.100598.
12: Chapman, John (1922). "St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament (I–II)". The Journal of Theological Studies. o.s. 24 (93): 33–51. doi:10.1093/jts/os-XXIV.93.33. ISSN 0022-5185. Chapman, John (1923). "St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament (III)". The Journal of Theological Studies. o.s. 24 (95): 282–299. doi:10.1093/jts/os-XXIV.95.282. ISSN 0022-5185.

All I'm pointing out is the consensus of modern agreement....
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
12: Chapman, John (1922). "St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament (I–II)". The Journal of Theological Studies. o.s. 24 (93): 33–51. doi:10.1093/jts/os-XXIV.93.33. ISSN 0022-5185. Chapman, John (1923). "St Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament (III)". The Journal of Theological Studies. o.s. 24 (95): 282–299. doi:10.1093/jts/os-XXIV.95.282. ISSN 0022-5185.

All I'm pointing out is the consensus of modern agreement....

cjab, I think you are misunderstanding the references.

John Chapman takes the very strong position that Jerome was the author of the full Vulgate text.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Journal of Theological Studies (1923)
John Chapman
https://books.google.com/books?id=snETAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA116

St. Jerome and the Vulgate New Testament
§ 8. St Jerome's Method of quoting Scripture.

It has been constantly denied that St Jerome can be the author of the revision of the whole New Testament, because he regularly quotes the Epistles in the O.L. form. It has been as often replied that this argument proves too much: for he does not quote even the Gospels usually from his own revision, nor does he usually employ his own version of the O. T. from the Hebrew. But the question deserves to be elucidated for the reason of its intrinsic interest. p. 116

It is obvious that if we are to argue that St Jerome did not revise the Epistles because be does not quote the Vulgate, it follows equally or
more certainly that he did not revise the Gospels, quod est absurdum. These citations of the Gospels never agree with the Vulgate against all
the O.L. The number of otherwise unknown readings suggests that the writer has the Greek before him and not the Latin, and that he translates
as nearly as possible to an O.L. text which he knows nearly by heart. For the O.L. resemblances are plentiful. But it is not the Vulgate which he knows by heart.
The quotations from the Epistles, if they do not agree with the Vulgate, neither do they agree with the text of St Jerome’s own commentaries.
p. 117-118

I infer that we have some reason for concluding that St Jerome had not the Vulgate Gospels before him, but that it is much more probable
that he was using the Vulgate Epistles ! - p. 120-121

We reach the conclusion that St Jerome in his Commentary did not quote the Vulgate Gospels or even the (almost) Vulgate text of St Matthew on which he was commenting.1 If we are to infer that his non-Vulgate quotations from the Epistles prove that he is not the reviser of the Vulgate epistles, we must here infer that he is not the reviser of the Vulgate Gospels, nay, that the author of the commentary (as he does not quote his own text) is not the author of the commentary. - p. 123

It is clear, again, that on the principles of those who deny that St Jerome revised the Epistles, he is not the author of his own commentary, since his quotations differ from his text! - p. 125
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You need to keep up with modern research; as to which you have no comment because you haven't read it.

The articles by John Chapman are referenced by later writers, (e.g. the bibliographic reference by Hugh Houghton). There is zero indication that there is any refutation.

And modern research is often inferior, you can learn from modern research how New Testament books are forgeries. Or how the Gospels were written after AD 70, and various other false teachings.
 
Last edited:

Unbound68

Well-known member
And modern research is often inferior, you can learn from modern research how New Testament books are forgeries. Or how the Gospels were written after AD 70, and various other false teachings.
Or how the Comma was written by John.
Or how the KJV is the "pure" Bible.
Etc.

Avery is the only KJVO I know who:

1. uses the "older is better" argument
2. thinks the "corrupt Latin" is how God "preserved" ("restored") His word in the case of 1 John 5:7
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
And modern research is often inferior, you can learn from modern research how New Testament books are forgeries. Or how the Gospels were written after AD 70, and various other false teachings.
Jérôme: Préfaces aux livres de la Bible. Latin texts by R. Weber, R. Gryson, and l’Abbaye Saint-JÉrÔme (Rome). Introduction, translation, and notes under the direction of Aline Canellis

"This intricate volume, edited by Aline Canellis, professor of Latin at the Université Jean Monnet, Saint-Étienne, brings together more than 20 short texts with which Jerome prefaced his famous Bible translation, the Vulgate. They were transmitted together with the biblical texts throughout the Middle Ages and were still included in the authoritative edition of the Vulgate promulgated 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..."

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

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
When discussing the evidence from John Chapman for Jerome's authorship of the canonical epistle (part of his argument for all the NT being by Jerome), it is good to remember that he is actually missing the most important corroborative evidence for his position --- the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, first-person from Jerome.

The only alternative is a "downright forger" (Hugh Houghton), for which all attempts to make an identification have been abject failures.

Chapman de facto accepted the circular claptrap that tries to dismiss the Prologue. It is hard for anybody with a textual criticism background to really understand the truth and amazing evidence for the heavenly witnesses verse.

Yet, even without that incredible corroboration, John Chapman shows up the strength of the position that Jerome wrote all the New Testament (eliminating the only non-circular and significant argument against Jerome's authorship of the full Vulgate.
 
Top