Steven Avery
Well-known member
Worthless accusation.You do not make corrections when your errors or false allegations are shown to you.
You demonstrate a factual error, and I will make the correction with a smile.
Worthless accusation.You do not make corrections when your errors or false allegations are shown to you.
Perhaps you should read it and share what he stated. At least in his 1908 edition of his book NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS, John Chapman did not agree with your opinion that Jerome wrote the prologue to the Catholic Epistles.
John Chapman wrote: "Let us look at the common Prologue (Pseudo-Jerome) to the seven canonical Epistles" (p. 262).
John Chapman asserted: "I think it may be safely inferred that Pseudo-Jerome had before him a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles in which Priscillian defended this text (Comma--1 John 5:7), but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expression orthodox" (p. 264).
John Chapman wrote: "It is well known that it [the Comma Iohanneum] is founded on a mystical interpretation which St. Cyprian seems to assume as a commonplace, and which St. Augustine propagated" (p. 263).
You have ignored, dodged, evaded, or omitted a great deal of sound evidence.
You do not make corrections when your errors or false allegations are shown to you.
John Chapman wrote: "It is well known that it [the Comma Iohanneum] is founded on a mystical interpretation which St. Cyprian seems to assume as a commonplace, and which St. Augustine propagated" (p. 263).
Plain Introduction (1861)
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=6pOl5kos2O0C&pg=PA461
"it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read v. 7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely putting on v. 8 a spiritual meaning"
The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old (1883)
Henry Thomas Armfield
http://www.archive.org/stream/threewitnessesdi00armf#page/104/mode/2up
—tho truth (so we are to believe) of a certain mystical interpretation which he has not given or alluded to
"a quotation from the Fathers is often of decisive importance"
(Christian Dogmatics, 1950, p. 241, trans. from German ed. c. 1920.)
"In our opinion the decision as to the authenticity or the spuriousness of these words depends on the understanding of certain words of Cyprian (p. 340)... Cyprian is quoting John 10:30. And he immediately adds:
‘Et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto scriptum est: “Et tres unum sunt”’ (“and again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost: 'And the Three are One’”)
Now, those who assert that Cyprian is here not quoting the words 1 John 5:7, are obliged to show that the words of Cyprian: ‘Et tres unum sunt’ applied to the three Persons of the Trinity, are found elsewhere in the Scriptures than 1 John 5. Griesbach counters that Cyprian is here not quoting from Scripture, but giving his own allegorical interpretation of the three witnesses on earth. "The Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one." That will hardly do. Cyprian states distinctly that he is quoting Bible passages, not only in the words: ‘I and the Father are one,’ but also in the words: ‘And again it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost.’ These are, in our opinion, the objective facts.” p.341 (1950 English edition).
LOL!!!!!Afawk, John Chapman did not do any special studies on the heavenly witnesses, so his comment here is really of no relevance.
Perhaps you should read it and share what he stated. At least in his 1908 edition of his book NOTES ON THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE VULGATE GOSPELS, John Chapman did not agree with your opinion that Jerome wrote the prologue to the Catholic Epistles.
John Chapman wrote: "Let us look at the common Prologue (Pseudo-Jerome) to the seven canonical Epistles" (p. 262).
John Chapman asserted: "I think it may be safely inferred that Pseudo-Jerome had before him a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles in which Priscillian defended this text (Comma--1 John 5:7), but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expression orthodox" (p. 264).
The 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 Eustochium; his first sentence is modelled on St. Jerome’s Prologue to the Minor Prophets : 'Non idem ordo est duodecim prophetarum apud Hebraeos qui est apud nos.’ 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.
In his preface, John Chapman wrote: "The idea struck me that Priscillian must be the author of the Monarchian Prologues" (Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels, p. iii).
John Chapman asserted: "I think it may be safely inferred that Pseudo-Jerome had before him a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles in which Priscillian defended this text (Comma--1 John 5:7), but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expression orthodox" (p. 264).
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).
Houghton noted: "The earliest evidence for the text of the first thirteen Pauline Epistles as found in the Vulgate is generally held to be the commentary by Pelagius composed in Rome between 406 and 410" (p. 39).
Houghton concluded: "The safest approach is to admit that the reviser of the books other than the Gospels in the Vulgate New Testament remains unknown, although the work appears to have been carried out in Rome after 393 (the quotation from HI ill 5 in the prologue) and before 410 (the latest date for Pelagius' commentary) (p. 41).
LOL!!!!!
Avery tells poster to read Chapman for himself, then tells poster what Chapman wrote is "really of no relevance!"
As I said, another Maurice Robinson moment for our scholar-wanna-be, who is always so quick to invoke the names of men whom he thinks are with him, but in reality are against his position.
LOL!!!!!
Avery tells poster to read Chapman for himself, then tells poster what Chapman wrote is "really of no relevance!"
As I said, another Maurice Robinson moment for our scholar-wanna-be, who is always so quick to invoke the names of men whom he thinks are with him, but in reality are against his position.
He's now using his other tactic, spamming the thread, whenever a devastating point is given by the opposition.
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).
Total fabrication.
Rick Norris had placed in a number of quotes from Hugh Houghton and John Chapman. And I am attempting to respond to each quote properly and to point.
The salient issue is Jerome as author of the Vulgate Canonical Epistles and the Prologue thereof.
========
TNC, nothing you write can be taken seriously, since you cannot even acknowledge that the Leon Palimpsest was missing from your ms. list.
Integrity first.
There are couple of quotes relating to the Pauline Epistles.
1). Quite different from 1John and the Canonical Epistle.
2) Nonetheless, covered excellently by John Chapman.
From TNC, three much ado about very little.
committentes in the Vulgate Prologue
Spirit or Holy Spirit in the Vulgate Prologue
the word mystery in various places
Generally, your posturing on these three issues will be ignored.
Diversion from the real issues.
There are some others on BVDB.