Jerome as author-translator of the full Vulgate New Testament

[Steven Avery]

So are you thinking (this is a question BTW) John's original didn't have the earthly witnesses? If not, why does such a truncated manuscript bring you such delight?

The manuscript is one of the early Latin mss., with the heavenly witnesses.
Helping to refute the misrepresentations of Metzger and others who play all sorts of games and tricks to work around the Latin ms. evidence.

Your first question is nonsensical, typical TNC.

 

[BJ Bear]

No red herring.
Pelagius has been one of the many pegged by those who do not accept Jerome's authorship of the Vulgate.

And hose defending Jerome's authorship of the full NT always made the most sense.

Metzger mentions from recent times: Buonaiuti, Mangenot, Chapman, and Souter. A larger scholarship review would be welcome, but I have not seen much yet.

Bruce M. Metrger gave a scholarship review.

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

The Early Versions of the New Testament (1977, reprint 2001)
Bruce M. Metzger

(c) At this point in the discussion of the Greek text underlying the Vulgate it will be appropriate to consider the question how much of the New Testament Vulgate is really Jerome’s work. The commonly accepted opinion has been that, having finished his revision of the Gospels in 384, Jerome performed his work on the rest of the New Testament in a much more cursory manner, leaving much of the Old Latin as he found it.5 During the twentieth century, however, this view was

vigorously opposed by several Roman Catholic scholars. The Benedictine Donatien De Bruyne proposed the astonishing thesis that what is commonly taken to be Jerome’s Vulgate text of the Pauline Epistles is none other than the work of Pelagius.1 The arguments advanced in support of this opinion are chiefly two: (a) in his commentaries, Jerome very frequently quotes with approval a form of the text of the Pauline Epistles which he himself rejected in the Vulgate; and (b) Pelagius not only cites the text of the Vulgate but knew Greek well enough to produce such a version. Next, the Dominican M.-J. Lagrange, while not accepting the role of Pelagius in the production of the Vulgate, argued in such a way as to lead readers to conclude that he denied that Jerome had any part in producing the Vulgate text of Romans and Galatians.2 A few years later, the Jesuit Ferdinand Cavallera went beyond De Bruyne and denied that Jerome had any part in making the Vulgate text of Acts, the Epistles, and the Apocalypse.3

As would be expected, these views did not lack opponents who just as vigorously upheld the traditional view; notable among them were Buonaiuti,4 Mangenot,5 Chapman,6 and Souter.7 In opposition to De Bruyne, Chapman

maintained that, at the time Pelagius wrote his commentaries on Paul, he knew no Greek and proposed no Greek variant readings. Furthermore, Souter found reason to believe that the scribe of MS. Augiensis cxix (see below) of Pelagius’ Expositions had replaced the original lemmata with the text of Jerome’s Vulgate. The chief proof that Jerome was then reviser of the entire New Testament, according to Chapman, is the uniformity of the principles according to which the Vulgate text as a whole differs from the Old Latin. In refutation of the argument based on the circumstance that Jerome approves in his commentaries what he rejects in his translation, Chapman argued that: (a) Jerome found reason to change his opinion on certain textual details during the interval between writing his commentaries and the time that Chapman thought he completed his final revision of the Vulgate (a.d. 391); and (b) in other cases Jerome was simply inconsistent in his literary work.

(snip detail on Pelagius theories)

In any case, it appears that the most that can be said with certainty is that the Vulgate text of St. Paul’s Epistles came into being in the closing years of the fourth century at the latest. Its author is unknown, although he is to be identified with the man who gave to the Vulgate at least the Catholic Epistles and per- haps the whole of the New Testament apart from the Gospels. If it be asked why Jerome, having begun with the Gospels, did not continue with the rest of the New Testament, it may well be that Jerome’s zeal for the Hebraica veritas led him to abandon, after the Gospels, his project to revise the entire New Testament.1

After reading the first page, twenty posts, if one is not Roman Catholic what difference does it make if Jerome translated only some of the NT?

If one is Roman Catholic then Trent settled the matter centuries ago when it attributed the Vulgate to Jerome.

 

[Steven Avery]

After reading the first page, twenty posts, if one is not Roman Catholic what difference does it make if Jerome translated only some of the NT?

We get a proper, sensible development of the Vulgate.

Jerome’s statements are accurate.

The claim that says the. Vulgate Prologue, that discusses the heavenly witnesses verse, Is a skillful, nefarious, wacky forgery by someone unknown, falls apart, since that claim says that Jerome did not write the Prologue because he did not translate 1 John and tha canonical Epistles.

 

[cjab]

We get a proper, sensible development of the Vulgate.

Jerome’s statements are accurate.

The claim that says the. Vulgate Prologue, that discusses the heavenly witnesses verse, Is a skillful, nefarious, wacky forgery by someone unknown, falls apart, since that claim says that Jerome did not write the Prologue because he did not translate 1 John and tha canonical Epistles.

That the Vulgate prologue to the canonical epistles was not written by Jerome is founded on rather better evidence than that. First it is evident that the prologue to the canonical epistle discloses a fanatical monarchician proclivity, reminiscent of Priscillian. This is what Chapman says at p.264ff, "Notes on the early history of the Vulgate Gospels," 1908 in chapter, "Later manipulations of the prologues of Priscillian:"

​

"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, but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expressions orthodox."​

​

"At all events I do not hesitate to ascribe the corrected version of the Gospel Prologues and the three other Prologues to much the same date, probably rather in the early part of the fifth century, and to suppose that they vrere attached to the Vulgate about the same time and in the same circumstances, since they have so similar and so wide a diffusion."​

​

"(Spanish) Peregrinus (5th-8th century) was not a forger; nay, he carefully explains that the canons are by a famous heretic, and says: explicitly "nemo putet ab Hieronymo factos" (no one thinks they were made by Jerome).​

You are looking at Priscillian as a likely original author of the prologue to the canonical epistles, and which was later redacted by a Pseudo-Jerome which legitimized his monarchianism.

 

[Steven Avery]

That the Vulgate prologue to the canonical epistles was not written by Jerome is founded on rather better evidence than that. First it is evident that the prologue to the canonical epistle discloses a fanatical monarchician (monarchian) proclivity, reminiscent of Priscillian. This is what Chapman says at p.264ff, "Notes on the early history of the Vulgate Gospels," 1908 in chapter, "Later manipulations of the prologues of Priscillian:"

You are misreading John Chapman.

He never says that the Prologue has a monarchian proclivity, much less yet fanatical.
Which is why you did not offer a quote from the Prologue, or even from Chapman.

Let's first get your fundamental error corrected.

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

Ironically, on the page you point to, Chapman says exactly the opposite in his awkward conjecturing.

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, but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expressions orthodox.

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

Also, this conjecturing has huge problems. It would have Priscillian working with the prologue before he died in AD 385. Thus Jerome was being forged while he was very much alive and also when only the Gospels had been translated.

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

How could the usually astute and sharp John Chapman go so wrong? Likely influenced by the errant "textual criticism" decision against the authenticity of the heavenly witnesses verse.

This was covered earlier, since Chapman had made the mystical error about the clear Cyprian usage of the verse.

Afawk, John Chapman did not do any special studies on the heavenly witnesses, so his comment here is really of no relevance. Other than to show the normal textcrit indoctrination on the issue, very common after the publishing of the corrupt Westcott-Hort recension text..

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is the best part of John Chapman's writing on the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.

That 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.- p. 266

So we have an amazing, early, ultra-skilled and knowledgeable on Jerome, nefarious , unidentified, unknown "downright forger", (somehow building on an unknown, never seen Priscillian prologue). He also had the clout to get this supposedly trickster writing (motive? the heavenly witnesses?) into the Vulgate line.

The most un-Ockham of possibilities.

Essentially John Chapman is proving Jerome's authorship, to those who understand the issues.

 

[cjab]

Essentially John Chapman is proving Jerome's authorship, to those who understand the issues.

No, you have misread it. All the prologues, (not just to the Catholic epistles) were originally sourced from Priscillian, but they were modified by others to make them seem less heretical. The gospel prologues remain hyper-monarchian. Your thesis that Jerome was the author of any of them is misplaced. All Chapmen is doing is discussing the line of transmission of the prologues from Priscillian, who is known to have written prologues for the books of the bible. Priscillian put a "heretical connotation" on the Johannine Comman to the effect that "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one in Christ Jesus." Pseudo-Jerome (the ultimate author) was responsible for re-working Priscillian's prologues to remove the heretical elements, although it is just possible that Pseudo-Jerome may have wrongly assumed that the prologues came from Jerome. However their monarchian bent gives them away.

There is not the least hint of Jerome being the author of any of the prologues in Chapman's account.

The Johannine Comma is posited as likely sourced from a Spanish bible gloss.

 

[Steven Avery]

All the prologues, (not just to the Catholic epistles) were originally sourced from Priscillian,

That would make Priscillian the “downright forger”.
Nope.

And the Prologue to the Gospels, to Damasus, was by Jerome, like the Canonical Epistles, it is his first-person writing.

And these are like many first-person Old Testament Prologues that are 100% Jerome.

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

The Prologue to the Pauline Epistles also deserves special attention, it may be from Jerome, but it does not have the first-person component to the degree of the two NT above and the various OT. And it has the question of defending Pauline authorship of Hebrews. By my quick look, it does not seem to be specifically handled by John Chapman.

 

[Steven Avery]

And these are like many first-person Old Testament Prologues that are 100% Jerome.

And these are like many first-person Old Testament and Apoc Prologues that are 100% Jerome.

Pentateuch, Joshua, Kings, Paralipomenon (Chronicles), Ezra, Tobias, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms (2), Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, 12 Prophets.

 

[cjab]

That would make Priscillian the “downright forger”.

Priscillian is not the "forger," but Pseudo Jerome. What may have happened is that a piece of writing from Jerome was deliberately amalgamated with a redacted Priscillian prologue. It is not necessary to posit as Chapman does, that the forger only put words into Jerome's mouth. The prologue's apparent obession with 1 John 5:7 bears all the hall marks of someone's intention to promulgate 1 John 5:7 under Jerome's name. That someone could have been Peregrinus.

Chapman's PREFACE "

"It was in reviewing Dr. Kiinstle's Antipriscilliana that the idea struck me that Priscillian must be the author of the Monarchian Prologues.​

The paper I published on the subject is reproduced in this volume as Chapter xiii. It met with a kindly reception from specialists in England and Germany ; but it was necessary to determine how such heretical documents managed to attach themselves to the Vulgate of St. Jerome, or (as a great scholar phrased it) ' how did Saul come among the prophets ? ' The attempt to solve this question has produced all the other chapters of the book, and I think they are the more interesting the more they wander from the original investigation. I have been led into the discussion of various lectionary systems, and I hope the results will be acceptable to liturgical scholars. I have not tried to study these thoroughly, but only in so far as was necessary for the history of the texts to which they belong."​

​

Vis-a-vis the gospel prologues: "The combination of Monarchianism with ultra- Apollinarianism is really characteristic of a Latin writer, not of the beginning of the third century, but of the end of the fourth—Priscillian." (p. 240).

Nope.

And the Prologue to the Gospels, to Damasus, was by Jerome, like the Canonical Epistles, it is his first-person writing.

The letter to Damasus isn't a gospel prologue but a translator's preface, as it concerns Jerome's translation; and it bears little comparision in style to the prologues under discussion.

And these are like many first-person Old Testament Prologues that are 100% Jerome.

But Jerome did re-translate the Old Testament from scratch.

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

The Prologue to the Pauline Epistles also deserves special attention, it may be from Jerome, but it does not have the first-person component to the degree of the two NT above and the various OT. And it has the question of defending Pauline authorship of Hebrews. By my quick look, it does not seem to be specifically handled by John Chapman.

This Pauline prologue and that of the catholic espistles come under "The Prologues of (Spanish) Peregrinus" (p. 258)

​

"I. We have Priscillian's canons on St. Paul's Epistles only in the expurgated edition published by Peregrinus. mainly in Spanish MSS., and appears to belong to an ' edition ' of the Epistles. It is even possible, though it is not proved, that Peregrinus is answerable for an edition of the whole​

Bible. His date is uncertain, but we should presumably look for him in the first half of the fifth century. He seems to have been an admirer of Priscillian, who yet would not follow him into heresy."​

This Peregrinus was very bold in amalgamation.

"The point to which attention should be drawn is the boldness of Peregrinus as an editor. He has no reverence either for the Septuagint with its halo of legend, or for the Hebrew extolled by St. Jerome, nor yet for the work of that great father; and he produces a new text by amalgamating the two translations."​

​

If he can amalgamate Jerome's actual translation work, he can amalgamate a prologue of Jerome with that of another.

 

[Steven Avery]

Priscillian is not the "forger," but Pseudo Jerome. What may have happened is that a piece of writing from Jerome was deliberately amalgamated with a redacted Priscillian prologue. It is not necessary to posit as Chapman does, that the forger only put words into Jerome's mouth. The prologue's apparent obession with 1 John 5:7 bears all the hall marks of someone's intention to promulgate 1 John 5:7 under Jerome's name. That someone could have been Peregrinus.

Chapman's PREFACE "

"It was in reviewing Dr. Kiinstle's Antipriscilliana that the idea struck me that Priscillian must be the author of the Monarchian Prologues.​

The paper I published on the subject is reproduced in this volume as Chapter xiii. It met with a kindly reception from specialists in England and Germany ; but it was necessary to determine how such heretical documents managed to attach themselves to the Vulgate of St. Jerome, or (as a great scholar phrased it) ' how did Saul come among the prophets ? ' The attempt to solve this question has produced all the other chapters of the book, and I think they are the more interesting the more they wander from the original investigation. I have been led into the discussion of various lectionary systems, and I hope the results will be acceptable to liturgical scholars. I have not tried to study these thoroughly, but only in so far as was necessary for the history of the texts to which they belong."​

​

Vis-a-vis the gospel prologues: "The combination of Monarchianism with ultra- Apollinarianism is really characteristic of a Latin writer, not of the beginning of the third century, but of the end of the fourth—Priscillian." (p. 240).

So did your downright forger (savvy, skillful, nefarious, obsessed) remove the Monarchian and Apollinarian elements of the unknown and nevfer mentioned Priscillian original Prologue?

Did he change the heavenly witnesses away from the Priscillian formulation?

 

[Steven Avery]

The theory that you cobbled together is a Rube Goldberg textual contraption.

First, Priscillian, before he dies in AD 385, likely before the new Latin translation. creates a Prologue to the Canonical Epistle, Momatchian and Apollonarian.

Not one scholar states this occurred, so you try to infer it from Chapman.

This original writing left no trace or reference. Then an unknown “downright forger” changed the author from Priscillian to Jerome, removes the Priscillian Monarchian doctrine, modifies or adds the heavenly witnesses section, skillfully pretends to be Jerome>. Either Priscillian or Forger explains how the heavenly witnesses was often omitted.

Then his hodge-podge is accepted as authentic Jerome by scholars like Victor of Capua..

Rube Goldberg and Lord Ockham are chuckling.

======

Even John Chapman has the author as a downright forger, not somebody rewriting.

 

[Steven Avery]

If he can amalgamate Jerome's actual translation work, he can amalgamate a prologue of Jerome with that of another.​

Are you using “amalgamate” to accuse Peregrinus of being the downright forger?

 

[cjab]

So did your downright forger (savvy, skillful, nefarious, obsessed) remove the Monarchian and Apollinarian elements of the unknown and nevfer mentioned Priscillian original Prologue?

Did he change the heavenly witnesses away from the Priscillian formulation?

 

[cjab]

Are you using “amalgamate” to accuse Peregrinus of being the downright forger?

I'm still reading up on this: Kunstle seems to be a good source, who I am going to study before further comment. There are a lot of unknowns (the identity of this Peregrinus isn't clear. It may have been a pseudo-name for a Spanish Abbot named Bachiarius, or someone else.)

 

[Steven Avery]

I'm still reading up on this: Kunstle seems to be a good source, who I am going to study before further comment. There are a lot of unknowns (the identity of this Peregrinus isn't clear. It may have been a pseudo-name for a Spanish Abbot named Bachiarius, or someone else.)

Kunstle's theory on the heavenly witnesses verse origin was torn to pieces by Babut, Denk and Julicher.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/speculum-liber-de-divinis-scripturis.10899/#post-836040

And I tend to doubt that he is better on the Vulgate Prologue, since he would be GIGO.