Jerome as author-translator of the full Vulgate New Testament

Steven Avery said:
Too vague.
Need quote of sentence and context.
Apparently this was a nickname for the Bishop of Rome in the early 300s.
It started to get a more structured use around the time of Damasus.

Also I was wondering if you or cjab raised the issue of Holy Spirit consubstantial doctrine from this work?
Or maybe another work?
I am back at home base so I was looking for a post on the topic.

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

New Plea
Charles Forster
https://books.google.com/books?id=EKwCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA61



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

Remember that Annete von Stockhausen does support a fifth century date for this work.
Which makes it a solid and early Greek reference.

Any anachronism questions can help determine any contribution directly from Athanasius.
Click to expand...

cjab said:
I don't see how you can assert this is a quotation from the Comma, where τὰ τρία is Neuter, and εἰσι. is missing; but in the Comma on biblehub, the Greek words are οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι.
Click to expand...

The context of τὰ τρία ἔν makes it a polysemic phrase, not monosemic, as Avery contends for. He commits this amphibole fallacy/error often.
 
Unbound68 said:
Yep. You always assert positively for something, then end up walking it back when someone in the know calls you on your nonsense. Which means you only do it to pad the evidence. So much for integrity.

So when you positively claimed Euthy was a 3rd "main solid allusion" to the Comma, you were being a little loose with the facts, right?



So the CONTEXT supports inclusion, eh?

Sure.

If that were the case you wouldn't be "passing it by."
Click to expand...

He never owns what he says.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The context of τὰ τρία ἔν makes it a polysemic phrase, not monosemic, as Avery contends for. He commits this amphibole fallacy/error often.
Click to expand...

An excellent and real example of such a fallacy is your pretending that Tertullian is writing of Montanism prophecy when he refers to the Holy Spirit in Against Praxeas.
 
Steven Avery said:
An excellent and real example of such a fallacy is your pretending that Tertullian is writing of Montanism prophecy when he refers to the Holy Spirit in Against Praxeas.
Click to expand...

Tertullian (Adv. Prax. 25.1) is another one of your common amphibole errors. The context makes it a polysemic phrase, not monosemic phrase.
 
Steven Avery said:
Never said it was a “quotation”, it is an expression that fits with the heavenly witnesses with the context of essence and nature.

The spot with a quotation has a split in the manuscripts/editions so that is passed by for now.
Click to expand...
No more than a graecized quotation direct from Tertullian. “Qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, "Ego et Pater unum sumus," etc.

But Tertullian derives it from John 10:30 "Ego et Pater unum sumus," and not from the Comma. So your theory that there is anything in favor of the Comma from "the three are one" is misconceived: just an example of inveterate prejudice from those who cannot accept the evidence before them.

Also, there is a good reason why Tertullian didn't use "God the Word," etc: as he recognized already that he was being accused of polytheism, "They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods..." but actually, the charge is justified on account of his theory of procession of one like substance from another, viz. ".... who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father."

Hence the need for the Comma arose out of the very doctrine that Tertullian espoused. Far from Tertullian quoting the Comma, it was the Comma that derived from his teaching.
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
But Tertullian derives it from John 10:30 "Ego et Pater unum sumus," and not from the Comma. So your theory that there is anything in favor of the Comma from "the three are one" is misconceived: just an example of inveterate prejudice from those who cannot accept the evidence before them.
Click to expand...

It's not a monosemic clause that can only be used for the Comma. The context is eisegesis of the Gospel, before, during, and after.
 
cjab said:
But Tertullian derives it from John 10:30 "Ego et Pater unum sumus," and not from the Comma. So your theory that there is anything in favor of the Comma from "the three are one" is misconceived.
Click to expand...

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
It's not a monosemic clause that can only be used for the Comma. The context is eisegesis of the Gospel, before, during, and after.
Click to expand...

Actually, you can read the context on this post.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/1-j...xt-vs-taken-out-of-context.10368/#post-785220

Gospel verses are included, as part of his Trinity exposition. You see right away that TNC's idea that the Holy Spirit in Against Praxeas refers to Montanist prophecy is dead in the water.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Yes, you wrote that right above, and I asked what was your preferred title.

Also, is that why you used the word "fake"?
Click to expand...
Why can't you ever comprehend what's being said? The content doesn't match the title. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

We don't have to give you a "preferred" title to prove the work a fake. Just like we don't need to tell you which Bible is "perfect and inerrant" to prove the KJV indeed has errors.

Explain to us why the title of a work -- attributed by you to Athanasius -- doesn't match the actual content of that work.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Actually, you can read the context on this post.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/1-j...xt-vs-taken-out-of-context.10368/#post-785220

Gospel verses are included, as part of his Trinity exposition. You see right away that TNC's idea that the Holy Spirit in Against Praxeas refers to Montanist prophecy is dead in the water.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you addressed my post, so why did you quote me? (BTW Cyprian is clearly allegorizing 1 John 5:8 in Liber de Unitate Ecclesiae.) I take it you have no response to make to me. Q.E.D.
 
Steven Avery said:
This quote referencing Ben David (John Jones) summarizes much of the info.

Ben David
Porson (Richard Porson 1759 – 1808), in his ”Letters to Travis", p. 155, gives the following quotation:” Abbot Joachim (1135-1202) compared the final clauses of the seventh and eighth verses, whence he inferred, that the same expression ought to be interpreted in the same manner. Since, therefore, he said, nothing more than unity of testimony and consent can be meant by ”tres unum sunt” [Three are one] in the eighth verse, nothing more than unity of testimony and consent is meant in the seventh. This opinion the Lateran Council (AD 1215) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) confuted [Joachim's interpretation], by cutting out the clause in the eighth verse.

This mangling even remained in the Complutensian Polyglot. It is a fascinating history.
Click to expand...

Here is a good description, with more detail, the author is:

William Hales (1747-1831)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hales

Memoir of the Controversy Respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses (1830)
William Orme
https://archive.org/details/memoircontrover00abbogoog/page/n178/mode/2up

To few writers of the present age is the theological and critical reader more indebted than to the Rev. Dr. Hales, of Trinity College, Dublin. His “New Analysis of Chronology,” which appeared in 1811, and following years—contains an immense mass of most valuable learning—not merely relating to chronology, but to all matters of a biblical nature. In the second volume of tbis work, pp. 905, 906, he has given his opinion, that the verse in question is spurious. Six years after this, however, Dr. Hales declared himself, “at length perfectly satisfied of the authenticity and credibility of the disputed clause, from a more critical view of the whole of the evidence, extemal and internal, for and against it.”
Click to expand...

Antijacobin Review Vol 50
Sabellian or Unitarian Controversy Letter XII -
https://books.google.com/books?id=NevTxkZHhJYC&pg=PA605

But, it may well be asked, how came the Complutensian editors to expunge tbe clausule from the eighth verse, and to transfer it so
injudiciously to the sevenlh verse ; suppressing the proper clausule of the seventh, τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἐν εἰσὶν ?

We may answer, through improper deference to the authority of the general council of Lateran, A. D. 1215. This most numerous council of the representatives of the Greek and Latin churches was chiefly convened for the examination of certain opinions of the famous Italian father, Joachim, founder of the congregation of Flora. These opinions were accused of Arianism, and were unanimously condemned by the council. In their acts, written in Latin, and translated into Greek, we find a reference to this verse: “It is read in the canonical epistle of John, there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Joachim, it seems, had interpreted tres unum sunt, to signify unity of consent only, in these heavenly witnesses. And he justified the interpretation, by alleging that the same words were found also in the eighth verse, according to some copies (sicut in quibusdam codicibus invenitur) as well as in the seventh: but in the eighth verse, being applied to the earthly witnesses, where they could only express unity of consent or of testimony, he contended that he had a right to take them in the same sense in the seventh verse too. To counteract this heretical interpretation, as they considered it, excluding unity of substance, the Fathers, of the Council expunged the clausule in the eighth verse, as appears from their Greek translation of their acts, in which it is omitted. And in this they were followed by Thomas Aquinas, who says, that "it was not extant in the true copies of the eighth verse; but that it was said to be added by the Arian heretics, to pervert the sound understanding of it in the seventh verse.*’ On the contrary, we have the valuable testimony of Professor Porson, assuring us, that “twenty-nine Latin MSS. the fairest, the oldest, and the most correct, in general, have the clausule of the eighth verse," Leiters, p. 152. Hence, the Complutensian editors found it necessary to apologize for omitting it in the eighth verse, by pleading the authority of the Lateran council, and of Thomas Aquinas, against Joachim, in their marginal note, referring to 1 John, v. 7, 8, which is given entire by Travis, Appendix, No. xl. p. 80.

The Lateran Council, however, have given their powerful sanction to the authenticity of the seventh verse, by reciting the following variety of it in their Greek translation of the Acts. ... Still, however, the acquiescence of the Greek patriarchs of Constantinople and Jerusalem, who were present at the council, and of the deputies of the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, who attended in their stead ; and the concurrence of the representatives of the Oriental church, in these acts, furnish indisputable evidence, that the seventh varse was no where controverted in the thirteenth Century.

(William Hales, [Letter to the Editor] Sabellian, or Unitarian Controversy. Letter XI. Antijacobin Review, Sabellian Controversy, vol 1, May 1816 p. 606-607)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
I don't believe you addressed my post, so why did you quote me? (BTW Cyprian is clearly allegorizing 1 John 5:8 in Liber de Unitate Ecclesiae.) I take it you have no response to make to me. Q.E.D.
Click to expand...

Often I address your posts, at other times I feel that you are too far out in left field to make any attempt worthwhile.

A good example is right here, where you support the absurd idea of Cyprian using an invisible allegory. This absurdity has been explained by yours truly in depth on this forum, including a neat quote by Henry Thomas Armfield, so there is no point in going over it again. Time is valuable.
 
Steven Avery said:
Often I address your posts, at other times I feel that you are too far out in left field to make any attempt worthwhile.

A good example is right here, where you support the absurd idea of Cyprian using an invisible allegory. This absurdity has been explained by yours truly in depth on this forum, including a neat quote by Henry Thomas Armfield, so there is no point in going over it again. Time is valuable.
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure what field you're playing on. As for Armfield, his argument as to Cyprian always quoting scripture verbatim is quite irrelevant. Cyprian does not even pretend to quote the Comma. Cyprian writes:

Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus', et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unum
sunt.'

scriptum est applies only to 'Et tres unum sunt.'

de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto is Cyprian's interpretation. There isn't even an argument to be made that he quoted the Comma, any more than with Tertullian.
 
Steven Avery said:
A good example is right here, where you support the absurd idea of Cyprian using an invisible allegory. This absurdity has been explained by yours truly in depth on this forum,
Click to expand...
The only thing demonstrated by you "in depth" is your complete unfamiliarity with the commonly accepted and practiced allegorical/symbolical interpretation of the scriptures in the lifetimes of the ECFs, not to mention your sudden love affair with everything LATIN (ROME) in defense of the interpolated Comma.

Btw, the Church of Rome is hardly the direction in which you want to travel if you're hoping to escape allegory, symbolism, and mystical interpretation.

You invent a ridiculous phrase called "invisible allegory" and think you've miraculously converted the ECFs into Comma advocates. How naive.

The ECFs don't need to literally say, per your understanding of how allegory works,

"the Spirit represents...."
"the water represents..."
"the blood represents..."

....when the allegorical interpretation was commonly understood during that time! You can't shoe-horn the ECFs into your 21st century fundamentalist/literalist view of how scripture ought to be read and interpreted.

You have no understanding at all of the times in which the ECFs lived, nor how they approached the interpretation of scripture. (Which is not to say I have a perfect understanding of all they wrote or believed. Their writings are much too voluminous.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top