Jerome as author-translator of the full Vulgate New Testament

cjab

Well-known member
An example of a 4th century "orthodox" bishop accused of Sabellianism

Eustathius of Antioch
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustathius_of_Antioch
Such then was the difference between the Romans, and the Greeks. Was the difference due to Tertullian and Cyprian and the influence of the infamous Comma, whether marginal or textual, which reflected their teachings, along with the Latin mistranslation of 1 John 5:8 "Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt"?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Such then was the difference between the Romans, and the Greeks. Was the difference due to Tertullian and Cyprian and the influence of the .... Comma, whether marginal or textual, which reflected their teachings, along with the Latin mistranslation of 1 John 5:8 "Spiritus et aqua et sanguis et tres unum sunt"?

Too large a question to give an easy answer.

There definitely was more heavenly witnesses influence in Latin, but it is hard to say if that accounts for differences in their Trinity development. I doubt if the Latin translation of the earthly witnesses, the same as the heavenly witnesses, was a major factor. It did have a major effect relating to Joachim, Lateran Council, Aquinas and the Complutensian Polyglot.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Too large a question to give an easy answer.

There definitely was more heavenly witnesses influence in Latin,
Was there any "heavenly witness" influence in the Greek? Are there any Greek allusions to the Comma at all that your research has discovered?

but it is hard to say if that accounts for differences in their Trinity development.
Distinctions in the number of hypostases could be viewed as question begging, viz. what/who "God" really denotes in the NT and in the OT.

As we see from Eusebius (Ecclestiatical Theology &etc), to him, and presumably to many others, "God" primarily meant the Father "One God above all" as he often recites per the Pauline formula in Rom 9:5 (i.e. RSV translation), thereby distinguishing the Father from the Son. By Heb 1:3, "The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the imprint of the hypostasis [of God], sustaining all things by the word of the power through himself."

Yet the practical application lies in soteriology: the consideration and application of Christ's mediatorial role. Did Latin Christianity became persecuting in nature, perhaps losing sight of Christ's mediatorial role, because it was unable to see Christ as other than "God" after espousing the hard Trinitarian doctrine entailed by the Comma?

I doubt if the Latin translation of the earthly witnesses, the same as the heavenly witnesses, was a major factor. It did have a major effect relating to Joachim, Lateran Council, Aquinas and the Complutensian Polyglot.
In what respects?
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
In what respects?

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.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Was there any "heavenly witness" influence in the Greek? Are there any Greek allusions to the Comma at all that your research has discovered?
The main solid allusions are a

Disputation of Athanasius with an Arian at Nicea
(I believe that made the apparatus.)

Synopsis of Sacred Scripture

Both accepted by contra scholar Scrivener.

A third by Euthymius Zigabenus gets special attention. There is a manuscript question, the context of his writing supports inclusion.

There is lots of wording in Creeds and Confessions that traces back to the heavenly witnesses. Charles Forster covers that well
 

cjab

Well-known member
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.
Demonstrating the propensity of the Latins to play fast and loose with scripture to suit their own purposes.

The change to 1 John 5:8 shows that the importance of the "earthly witnesses" was diminishing rapidly. Rather the papacy was the witness on earth, the representative of the heavenly trinity, of God the Father, "God the Word" and "God the Holy Spirit".

BTW, nowhere else in John's writings, or in any other, are God the Father and [God the] Word juxtaposed. This is why you can know the Comma is definitely FAKE. "God the Word" was a post-NT invention of the ECFs. You can tell that the Comma intended "God the Word" (and "God the Holy Spirit") even if it doesn't say it explicitly, just because "the three are one."

Poor Abbot Joachim. Little did he know that he was living amidst the papacy of antichrist.

____________________

The 4th Lateran Council took place during the crusade against the Albigenses.

"Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word "genocide" in the 20th century,[193] referred to the Albigensian Crusade as "one of the most conclusive cases of genocide in religious history".[3] Mark Gregory Pegg writes that "The Albigensian Crusade ushered genocide into the West by linking divine salvation to mass murder, by making slaughter as loving an act as His sacrifice on the cross." (wiki)

The 4th Lateran Council had this to say about heretics "We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under ..... If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith -- saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain."
 

cjab

Well-known member
The main solid allusions are a

Disputation of Athanasius with an Arian at Nicea
(I believe that made the apparatus.)
As you well know, most say that this is Pseudo-Athanasius, including GM.
Also see https://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog...-diodorus-the-suda-and-byzantine-punctuation/
Synopsis of Sacred Scripture

Both accepted by contra scholar Scrivener.
Also spurious
A third by Euthymius Zigabenus gets special attention. There is a manuscript question, the context of his writing supports inclusion.

There is lots of wording in Creeds and Confessions that traces back to the heavenly witnesses. Charles Forster covers that well
You've been arguing this for a long time now with others. It seems no-one credits it.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
BTW, nowhere else in John's writings, or in any other, are God the Father and [God the] Word juxtaposed. This is why you can know the Comma is definitely FAKE. "God the Word" was a post-NT invention of the ECFs. You can tell that the Comma intended "God the Word" (and "God the Holy Spirit") even if it doesn't say it explicitly, just because "the three are one."

This makes no sense.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member

The ‘Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae’ on the Canon
Michael Marlowe
https://www.bible-researcher.com/sss.html

The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture is an ancient treatise which has been traditionally ascribed to Athanasius, but most scholars now think that it was composed by an anonymous Greek churchman sometime in the sixth century. Below we reproduce the most relevant portions of the treatise. The Greek text is according to J.P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, vol. 28 (Paris, 1887; volume 4 of the collected works of Athanasius), cols. 284-93 and 432. The English translation is my own.

This is an early Greek work that supports our verse.
The fact that a copyist put the name of Athanasius on top is irrelevant.

Anonymous, not “spurious”.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
You seem to us to be just a little bit to eager to accept writings that are attributed to the names ECW Catholic super heroes, but of which, the discordant content, the style, and clear anachronistic blunders (in some cases straight out spiritual fairytale content) show they are definitely the product of someone else from a later time.

Disturbingly, none of this seems to matter to you. Your willing and gullible acceptance of patently FAKE works is really really bad way to build credibility for your cause, or the Comma.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It doesn't raise a chronological red flag for you Steven, from the fact that it uses the word ΠΑΡΑ' Lit., “Papa”, a.ka "Pope"?

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

Without discussing here the question of spuriousness, or genuineness, I proceed at once to show, from collation with his undisputed writings, that the 8tyle and imagery here ridiculed is identical with that of St. Athanasius.

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

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.
 
Last edited:

Unbound68

Well-known member
Too vague.
Need quote of sentence and context.
Translation: I've never read it.

Edit: Avery's post keeps getting longer as he conducts his Google searches trying to figure out what TNC means. So typical.

This is what he posted originally:
Too vague.
Need quote of sentence and context.

Which then morphed into this, after his quick Google search on the term PAPA:

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.

The fact that you didn't know that when just a few weeks ago you were asking Logos1560 if Historicists were heretics, speaks volumes. You dropped the term as if you were acquainted with the beliefs (were you acquainted with historicism, you'd know exactly hiw PAPA fits in). Once again you pretend to have a level of knowledge that you haven't attained.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
This makes no sense.
It makes no sense, as it is tautological, to say that the Spirit of God 1Jo 4:2 is one with God, or that the Word of God Rev 19:13 is one with God, as cohesion and unity is implicit within the genitive of possession or belonging,

So the "God the Father and ...... are one" formulation could only infer whatever is deemed equal to the Father, i.e. "God the Word" and "God the Holy Spirit." These are hard Trinitarian conceptions primarily belonging to the later "Monarchian" /"Trinitarian" Latin era of Sabellius, Noetus, Hippolytus and Tertullian in the 3rd century AD, and also Origen from the Greek speakers.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
The ‘Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae’ on the Canon
Michael Marlowe
https://www.bible-researcher.com/sss.html

The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture is an ancient treatise which has been traditionally ascribed to Athanasius, but most scholars now think that it was composed by an anonymous Greek churchman sometime in the sixth century. Below we reproduce the most relevant portions of the treatise. The Greek text is according to J.P. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Graeca, vol. 28 (Paris, 1887; volume 4 of the collected works of Athanasius), cols. 284-93 and 432. The English translation is my own.

This is an early Greek work that supports our verse.
The fact that a copyist put the name of Athanasius on top is irrelevant.

Anonymous, not “spurious”.

Here is where Charles Forster shows that the style is consistent with Athanasius.

New Pleas (1867)
Charles Forster
https://books.google.com/books?id=EKwCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA53
p. 53-57

‘The great Athanasius ’ is no exception. Such is the character of his undisputed writings; and, like them, such is the character of the Synopsis. It gives the salient points of St. John’s First Epistle, but in a disrupted order of its own. I have carefully collated it with his unquestioned writings, and (Porson’s sweeping censure notwithstanding) I see the hand of Athanasius in the style. In proof of this, one or two examples may suffice. . .
Identity of manner of the Synopsis with St. Athanasius’s undisputed writings, where treating alike on the First Epistle of St. John. (continues)

So I would be reluctant to accept "anonymous" as the most likely, unless there are compelling arguments against Athanasian authorship that are stronger than the Charles Forster writings.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It makes no sense, as it is tautological, to say that the Spirit of God 1Jo 4:2 is one with God, or that the Word of God Rev 19:13 is one with God, as cohesion and unity is implicit within the genitive of possession or belonging,

So the "God the Father and ...... are one" formulation could only infer whatever is deemed equal to the Father, i.e. "God the Word" and "God the Holy Spirit." These are hard Trinitarian conceptions primarily belonging to the later "Monarchian" /"Trinitarian" Latin era of Sabellius, Noetus, Hippolytus and Tertullian in the 3rd century AD, and also Origen from the Greek speakers.

When you start reading in "God the Holy Spirit" or :"God the Word" into a supposed theory of heavenly witnesses verse formulation, I really can not take your assertions seriously. I will read them, consider them, and move on.

Plus, I have never heard "Oneness" or "Sabellians" pushing that phrasing. And I am skeptical that you will find it in Hippolytus or Tertullian or Origen's Greek writing as well. (We know that Rufinus tampered in the Latin of Origen, but even there it would be hard to find such phrases.)

If you give actual quotes, then we might have something to work with.
 
Last edited:
Top