Jerome as author-translator of the full Vulgate New Testament

Why do you say "using" rather than quoting?

Discussed already.
And I showed how Pieper properly used the word quoting, based on the placement of the phrases.

However, the conservative method is to use quoting for when most or all of the verse is actually quoted.

This is all very simple, you tie yourself up in knots over nothing.
 
No. The evidence is that Cyprian read and replicated and was influenced by Tertullian, whose trinity came not from the Comma, but from his philosophical deductions in Adversus Praxean, which are seen to be based on John 10:30, and 1 John 5:8 (tres unum sunt), which Facundus was later to replicate. Facundus was the model of "orthodoxy." Cyprian's words show that Tertullian's teaching was widely accepted.

This is the type of convoluted, special pleading, invisible allegory absurdity that was too much even for Scrivener.

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"
 
No. The evidence is that Cyprian read and replicated and was influenced by Tertullian, whose trinity came not from the Comma, but from his philosophical deductions in Adversus Praxean, which are seen to be based on John 10:30, and 1 John 5:8 (tres unum sunt), which Facundus was later to replicate. Facundus was the model of "orthodoxy." Cyprian's words show that Tertullian's teaching was widely accepted.

Look at Chapter 8 of Adv. Prax.

Adversum Praxaen 8.5

“As for us [...] because “I and the Father, we are one.” [John 10:30] This will be the Truth's (προβολη) emanation, the Guardian [Or: "the Keeper" "the Watchman"] of the unity [Or: "of the one-ness"], by which we declare that the Son is an emanation from the Father, but he is not separated from Him, just as the Paraclete teaches...”​

Tertullian hasn't worked out all the kinks in his theory's yet. He vacillates from teaching heretical ideas (like above) that appear more like what he's fighting against (Sabellianistic One-ness) and his doctrine of the Trinity of persons.

But he clearly states that the origin of his ideas, i.e. the Montantist "Paraclate".


Adversum Praxaen 30.5

This man in the meantime has become the recipient of the gift that came from the Father, which he poured forth, the Holy Spirit [Or: “the Spirit of Holiness”], the third name of the Divinity, and the third stage [Lit., “the third step”] of the Divine Majesty, the Preacher [Or: “the Publisher”] of a unified [Or: “sole” “single”] monarchy, but also the Interpreter of the economy, for anyone, who will permit admittance to his sermons of THE NEW PROPHECY, even the Leader of all truth [Or : "the Guide of" "the Conductor of" "the Escort of" cf. John 16:13] which consists in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in accordance with [Or: “according to”] the Christian mystery...”
When Tertullian says "deductorem omnis veritatis" he doesn't quote the Bible, he's using a Montantist title, a description derived from John 16:13 which says in Greek, either εἰς "into" or ἐν "in" all the truth (Jerome reads "in" also), rather than and contrasted to Tetullian's genitive omnis "of" etc.
 
Last edited:
Adversum Praxaen 8.5

“As for us [...] because “I and the Father, we are one.” [John 10:30] This will be the Truth's (προβολη) emanation, the Guardian [Or: "the Keeper" "the Watchman"] of the unity [Or: "of the one-ness"], by which we declare that the Son is an emanation from the Father, but he is not separated from Him, just as the Paraclete teaches...”​

Tertullian hasn't worked out all the kinks in his theory's yet. He vacillates from teaching heretical ideas (like above) that appear more like what he's fighting against (Sabellianistic One-ness) and his doctrine of the Trinity of persons.

You do not give a source for your translation and it is very different than what is online. We learned with Cassiodorus that your individualized translations are worthless. I tried to correct you five times, finally you accepted the fact that your "read into" text was wrong.
 
This is the type of convoluted, special pleading, invisible allegory absurdity that was too much even for Scrivener.

It's not safer to guess at what Cyprian might have had, what utter rubbish!

It's simply safer to read the context

Cyprian of Carthage

De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate (‘On The Unity of the Universal Church’)

Chapter 6.6


“...And these three are one.” [1 John 5:8 (Clause-C), KJV-numbering] And does any man actually believe that this one-ness, which comes from the Divine strength, which is connected together by THESE sacred Heavenly symbols..."
It's easy to see why Facundus said Cyprian interpreted (i.e. eisegetically interpreted) this verse symbolically when you read the context.
 
Last edited:
You do not give a source for your translation and it is very different than what is online. We learned with Cassiodorus that your individualized translations are worthless. I tried to correct you five times, finally you accepted the fact that your "read into" text was wrong.

Just your usual resort to simplistic denigration.
 
It's easy to see why Facundus said Cyprian interpreted (i.e. eisegetically interpreted) this verse symbolically when you read the context.

Facundus lived in a time when most Latin Bibles had the heavenly witnesses, as proven by the Council of Carthage, De Trinitate, etc. And his text was obviously one where they had dropped out, since again and again he had "in earth" in his text. Very possibly there was a split line, and he decided omission was original.

Thus, the idea of three heavenly witnesses was in wide use (this is true for all of those who claim a mystical or allegorical interp of the earthly.) Facundus came up with the wacky idea that the heavenly came from the earthly witnesses. However, at least he did not engage in invisible allegory.

And Fulgentius gives the straight forward truth, both he and Cyprian had the heavenly witnesses in their Bibles. He lived closer in time to Cyprian and had all the facts right.

Btw, your translation is untrustworthy, once again.
Your posts are funny, but they are worthless.
 
Last edited:
You got busted on your Cassiodorus deliberate mistranslation.

If that is “denigration” then the truth denigrates your “scholarship”.

Cassiodorus inherited the "mystery" interpretation of 1 John 5:8 (Clause-D, KJV-numbering) from even earlier mystery interpreter's like Cyprian.

Cassiodorus (circa. 485–585 CE)

“Summarized Explanations in the Epistles of the Apostles, the Epistle of St. John, at Parthos.”

Chapter 10


“To which legal matter is he testifying to? On earth, the three mysteries, “the water, the blood, and the Spirit,” which we are to read [Or: “which we interpret” “which we gather is” “which we profess”] ? as having a fulfillment in the suffering of the Lord, but in heaven, on the other hand, as the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, “and these three” persons constitute the the one God.”​

Mystery interpretations galore Steven.
 
Facundus lived in a time when most Latin Bibles had the heavenly witnesses, as proven by the Council of Carthage, De Trinitate, etc. And his text was obviously one where they had dropped out, since again and again he had "in earth" in his text. Very possibly there was a split line, and he decided omission was original.

Thus, the idea of three heavenly witnesses was in wide use (this is true for all of those who claim a mystical or allegorical interp of the earthly.) Facundus came up with the wacky idea that the heavenly came from the earthly witnesses. However, at least he did not engage in invisible allegory.

And Fulgentius gives the straight forward truth, both he and Cyprian had the heavenly witnesses in their Bibles. He lived closer in time to Cyprian and had all the facts right.

Btw, your translation is untrustworthy, once again.
Your posts are funny, but they are worthless.

No complaints about the Comma-less Greek of Cyril in Ephesus, where John is supposed to have written the original.

Ephesus trumps Carthage, the hotbed of Montantist and Sabellian heresy.
 
Last edited:
Facundus lived in a time when most Latin Bibles had the heavenly witnesses, as proven by the Council of Carthage, De Trinitate, etc. And his text was obviously one where they had dropped out, since again and again he had "in earth" in his text. Very possibly there was a split line, and he decided omission was original.

Thus, the idea of three heavenly witnesses was in wide use (this is true for all of those who claim a mystical or allegorical interp of the earthly.) Facundus came up with the wacky idea that the heavenly came from the earthly witnesses. However, at least he did not engage in invisible allegory.

And Fulgentius gives the straight forward truth, both he and Cyprian had the heavenly witnesses in their Bibles. He lived closer in time to Cyprian and had all the facts right.

Btw, your translation is untrustworthy, once again.
Your posts are funny, but they are worthless.

You keep dealing with the possibilities (fantasy) Steven, and we'll keep dealing with the facts.
 
Last edited:
Look at Chapter 8 of Adv. Prax.

Adversum Praxaen 8.5

“As for us [...] because “I and the Father, we are one.” [John 10:30] This will be the Truth's (προβολη) emanation, the Guardian [Or: "the Keeper" "the Watchman"] of the unity [Or: "of the one-ness"], by which we declare that the Son is an emanation from the Father, but he is not separated from Him, just as the Paraclete teaches...”​

Tertullian hasn't worked out all the kinks in his theory's yet. He vacillates from teaching heretical ideas (like above) that appear more like what he's fighting against (Sabellianistic One-ness) and his doctrine of the Trinity of persons.

But he clearly states that the origin of his ideas, i.e. the Montantist "Paraclate".


Adversum Praxaen 30.5

This man in the meantime has become the recipient of the gift that came from the Father, which he poured forth, the Holy Spirit [Or: “the Spirit of Holiness”], the third name of the Divinity, and the third stage [Lit., “the third step”] of the Divine Majesty, the Preacher [Or: “the Publisher”] of a unified [Or: “sole” “single”] monarchy, but also the Interpreter of the economy, for anyone, who will permit admittance to his sermons of THE NEW PROPHECY, even the Leader of all truth [Or : "the Guide of" "the Conductor of" "the Escort of" cf. John 16:13] which consists in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in accordance with [Or: “according to”] the Christian mystery...”
When Tertullian says "deductorem omnis veritatis" he doesn't quote the Bible, he's using a Montantist title, a description derived from John 16:13 which says in Greek, either εἰς "into" or ἐν "in" all the truth (Jerome reads "in" also), rather than and contrasted to Tetullian's genitive omnis "of" etc.
Good points. I agree Tertullian mixed truth and falsehood in a pseudo-gnostic fashion, almost as if he is trying to emulate the Valentinians. (I need to read his ADVERSUS VALENTINIANOS to see if I can understand him better.)

The last passage you quoted is (surely) significant for the introduction of the Comma, "the new prophecy.......which consists in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in accordance with [Or: “according to”] the Christian mystery” and possibly linked also to gnostic teaching.
 
So you think the Council of Carthage involved Montanists?

If so, on which side?
And who were the Sabellians?

Tertullian wasn't a Montantist, and wasn't part of his "New Prophecy" movement when he wrote Adversum Praxaen?

Cyprian wasn't in any way influenced by Tertullian ("give me my Master")?

Is that what you think?

Tertullian of Carthage

Adversus Praxaen

Chapter 1

“...since he had not the love of God whose spiritual gifts he also drove out by assault. For at that time the bishop of Rome was on the point of recognizing the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca [Or: "Priscilla"] and Maximilla and as a result of that recognition was offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia [...] And we indeed, after admitting our acceptance of the Paraclete, and having made a defense in HIS behalf, went even further by separating [Lit., “dis-uniting”] ourselves from the company of those that were Carnal-minded...”

Tertullian of Carthage

Adversus Praxaen

Chapter 30.5


This man in the meantime has become the recipient of the gift that came from the Father, which he poured forth, the Holy Spirit [Or: “the Spirit of Holiness”], the third name of the Divinity, and the third stage [Lit., “the third step”] of the Divine Majesty, the Preacher [Or: “the Publisher”] of a unified [Or: “sole” “single”] monarchy, but also the Interpreter of the economy, for anyone, who will permit admittance to HIS sermons of THE NEW PROPHECY, even the Leader of all truth [Or : "the Guide of" "the Conductor of" "the Escort of" cf. John 16:13] which consists in
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in accordance with [Or: “according to”] the Christian mystery...”

Jerome

“De Viris Illustribus” (“On Illustrious Men”)

Chapter 53

"Of his fine oratorical genius, Tertullian, in the seven books which he wrote against the church on behalf of Montanus, satirically says that
he [i.e. Mileto of Sardis] was considered a prophet by many of us...”​
 
Last edited:
Of zero relevance to quoting the heavenly witnesses verse.

You're back to your the Edit per mod simple minded refuge of denial Steven.

You simply haven't proved in any sound or convincing way whatsoever that Tertullian wasn't interpreting (eisegesis) Scripture as a Montanist follower, in a Montanist way, as Montanist eisegesis of Scripture, in harmony with the Montanist revelations about the Scriptures, and according to the teachings of Montanist on the Scriptures, throughout the entire book of Adversus Praxaen ("Against Praxaes").

Your reasoning about Adv. Prax. chapter 25, is like someone taking a slice of apple from one side of the core of the apple, and saying, "look, this is not an apple because it doesn't have any pips in it"!

That, in effect, is your reasoning. Because you can't deny the context of the book, all you can resort to is Edit per mod childish denial.

Chapter 25, eisegetically interprets John 10:30 in a Montanist way, in accordance with the Leader of the New Prophecy, whom they gave the title "the Paraclete" (which they derived from Scripture, but illegitimately bestowed) to the man "Montanus" (named in Chapter 1).

Tertullian of Carthage

Adversus Praxaen

Chapter 8.5


“As for us [...] because “I and the Father, we are one.” [John 10:30] This will be the Truth's (προβολη) emanation, the Guardian [Or: "the Keeper" "the Watchman"] of the unity [Or: "of the one-ness"], by which we declare that the Son is an emanation from the Father,
but he is not separated from Him, just as the Paraclete teaches...”
This is a Montanist book, written to defend Montanist teachings, and to promote the Montanist cause.

From start:

Tertullian of Carthage

Adversus Praxaen

Chapter 1


“...since he had not the love of God whose spiritual gifts he also drove out by assault. For at that time the bishop of Rome was on the point of recognizing the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca [Or: "Priscilla"] and Maximilla and as a result of that recognition was offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia [...] And we indeed, after admitting our acceptance of the Paraclete, and having made a defense in HIS behalf, went even further by separating [Lit., “dis-uniting”] ourselves from the company of those that were Carnal-minded...”​


To the finish:


Tertullian of Carthage

Adversus Praxaen

Chapter 30.5


This man in the meantime has become the recipient of the gift that came from the Father, which he poured forth, the Holy Spirit [Or: “the Spirit of Holiness”], the third name of the Divinity, and the third stage [Lit., “the third step”] of the Divine Majesty, the Preacher [Or: “the Publisher”] of a unified [Or: “sole” “single”] monarchy, but also the Interpreter of the economy, for anyone, who will permit admittance to HIS sermons of THE NEW PROPHECY, even the Leader of all truth [Or : "the Guide of" "the Conductor of" "the Escort of" cf. John 16:13] which consists in
the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in accordance with [Or: “according to”] the Christian mystery...”​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TwoNoteableCorruptions wrote:
That, in effect, is your reasoning. Because you can't deny the context of the book, all you can resort to is simple headed, childish denial.
HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD!!!
 
Back
Top