There are many solid reasons to "endorse" Jerome's authorship of the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.
And the only reason we have this rabbit trail is because of the LACK of Greek, AND LATIN AND Syriac AND every other language manuscripts in th early period.
Here are three biggies.
1) it is a first person writing, addressed to Eustochium, a frequent correspondent.
In July 2015, I very explicitly asked you whether or not the Apostle Paul wrote the Epistle to the Laodiceans.
You have never answered that question yet, which can hardly be considered loaded here given your argument.
Not only is that a first-person writing FROM Paul...he also SAYS IN COLOSSIANS that he wrote the Laodiceans.....so.......do you accept that claim or not?
And if not - what's the difference?
And whom do you propose as the forger?
2) the theory of Jerome's non-authorship
a) developed very late, and was largely based on the animus to the authenticity to the heavenly witnesses verse
It didn't develop until late because most folks didn't even know about it.
Nice try, though.
b) was originally based on the supposed late date of the Prologue manuscripts, which fell apart by the Fuldensis discovery
Fuldensis nearly 150 years after Jerome's passing and thus not a direct copy.
So.....do you have anything to offer besides a bunch of assumptions?
See - here's the difference: EVEN IF Jerome wrote it, it doesn't matter. It simply constitutes his fifth century opinion of a Latin corruption rooted in the 4th century. So I don't even have to care one way or the other, which is why it's amusing to watch you constantly raise the temperature here.
And finally - not one single Latin scholar living on planet earth (or even Houghton, who passed away recently) sees it the way you do. And not all of them are anti-Comma Johanneum as you're insisting here, either.
3) There is no good forgery author(s) proposed, all such speculation has been extremely weak.
I don't have to know the name of the person(s) who killed Nicole Simpson and Ronald Goldman to know they are dead, either. Of course, in this case we know who did it since DNA is conclusive. But whether I know who did it doesn't change the conclusion.
So..........what else do you have? (And what does this even have to do with the Syriac Peshiddo????)
Bear something in mind: when it comes to Mark 16:9-20, Steven Avery bleats self-righteously about “the 99.9%” of manuscripts. But when it comes to this, he avoids the 99%, some of which are the exact same manuscript!!!!!
Why? Because the 99.9% is a ruse. It just doesn’t matter, he begins with the KJV and works backwards. Fundamentalism hitting hyper-drive…..in reverse.