Syriac Peshitta, KJVO "pure" line, and the Comma

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Factual errors
... 5) there is zippo reason to endorse Jerome authorship of the VP. None.

The factual error is your claim.
There are many solid reasons to "endorse" Jerome's authorship of the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles. Here are three biggies.

1) it is a first person writing, addressed to Eustochium, a frequent correspondent.

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
b) was originally based on the supposed late date of the Prologue manuscripts, which fell apart by the Fuldensis discovery

3) There is no good forgery author(s) proposed, all such speculation has been extremely weak.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
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



100% false.

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.


Doesn't matter.



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.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Explain your reasons why you accept the "Epistola Beati Jheronimi de Substantia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" as being a genuine work of Potamius' own authorship, and why it was not in fact authored by Jerome?

André Wilmart (1876-1941) and Richard Patrick Crosland Hanson (1916-1988) and Marco Conti (b. 1961) and Manlio Simonetti (1926-2017) and Antonio Montes Moreira (b. 1935) are scholars who discuss authorship.

It is likely Potamius although some allow other possibilities in the mid 4th century.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
BECAUSE YOU MADE THE CLAIM (without any proof) THAT THEY WERE CORRECTIONS!!!
You don't get to keep inventing stories without proving any of them.

The evidence is explained in Grantley McDonald's explanation.

What do you consider as invented?

And I never claim to be able to "prove" anything to the satisfaction of contras.
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
Bear something in mind: when it comes to Mark 19:9-20, 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!!!!!
Excellent point. It's that kind of hypocrisy on Spencer's [ 😉 ] part that led me to start the thread asking about the criteria for jumping from the Greek to the Latin and back to the Greek again.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
The evidence is explained in Grantley McDonald's explanation.

What do you consider as invented?

And I never claim to be able to "prove" anything to the satisfaction of contras.

In other words, you don’t have any idea. You just figure since a guy says something he like, it must be right even though you’ve slammed McDonald six ways to Tuesday otherwise.

Also - you are the one holding the contra view, not us.
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
What do you consider as invented?
You claim COMMITTENTES was corrected to OMITTENTES.

You make this claim:

1. with no proof that a majority of vulgate mss have OMITTENTES

2. with no proof that they were in fact "corrections" rather than tampering

3. because without it your theory that the comma was dropped from the Greek vanishes.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You made the error for years Steven of not knowing that the Codex Fuldensis said (and still says) "COMITTENTES" not "omittentes".
You didn't have a clue "COMMITTENTES" was there.

JW Matt started writing about it in 2019, that was the beginning of any discussion.

It was interesting, but of no real value, as Grantley McDonald pointed out.

There was no "error" on my part, or any other writers.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You mean where I QUOTE KJVOs SAYING THE ARIANS REMOVED THE TEXT????

Your paper was self-contradictory. You built your false logic on the difficulty or lateness of Arian omission, and at that point you simply "forgot" that the Sabellian issues make that whole argument moot.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You claim COMMITTENTES was corrected to OMITTENTES.
You make this claim:
1. with no proof that a majority of vulgate mss have OMITTENTES
2. with no proof that they were in fact "corrections" rather than tampering
3. because without it your theory that the comma was dropped from the Greek vanishes.

1 is irrelevant.
2 is demolished by the Grantley McDonald section.
3 is simply false
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
It’s almost like all your years of:
1) attacking everyone with the vehemence of a rabid dog and then…
2) developing no further than quite mining ti make your case….

Both false.
In fact, my posts are far more genteel and friendly than yours.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If (note "IF") Jerome was the author of LSB (as it pseudonymously says in all the manuscripts of Potamius' LSB) and therefore it was✌️Jerome✌️ who gave the figurative eisegesis of 1 John 5:8(Clause-C) in LSB and LA, then what it says in the CE-Prologue is DEFINITELY false.
That's the implication.

All your conjectures here are wrong, as is your quote-mining "figurative" blah-blah.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
How many of these are DISTINCTIVE Byzantine readings?

Also - you are no doubt aware that one reading not there is….the CJ, which renders your appeal moot.

The heavenly witnesses is simply one textual issue, and it is one where the Peshitta agrees with the Greek ms. lines.

There is no agreed, sensible definition of "DISTINCTIVE Byzantine readings".
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Easily documented - from "there could have been a text-line split" to "there could have been a Latin Mark" to "there could have been a Hebrew Apocalypse" to "Christians might not have quoted it intentionally."

There is plenty of solid writing about Mark having a Latin edition.

The possibility of Revelation in Hebrew is worth study.

Your third one - have no idea what you are saying.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Excellent point. It's that kind of hypocrisy on Spencer's [ 😉 ] part that led me to start the thread asking about the criteria for jumping from the Greek to the Latin and back to the Greek again.

False analogy.

The Mark ending is 99.8% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts in full agreement.

The heavenly witnesses are in about 95% the Latin line, which is about half the total manuscripts. And this support includes the Old Latin mss.

Try to think logically. Thanks!

And note the unscholarly and childish argumentation of Bill Brown.

Maestroh said:
Bear something in mind: when it comes to Mark 19:9-20, 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!!!!!

On the Mark ending there are massive evidences in support of authenticity, and the virtually unanimous Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts are a major part of that support. You have to have a real problem to call that "bleats self-righteously". Stuff like that is why Bill Brown disqualifies himself from actual dialog and discussion. He works off his presuppositions and will wildly attack any arguments for the TR and AV.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
In other words, you don’t have any idea. You just figure since a guy says something he like, it must be right even though you’ve slammed McDonald six ways to Tuesday otherwise.

What a silly attack.

Yes, Grantley has some problems which I have exposed. However, I do not work with the genetic fallacy, and often praise what Grantley writes. Also he really helped advance heavenly witnesses scholarship, as long as you understand the weakness of his overall position against authenticity, which leads to very awkward and skewed writing on his part. And on some issues we had extensive private discussion, including the Vulgate Prologue.

The excellent response from Grantley on Fuldensis was truly superb, and should have ended all this stuff about the scribal variant including committentes changing the meaning of the Vulgate Prologue. However, once the contras go into rah-rah mode, they don't let the facts get in the way.
 
Top