I have a PDF copy if anyone is interested.
The Epistle to the Laodiceans and "Jerome’s" prologue
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
I have a PDF copy if anyone is interested.
Let me bring you up to speed on this one because the OP is a tad bit unclear.
Avery likes to tell all of us - contra every single Latin version scholar alive - that Jerome wrote the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, which - over a century after Jerome croaked - tells us that the Comma Johanneum should be in the text and promotes a conspiracy theory. Avery, wanting his precious KJV reading to be vindicated, has informed all of us through his stellar research skills (and by "stellar" I mean "nonexistent") that this is in first-person Jerome blah blah blah.
He made this claim on July 15, 2015 on the old CARM board.
So I asked him something he won't answer:
Since "Paul's Epistle to the Laodiceans" is in Fuldensis (which is what he's arguing about) and:
1) It claims Paul as a first-person author
2) Paul himself said he wrote one and this is recorded in Scripture
...why should I reject that claim? Not only is it EXACTLY THE SAME THING he claims for Jerome, it has the imprimatur of Scripture (that Jerome doesn't).
Why does he insist the one is valid but not the other using the same methodology?
This has not answer because it shows his inconsistency on the subject.
He's made clear here he rejects it - which goes to prove his "first person" argument, the fact it's in Fuldensis AND the fact Paul explicitly says it in Scripture...he rejects. But he accepts the other simply because he wants it to be true.
Bear in mind I reject BOTH - because unlike KJVOs, I'm consistent.
Let’s not forget that Fuldensis is also WHITE. Hardly the color it should be, being nearly 1500 years old! I’ve mentioned this a couple times at this forum…..crickets from the crack-pot researcher. Double standards.
(I’ll bet Daniels didn’t have any goofy dreams that kept him awake at night, hauntingly telling him “it’s white….what if it’s a fake?”
Who faked Fuldensis?
Last edited:
These discussions about the coloration or discoloration of certain parchment manuscripts makes me think that we should have access to a genuine expert on old parchments, instead of supposing that discoloration must indicate that something sinister happened. For all I know, certain kinds of parchment just naturally blanche after many years, etc.
Can anyone roust up an expert - a real expert - on old parchment so we can get an authoritative explanation??
Can anyone roust up an expert - a real expert - on old parchment so we can get an authoritative explanation??
Our Lord's God
Well-known member
Paul's letter to the Ephesians is probably to the Laodiceans. Go to Youtube and serve "letter laodiceans ephesians"
The other letter to the Laodiceans is a fake.
Hixson, Mcgrane, Brown, Rabin and others have all tried telling Avery the coloring issue is a big nothing.
He won’t listen.
He’s programmed to defer to no one, no matter how much expertise they have.
And Avery’s outright rejection of any and all conclusions given by the experts has either rubbed off on David W. Daniels, or Daniels taught it to Avery:
“Some of you probably realize that one of the big ideas in Western Europe at this time was the falsely-called science of paleography, created by Catholic Benedictine Maurist monks Mabillon and Montfaucon. It was the con job that just by looking at it, a person could tell how old a document was, and whether it was genuine. What they conveniently forgot was the fact that anyone can copy the form of handwriting from an older period in history. We tried that in elementary school!” (Daniels, Who Faked, pg. 152)
[emphasis mine]
Paleography can’t be trusted? “Falsely called science?”
The bolded part has been said by Avery at this forum more than once.
So what exactly would any expert say to convince the fools who have taken their KJV idolatry to its inevitable conclusion; — i.e., that NO BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPT CAN BE TRUSTED AS GENUINELY EARLY (especially if it disagrees with said idol)?
How do they know the entire manuscript record wasn’t forged?
“Some of you probably realize that one of the big ideas in Western Europe at this time was the falsely-called science of paleography, created by Catholic Benedictine Maurist monks Mabillon and Montfaucon. It was the con job that just by looking at it, a person could tell how old a document was, and whether it was genuine. What they conveniently forgot was the fact that anyone can copy the form of handwriting from an older period in history. We tried that in elementary school!” (Daniels, Who Faked, pg. 152)
[emphasis mine]
Paleography can’t be trusted? “Falsely called science?”
The bolded part has been said by Avery at this forum more than once.
So what exactly would any expert say to convince the fools who have taken their KJV idolatry to its inevitable conclusion; — i.e., that NO BIBLICAL MANUSCRIPT CAN BE TRUSTED AS GENUINELY EARLY (especially if it disagrees with said idol)?
How do they know the entire manuscript record wasn’t forged?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This helps show that you cannot use the absence of the heavenly witnesses as a supposed strong evidence for Jerome's original Vulgate. Time had passed and some variants had crept into the text. In fact, that is the warning of the Prologue.
Especially since the Prologue includes the verse. The overall evidence is FOR the original Vulgate having the verse.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This is a good question.
In my experience the experts do not really want to deal with the phenomenally good condition of Sinaiticus, however it is proper for you to try.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Total nonsense.
The Prologue is a first-person writing of Jerome, that matches his textual understandings and personal connections. Nothing to do with the Laodecian Epistle.
And nobody claims the Prologue as scripture so your last phrase is typically incoherent.
Narrator: "The overall evidence is actually NOT FOR the original Vulgate having the verse."
After all - all anyone would have had to do was yank the original off the shelf and prove it. Much like Simonides never providing proof, they didn't do that for the most obvious reason: there was no proof. There was only proof of the opposite.
An apt description of your posts.
"The Epistle to the Laodiceans" is also a first-person writing of Paul - using YOUR method.
This is just making up a word salad and hoping nobody notices it's nothing but a word salad.
You're right. Paul never said anything about the heavenly witnesses but he VERY EXPLICITLY ACKNOWLEDGED an epistle to the Laodiceans IN DIVINE SCRIPTURE.
The case for Paul writing this is stronger and more biblical than anything Jerome ever dreamed of doing.
Nah, you're just pretending to not get it so you don't have to provide a rationale for your inconsistent methodology. And like a typical narcissist, you're blaming it on me (e.g. gaslighting).
Let's cut through the bull, sister:
a) I reject BOTH as authentic simply because the method is the same.
b) You REJECT Pauline authorship of the epistle to the Laodiceans and ENDORSE Jerome authorship of something a century after he died simply because it's what you want to believe.
The nonpartisan can look at our two approaches and see which one is logical and which one is incoherent nonsense.
I'm the only consistent one of the two of us.