Was the Old Latin Version pure and in agreement with the KJV?

[Steven Avery]

Someone falsely inserting the Johannine comma. It was not Jerome. Someone falsely pretending to be Jerome to falsely insert scriptue.

This is a first-person letter to Eustochium
You claim it is a forgery without any idea who, when, where?

And you actually claim the whole purpose of the Prologue was to insert the heavenly witnesses ???

And it got passed the study of the learned Victor of Capua.

 

[Steven Avery]

You are the one who makes things up. The Greek never had the comma. The Syraic (all versions) never had the comma. Nor the Coptic, Gothic, Georgian, Armenian, nor any other ancient Language but Latin.

Actually, there are Armenian evidences.
This was a usage and discussion at the Synods of Sis and Adana, specifically quoting the heavenly witnesses.

There is no Gothic evidence for that chapter at all.
So no claims can be made.

There is Syriac evidence through Jacob of Edessa, as pointed out by Anton Baumstark, in Ein syrisches Citat des "Comma Johanneum".

And the Greek evidences are wide-ranging, so you are talking yourself in circles. Jerome is one example, he was handling Greek manuscripts from way before anything extant today, and spoke clearly that the verse was scripture and some would try to take it out.

Also, the Coptic church has fully accepted the restoration of the heavenly witnesses verse, in a manner similar to the Russian and Greek Orthodox. Similar to the Georgian church..

 

[TC Calvinist]

Who can whip out a text that is not extant?

Ah.

So you're telling me at the time Jerome (according to you) wrote this Prologue, he didn't have a Vulgate he was actually defending?

Thank you for proving the point.

 

[TC Calvinist]

When, by whom and why?

1) I don't know
2) Neither do you

Now that I've answered two of your questions, please answer the Greek grammar question. I will no longer answer your (mostly rhetorical) questions until you do that which you're demanding. When you refuse to answer, we'll know the answer, and it will tell us all we need to know about the seriousness of any claim about anything original you make.

Καὶ εὐθὺς ἔτι αὐτοῦ λαλοῦντος παραγίνεται Ἰούδας εἷς τῶν δώδεκα καὶ μετ' αὐτοῦ ὄχλος μετὰ μαχαιρῶν καὶ ξύλων παρὰ τῶν ἀρχιερέων καὶ τῶν γραμματέων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων. ὁ δὲ ἰαθεὶς οὐκ ᾔδει τίς ἐστιν, ὁ γὰρ Ἰησοῦς ἐξένευσεν ὄχλου ὄντος ἐν τῷ τόπῳ.

1) How many genitive absolute participial constructions occur in the above passage?

2) Where are they?

No stalling, just answer this very easy first semester Greek question.

 

[Steven Avery]

Ah.
So you're telling me at the time Jerome (according to you) wrote this Prologue, he didn't have a Vulgate he was actually defending?
Thank you for proving the point.

You do not know the history.
The Gospels were translated by 384 AD by Jerome. The rest of the New Testament was later.

What point do you think I proved? Edit
Thanks!

 

[Steven Avery]

1) I don't know
2) Neither do you

Then you have no basis to accuse of forgery.
You have given zero support to that bogus claim.

And I do know who wrote the Prologue, Jerome, exactly as indicated by the first-person reference to Eustochium.

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

If you want to have Biblical Greek discussions, bring it over to that forum.
And explain the supposed relevance with the question.

Thanks!

And note that I never claimed to read or write Greek, or to be a Greek grammarian.
However, the discordance issues in the short solecism text are extremely easy to understand.

And there are superb native Greeks who have taught on the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses.
You would do well to study their writings.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

And you actually claim the whole purpose of the Prologue was to insert the heavenly witnesses ???

Conan, is this really your claim? The verse was in the Old Latin manuscripts. Why would someone forge a whole Prologue, pretending to be Jerome, likely to be disciplined, to "insert" what was in the Latin manuscripts?

Check out the Council of Carthage, in 484 AD. Hundreds of orthodox bishops from a wide Meditteranean region strongly affirmed the verse from the Apostle John contra the 'Arians' under Hunneric. The Hunneric crew would have blasted them to smithereens if this was a non-scripture.

People who base their studies on Wallace and Metzger and Bart Ehrman end up as uninformed textcrit dupes.

If you are going to have a "forgery" theory, please, try to make it coherent and sensible!

Thanks!

 

[TC Calvinist]

You do not know the history.
The Gospels were translated by 384 AD by Jerome. The rest of the New Testament was later.

Completely irrelevant to whether Jerome wrote the Prologue.

What point do you think I proved? Try to write coherently.
Thanks!

You proved that Jerome didn't write the Prologue.

 

[Theo1689]

Then you have no basis to accuse of forgery.
You have given zero support to that bogus claim.

Wow... It amazes me that you think this is a valid form of argumentation.

The police were originally called on George Floyd because he tried to pass a counterfeit note (I think it was a $20).

Do you REALLY think that the police would have had to prove "who" made the counterfeit note, to convict Floyd of passing counterfeit money? Of COURSE not. As long as they know it's not an authentic bill, the creator of it is IRRELEVANT.

Same with the prologue.
If we know Jerome didn't write it, it is IRRELEVANT who added it later.

 

[TC Calvinist]

Then you have no basis to accuse of forgery.

I have the fact there's no manuscript from Jerome's time including it.
By definition, if he didn't write it, someone else did.

This should be not be hard even for a KJV Onlyist.

You have given zero support to that bogus claim.

I quoted you.

And I do know who wrote the Prologue, Jerome, exactly as indicated by the first-person reference to Eustochium.

Really? So you're saying Jerome was alive in 541?

If you want to have Biblical Greek discussions, bring it over to that forum.

Why? If you know Greek and can do FIRSTHAND research and work, why should I move a question you've now chosen to avoid three times?

And explain the supposed relevance with the question.

The relevance is that you're attacking posters on here and accusing them of not doing firsthand reserach while...doing nothing yourself but quoting unattributed online people as secondary sources. The inconsistent methodology is truly amusing coming from people who apparently don't actually read the so-called one true Bible and produce zero fruit in their lives.

And note that I never claimed to read or write Greek, or to be a Greek grammarian.

Then your very basis for saying this:

The grammatical, stylistic and internal evidences massively support the originality in the Greek.
Jerome's Vulgate Prologue and Cyprian (solid in Greek) are also powerful evidences for the original Greek.

is fraudulent because you have no firsthand knowledge of the subject. You're merely parroting what other people you (sadly, wrongly) trust have said that is wrong. And this afteryou attacked Conan for using secondary sources but YOU ARE DOING THE VERY THING YOU'RE ATTACKING OTHERS for doing.

However, the discordance issues in the short solecism text are extremely easy to understand.

This really tells me all I need to know about your own study of Greek. You have zero firsthand basis for saying anything about the Greek text ever.

You cannot even answer a first-semester question, which is precisely the point. And yet you want your claims to be taken seriously.

And there are superb native Greeks who have taught on the grammar of the heavenly and earthly witnesses.

So you're citing secondary sources again after attacking conan for what you yourself are doing.

You would do well to study their writings.

I have. And note that of the two of us, I'm not the one citing secondary sources and attacking others as not having knowledge.

Now that we've established that you know nothing about Greek at all, do you know anything about Latin?

 

[logos1560]

What point do you think I proved? Try to write coherently.

Perhaps he has proven more than your incoherent, erroneous KJV-only reasoning does.

 

[TC Calvinist]

Conan, is this really your claim? The verse was in the Old Latin manuscripts.

No, it was just in some of them. And this isn't really evidence of anything except...it was in some OL mss.

Why would someone forge a whole Prologue, pretending to be Jerome, likely to be disciplined, to "insert" what was in the Latin manuscripts?

So you think the Gospel of Thomas is a legit gospel then?

Check out the Council of Carthage, in 484 AD. Hundreds of orthodox bishops from a wide Meditteranean region strongly affirmed the verse from the Apostle John contra the 'Arians' under Hunneric. The Hunneric crew would have blasted them to smithereens if this was a non-scripture.

But according to you, they would have been disciplined.

People who base their studies on Wallace and Metzger and Bart Ehrman end up as uninformed textcrit dupes.

Ah, the pathetic desperation of the personal attack and insult. Wow. You have persuaded me. You've persuaded me that they're correct, and you are incorrect.

If you are going to have a "forgery" theory, please, try to make it coherent and sensible!

Provide the evidence this existed prior to the earliest known manuscript of it. That's all you have to do. That's the level of proof you're demanding. Furthermore, authenticity is never assumed, which is all you've presented thus far.

 

[TC Calvinist]

lol - only in your fantasy mind.

I'm thinking of putting you on ignore, if this is the quality of your posting.

Done.

In other words, after all your "let's discuss this," someone stands up to your bullying and you run away.

Nobody will confuse such actions with Elijah for sure.

 

[TC Calvinist]

It seems to be typical of KJV-only posters to put posters who properly challenge their unproven claims on ignore.

KJV-only advocates do not engage in serious, fair discussion. KJV-only advocates seem to live in a fantasy land.

Of course it is. The first rule of being a member of the Dunning-Kruger Club is not knowing you're a member of the Dunning-Kruger Club.

 

[Steven Avery]

Same with the prologue.
If we know Jerome didn't write it, it is IRRELEVANT who added it later.

However, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles has all the marks of Jerome authenticity.

And no substantive argument has even been given here.

So it is irrelevant to conjecture "if we know Jerome didn't write it".

Since Jerome did write the Prologue, by the actual evidences, then we can acknowledge that the heavenly witnesses verse is authentic scripture.

 

[Theo1689]

However, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles has all the marks of Jerome authenticity.

Please LIST "all the marks of Jerome authenticity", and then:
1) demonstrate them in his actual writings;
2) demonstrate them in the prologue.

Ready.... Set..... GO!

 

[Steven Avery]

Please LIST "all the marks of Jerome authenticity", and then:
1) demonstrate them in his actual writings;
2) demonstrate them in the prologue.
Ready.... Set..... GO!

I'll share a few.
Jerome writes in the first-person to Eustochium.
The book order listing matches the Latin order background.
The Prologue is in the earliest extant Vulgate ms.
There are no mistakes, as normally trips up forgeries.

Really, the question is in reverse:
People are claiming "forgery" on ZERO evidence. Without any idea who, how, when.
With the absurd idea that it was forged to "insert" the verse.

Why not simply acknowledge the truth?
The Prologue is authentic, and the heavenly witnesses verse is authentic.

 

[Theo1689]

I'll share a couple.
Jerome writes in the first-person to Eustochium.
The book order listing matches the Latin order background.
The Prologue is in the earliest extant Vulgate ms.

Wow... Straws.... grasping....


SO much grasping....
🤣 🤣 🤣

 

[Conan]

P

Pseudo-Jerome, Prologue to the Catholic Epistles​

Many Vulgate manuscripts, including the Codex Fuldensis, the earliest extant Vulgate manuscript, include a Prologue to the Canonical Epistles referring to the comma.

If the letters were also rendered faithfully by translators into Latin just as their authors composed them, they would not cause the reader confusion, nor would the differences between their wording give rise to contradictions, nor would the various phrases contradict each other, especially in that place where we read the clause about the unity of the Trinity in the first letter of John. Indeed, it has come to our notice that in this letter some unfaithful translators have gone far astray from the truth of the faith, for in their edition they provide just the words for three [witnesses]—namely water, blood and spirit—and omit the testimony of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, by which the Catholic faith is especially strengthened, and proof is tendered of the single substance of divinity possessed by Father, Son and Holy Spirit.77[97]

The Latin text is online.[98] The Prologue presents itself as a letter of Jerome to Eustochium, to whom Jerome dedicated his commentary on the prophets Isaiah and Ezekiel. Despite the first-person salutation, some claim it is the work of an unknown imitator from the late fifth century.[3] (The Codex Fuldensis Prologue references the Comma, but the Codex's version of 1 John omits it, which has led many to believe that the Prologue's reference is spurious.)[99] Its inauthenticity is arguably stressed by the omission of the passage from the manuscript's own text of 1 John, however that can also be seen as confirming the claim in the Prologue that scribes tended to drop the text.

Johannine Comma - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Steven Avery]

Wow... Straws.... grasping....

The arguments against the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles authenticity, written by Jerome, are similar in weakness to scholars arguing against the authenticity of 2 Peter and the Pastorals.

At least the many "scholars" who argue against those books list their arguments, and try to explain their position.