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

[logos1560]

Steven, it is your arguments that are weak at best as you assume, but do not prove.

The overall evidence suggests that Jerome did not revise the Old Latin or translate the Catholic Epistles and the Pauline Epistles (he only revised the gospels) so why would he write a prologue concerning books that he did not revise or retranslate? H. A. G. Houghton noted: "There are several indications that Jerome was responsible for the revision of the Gospels only and not the rest of the New Testament. When he discusses questions of translation affecting the Gospels he quotes forms matching his revised version, but he never cites readings characteristic of the Vulgate in the other New Testament books. What is more, in his commentary on four of the Pauline Epistles, he criticizes the existing Latin translation and provides his own alternative" (Latin New Testament, p. 34). Houghton observed: "The whole of the latter part of the Vulgate New Testament has a common origin. There is a noticeable difference in translation technique between the Gospels and the other writings" (p. 41). Houghton asserted that "the principal evidence for the identity of the translator is the prologue to the Pauline Epistles which begins Primum quaeritur; this includes views concerning Hebrews which run counter to Jerome and was written in Rome by someone at odds with the local community" (p. 41).

Because the prologue was written in first person does not at all prove that Jerome wrote it. Your assumption is incorrect. Anyone writing it could write in first person, especially someone pretending to write as Jerome.

 

[Steven Avery]

The overall evidence suggests that Jerome did not revise the Old Latin or translate the Catholic Epistles and the Pauline Epistles (he only revised the gospels) so why would he write a prologue concerning books that he did not revise or retranslate? H. A. G. Houghton noted: "There are several indications that Jerome was responsible for the revision of the Gospels only and not the rest of the New Testament. When he discusses questions of translation affecting the Gospels he quotes forms matching his revised version, but he never cites readings characteristic of the Vulgate in the other New Testament books. What is more, in his commentary on four of the Pauline Epistles, he criticizes the existing Latin translation and provides his own alternative" (Latin New Testament, p. 34). Houghton observed: "The whole of the latter part of the Vulgate New Testament has a common origin. There is a noticeable difference in translation technique between the Gospels and the other writings" (p. 41). Houghton asserted that "the principal evidence for the identity of the translator is the prologue to the Pauline Epistles which begins Primum quaeritur; this includes views concerning Hebrews which run counter to Jerome and was written in Rome by someone at odds with the local community" (p. 41).

Hugh Houghton did not even mention that Jerome specifically said multiple times that he translated the full New Testament. Hugh Houghton also offered nobody as the supposed translator (and perhaps Vulgate Prologue author?), which has been a huge problem for non-Jerome authorship of both the full NT translation AND the Vulgate Prologue.

I'll plan on adding more later, but that omission of Jerome's own words is telling. This is the historic understanding from John Chapman (1865-1933).

St. Jerome revised the whole New Testament. It is time to give proofs. They are of overwhelming strength. (p. 283) ...Tradition is unanimous. Until the few rather hasty modern critics, not a voice was ever raised to suggest that St. Jerome did not revise the whole New Testament. The victorious career of the Vulgate is entirely due to the fact that it was universally believed in early times to be a revision carried out by the most learned of Western Doctors at the bidding of Pope Damasus. It is true that the Old Latin did not immediately expire, and that St. Gregory the Great at the very end of the sixth century declared that the Roman Church used the old version [PAGE 285] as well as the new. In theory, yes. But even from St. Jerome's time onwards, pure Old Latin is not often to be found for the N.T. We have Vulgate, impure Vulgate, and mixed Old Latin and Vulgate, but no longer a rival Old Latin. And behind this tradition we have absolutely definite and categorical statements by St. Jerome himself, that he revised the whole New Testament. (Chapman, St. Jerome and the Vulgate N.T., part 3, 1923, p. 284-285)

When questioned on his position, Hugh Houghton was quite tentative.

The issue is that Jerome is thought only to have revised the Gospels and not the rest of the Vulgate NT.

Notice -- "is thought only".
Lots of equivocation, lots of wiggle room.

And note that there is a lot of circular pressure to reject Jerome's authorship of the Prologue, since the Prologue destroys the textcrit argument against the heavenly witnesses, which is supposed to be settled textcrit scholarship!

And it seems like Hugh Houghton is only considering whether Jerome translated the full New Testament with his Gospel translation in AD 384. However, Jerome had lots of time after the Gospels to complete the full New Testament.

 

[TC Calvinist]

I'll share a few.
Jerome writes in the first-person to Eustochium.

You started with your conclusion. Also known as a circular argument.

The book order listing matches the Latin order background.

Irrelevant..

The Prologue is in the earliest extant Vulgate ms.

And the Comma itself isn't.

There are no mistakes, as normally trips up forgeries.

So your evidence is:
a) a circular argument
b) an irrelevancy
c) a half-truth
d) another circular argument

Really, the question is in reverse:
People are claiming "forgery" on ZERO evidence. Without any idea who, how, when.

Aren't you the same person claiming Sinaiticus is a fake, but you have no idea about who actually wrote what?
And yet you're demanding people "prove" something from the fourth or fifth century that you cannot even prove from the 19th?

A little inconsistent demand to put it mildly.

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.

Which begs the question why it isn't in the TEXT.

Who took it out? Names. When?

See? We can all play this little dumb game of "if you can't give me names, my position is right."

Again, let's face it: you're kind of stuck arguing this nonsense because you have no Greek evidence, no manuscripts, nothing.

 

[TC Calvinist]

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.

Those aren't weak arguments at all, particularly concerning 2 Peter.

Of course, if you read Greek, you'd see the obvious difference in the SCRIBE who wrote it.
That does not necessarily mean it doesn't have apostolic authority.
But the differences are very obvious to anyone capable of actually readin the NT text in its original language, too.

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

Well, they could always do like you do with Rev. 16:5 - and just assert that everything we have is corrupted except for whatever it is they like.

 

[TC Calvinist]

Hugh Houghton did not even mention that Jerome specifically said multiple times that he translated the full New Testament. Hugh Houghton also offered nobody as the supposed translator (and perhaps Vulgate Prologue author?), which has been a huge problem for non-Jerome authorship of both the full NT translation AND the Vulgate Prologue.

Hugh Houghton is also - unlike you - a scholar of Latin, who is not dependent upon quoting other people because he can do firsthand work. Now, you attacked conan on that very thing, but you keep doing the very thing you lambasted others for doing.

I'll plan on adding more later, but that omission of Jerome's own words is telling. This is the historic understanding from John Chapman (1865-1933).

That's an assertion. Nothing more.

When questioned on his position, Hugh Houghton was quite tentative.

So? The people who drank Kool-Aid at Jonestown weren't tentative at all.
It proves nothing.

Notice -- "is thought only".
Lots of equivocation, lots of wiggle room.

Yes. This is how SCHOLARS do things. It is not how Dunning-Kruger victims do things.

And note that there is a lot of circular pressure to reject Jerome's authorship of the Prologue, since the Prologue destroys the textcrit argument against the heavenly witnesses, which is supposed to be settled textcrit scholarship!

All Jerome writing it would do is prove what we already know: that the passage was extant in Latin in the fourth century. That's why this rabbit trail you've insisted on discoursing is so amusing to the rest of us. Your entire case is based upon this has to be Jerome. It totally affects your position, but it has no bearing on the conclusion of the textual critic at all.

And it seems like Hugh Houghton is only considering whether Jerome translated the full New Testament with his Gospel translation in AD 384. However, Jerome had lots of time after the Gospels to complete the full New Testament.

Him having time to do something proves nothing either.

So all of your name-calling and all of your insulting innuendoes and all of your refusing to answer even basic questions that prove conclusviely your view is not only a microscopic minority even among evangelicals but the product of sloppy and raging tears in the eyes with a vein sticking out of the forehead research......

has resulted in:

a) convincing nobody of your position
b) demonstrating zero scholarship whatsoever

Once again, I wonder how discernment and intelligence provided by a higher power can produce so little of substance.

 

[Beloved Daughter]

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.

The obscure and absurd keeps rearing its ugly head. Its a joy to watch you work at correcting the nonsense of other posters.

God Speed.

 

[Steven Avery]

Because the prologue was written in first person does not at all prove that Jerome wrote it. Your assumption is incorrect.

No such assumption.
Why change my position?

It is simply a strong evidence.
And it essentially means that the person writing it has to be Jerome, or a deliberate forger, counterfeit.

 

[TC Calvinist]

No such assumption.
Why change my position?

It is simply a strong evidence.
And it essentially means that the person writing it has to be Jerome, or a deliberate forger, counterfeit.

And yet you have Jerome being too dumb to write this but not remember to insert that so-called important reading into the text that....wait for it...accompanies the Prologue.

 

[logos1560]

And I have brought forth a lot of correction on this question among AV defenders.
Bryan Ross as well, he saw my writing on two streams and did his own research.

It seems that you have not successfully corrected David W. Daniels, whom you have met and with whom you are associated, on the two streams claim.

There are present KJV-only advocates such as David W. Daniels that are still using and repeating the two-streams of Bibles argument. David W. Daniels may be the KJV-only author putting out the most books the last few years. Are you not current on what KJV-only authors are writing and claiming?

 

[Unbound68]

From the 2nd post in this thread:

Avery:

Thus Rick uses a quote from Will Kinney from 2003! Will has understood this far more excellently today.

And your sidekick David W. Daniels has not.

Your hypocrisy is incredible. Here you are questioning the scholarship of another poster for quoting Will Kinney's statement from 19 years ago, when you quote men from the 1800s on a regular basis! Perhaps YOU are the anti-scholar?

KJVO dogma decrees a pure stream of Bibles and a corrupt stream of Bibles. Two streams. Not three.

The pure stream out of Antioch.
The corrupt stream out of Alexandria.

No KJVO author from 20 years ago claimed the LATIN VULGATE STREAM of "corrupt catholic texts" led to any pure readings in the KJV.

The position you are forced to take on the Latin making up a third stream is nothing more than a clever tactic to get around the fact that there are readings in the KJV that aren't found within the "pure" Antiochan stream.

 

[logos1560]

And I have brought forth a lot of correction on this question among AV defenders.

It seems that you have not successfully corrected Will Kinney on this question.

 

[Unbound68]

It seems that you have not successfully corrected Will Kinney on this question.

Nor has he corrected his other pals...

Daniels
McElroy
Hollner

Avery is mentioned in works by all 3 of those men, all of whom hold the 2 streams view.

 

[Steven Avery]

It seems that you have not successfully corrected Will Kinney on this question.

Nope.
However, I was the original spur for the Bryan Ross material, which has had an effect across the board.