currently in process, in the queue

Codex Fuldensis

Thanks, Thomas.

First, let's allow that the location of the ms. in Fulda is a prima facie support of its being written there 541-546. Whatever the gentleman wrote, specific evidences would be needed to support any unusual assertions.

And I have read again a few times, and I stand by my understanding of what the gentleman wrote. With the core phrase being:

"... than is Fuldensis, which is clearly not Victor’s original manuscript, but an 8th century Insular, (Irish), copy."

The "which" does grammatically refer to Fuldensis.

He also says on the blog site:

"The Codex Fuldensis is inaccurately referred to as the Victor Codex, which it clearly is not. It is a copy of the Victor Codex, which is now, it seems, lost."

This is quite different than the "vulgate" version of the Fuldensis history, which places Fuldensis as the copy coming right out of Fulda, from the learned Victor of Capua.

If there is a basis for the Irish argument, this is important for three reasons.

1) Fuldensis becomes a later Vulgate ms.

2) The ** time chronology non-symmetry** of much historical and palaegoraphical dating (understood by Michaelis and others) comes to play. A very critical part of a deficiency of much modern papyrus and uncial dating and authenticity discussions.

And I have some discussion of this facet here, and welcome suggestions and improvements and enhancements (either publicly or privately):

PureBibleForum (used research blog-style)
four types of evidence that help determine age and authenticity of a manuscript
see the - "Note on Time Element Non-Symmetry"

3) The heavenly witnesses discordance within Fuldensis gets a simpler explanation.

However, I do note that the gentleman did not give reasons for either of this two statements. (Even if you read the first one differently, the second is clearly affirming that Fuldensis is not a 540s ms.)

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY