Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Vulgate Prologue - super-evidence

  1. Default reasons why Jerome is considered to be not the author of Acts and Epistles and Revelation

    This is from Stefan Rebenich

    Jerome: The "Vir Trilinguis" and the "Hebraica Veritas"
    Stefan Rebenich
    Vigiliae ChristianaeVol. 47, No. 1 (Mar., 1993), pp. 50-77 (JSTOR library)

    Modern scholarship has made an effort to reconstruct Jerome's translations of the New and Old Testament. It has thus emerged that he only revised the text of the Gospels, but not of Acts, the Epistles or Revelation since the passages Jerome cites from these books of the New Testament differ very often from the text of the Vulgate. And in his commentaries on the Pauline Epistles to Philemon, the Galatians, the Ephesians and Titus, which were written in 386, i.e. shortly after the alleged revision of the New Testament,9 Jerome never referred to his own translation, but only criticized an anonymous Latinus interpres on several occasions. Stylistic reasons, especially regarding the Latin translation of Acts, finally shake his declaration made in De viris iliustribus that he had translated the whole New Testament from the Greek into Latin.10 This statement might at best be understood as an intention which was never fully realized, unless one would like to call it an intentional exaggeration.11 The Vulgate version of Acts, the Pauline Epistles and Revelation is now ascribed to an author working in Rome at the end of the fourth century; the modern editors of the Vetus Latina in particular are prepared to identify this translator with Rufinus the Syrian who is said to have been a friend of Jerome and Epiphanius of Salamis until he, at the beginning of the fifth century, went over to the Pelagian movement to appear as the author of the Liber de Fide.12

    Jerome started his revision of the Bible with the translation of the Gospels during his stay in Rome from 382 to 385 after he had won the financial and theological support of the Roman bishop Damasus for his ambitious project.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Rebenich.jpg 
Views:	82 
Size:	89.3 KB 
ID:	13

    One big potential error here. Jerome did not do the rest of the New Testament in 384. It was done after many of these comments, as indicated in the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-02-2018 at 10:45 PM.

  2. Default Amy Donaldson references to Jerome

    Answer to the assertion:

    However, there is no real difference between how Jerome references the sections we know he did do (the Gospels) and the sections about which we inquire. And we have to explain the many NT textual elements. (There is also the chronology issue, many of the quotes may be before the translation.)

    Amy Donaldson #1

    p. 145 - Epistle 119 variants among Greek copies – also p. 149 1 Cor 15:51-52 p. 161 p. 217-218 p. 243

    fountainhead – See Against Helvidius

    p. 146-147 -148 -
    Commentary on Ephesians – Greek mss

    p. 151 - Karl Hulley – textual criticism - Lucian recension

    p. 154 - Commentary on Galatians – 1 Cor 13:3 Romans 12:11
    p. 155 - Acts 15:29 - Hebrews 2:9
    p. 157 - Colossians 2:18 - Galatians 2:5
    p. 159 - Titus 3:15 – p. 262
    p. 160 - Romans 16:25-27 p. 215
    p. 162 - Galatians 3:1
    p. 163 - Eph 3:14 Eph 1:6
    p. 164 - Eph 5:14 p. 222-225 p. 274 p. 278 p. 333
    p. 212 – Epistle 27 Marcella again ***
    p. 216 - Romans 14:23
    p. 220-223 - Galatians 2:5
    p. 226-230 - Hebrews 2:9
    p. 234 LEMMA list of verses

    p. 244 Col 2:18
    p. 246 – 1 Corinthians 9:5
    p. 253 – Galatians 3:1
    p. 265 – Eph 2:4 – p. 298
    p. 267 – 1 Cor 13:3
    p. 279 – Gal 2:5
    p. 292 – Gal 3:1 Origen

    p. 295-296 how much did Jerome do – Tkacz – metzeger early versions

    There are verses where Jerome discusses the textual aspect
    Much more continues on Asheville on disk (move to google docs)


    BEGIN p. 449-547 - Commentary Galatians 5:2 - MANY
    Ephes 2:4 567-568 2 Thess 2:3 p. 571
    p. 588 Romans thing

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 12-02-2018 at 11:11 PM.

  3. Default supposed late dating of the Vulgate Prologue was key to the opposition to its authenticity

    From Grantley McDonald:

    Emlyn applauded Mill’s refusal to credit the improbable notion that the comma was erased by heretics, and his rejection of the prologue to the Catholic Epistles as the work of ‘some silly Rhapsodist after Bede’s time’. - Biblical Criticism in Early Modern Europe: Erasmus, the Johannine Comma and Trinitarian Debate p. 211
    Just one of many examples of how the supposed late dating of the Vulgate Prologue was key to the opposition to its authenticity.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; Yesterday at 12:44 PM.

  4. Default summarizing the historical arguments contra authenticity - emphasis on Martianay and Benson (Travis section)

    summarizing the historical arguments contra authenticity - emphasis on Martianay and Benson (Travis section)

    This is in the 1794 3rd edition of Travis, which also has a list of Vulgate mss, and whether they have the Prologue or not. In fact, the whole book should be reviewed for any other gems. The reply on the Preface is also in the 1785 edition. Here we have a classic "multiplication of nothings."

    Letters to Edward Gibbon: author of the History of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire
    George Travis - (1785) - (1794)
    p. 128-139 in 1794
    also note the later Newton section p. 172-180 has Prologue info.

    In this disquisition it may, perhaps, be the most satisfactory method to state the objections of the chief opponents of this Verse singly, and to subjoin to each its distinct and separate reply. Of these

    Sandius, (b)
    M. Simon, [c) and
    Mr. Emlyn (d) among its more early opponents; and

    Dr. Benson, {e)
    Sir Isaac Newton, (f)
    M. Griesbacb, (g) and
    Mr. Bowyer, (h)

    among its more modern adversaries—seem to have been the mod diffuse in the variety of their remarks, and the most determined in their opposition. p. 71-72 (note this is general verse opposition, not specifically the Vulgate Prologue authenticity.

    (b) Nucl. Eccl. Hist. p. 376, &c.—Interpr. Paradox,
    (c) Hist, Crit, du Texte &c
    (d) Full Inquiry &c. Sec Emlyn's Works, 2 Vols. Lond. Edit. A. D. 1746.
    (e) Paraphrase on the Catholic Epistles, Vol. ii. Edit. A. D. 1756.
    (f) History of two Texts (Vol. v. of Newton's Works, by Dr. Horsley.)
    (g) New. Testtam. Graec. Vol. ii. p. 225, Edit Halae A. D. 1777.
    (h) Conjectures on the N. Test, Edit. Lond, A. D. 1782.
    Next we move to the Vulgate Prologue section of Benson, and each one has a solid Travis response.

    XIV - "It is not in Jerome’s catalogue of prefaces”

    XV - “It [this preface] is often found in Latin MSS, without his [Jerome’j] name”

    XVI - “It [the preface] makes use of the words canonical epistles: whereas Jerome's title for them was The Catholic Epistles.”

    XVII - “That preface is prefixed to some Latin copies of the Catholic epistles: in which the disputed text is not insersted.”

    XVIII - “The preface is not found in some of the best and most ancient MSS of Jerome's Version."

    XIX. “It [tbe Preface] infuriates one falsehood—that all the Greek copies of the New Testament had this verse. Whereas none of them had it. And Jerome, above all men, who was so couversant in the Greek copies of the New Testament, must needs have known this to have been a direct falsehood.”

    XX. “ Nor has any of the genuine works of the Greek fathers once mentioned it”—[viz. the Verse 1 John v:7.]
    (answered over 30+ pages)

    XXI. “ It [the Preface] asserts two other direct and notorious falsehoods [viz. first] that the Latin translators were unfaithful in leaving out the testimony of the Father, the Word, and the Spirit

    XXII. The other “ direct and notorious falsehood which this Preface asserts is—that he [Jerome] had restored this Verse.”

    XXIII. “ Augustine, who was intimate with Jerome, kept a correspondence with him, read his works, and more especially his Latin Version of the New Testament, has never once, in all his voluminous works, mentioned the disputed text.'

    XXIV. “What may put the matter [the spuriousness of the Preface] out of all dispute is, Jerome himself in his genuine voluminous works, hath never quoted this disputed passage."

    Compare to the reasons of Martianay


    And the new information on the Harleianus, that it counts as an early Vulgate with the Prologue.


    And most important to check is the information above Eustochium prodding Jerome before the Prologue. This is potentially incredible info.

    Last edited by Steven Avery; Yesterday at 12:46 PM.

  5. Default Vincent of Lerins - Peregrinus - unknown editor- please, must be somebody other than Jerome!

    This was in the "Metzger Charade" thread, but it is helpful here as part of the comedy of errors of faux attribution of various forgers, the potential rogue's gallery. (Also remember that Erasmus at one point accuses Jerome of forging the verse!)

    Raymond E. Brown's appendix in his Anchor Commentary series on The Epistles of John still holds that the Prologue was not written by Jerome in 1982.

    Raymond Edward Brown (1928-1998) is one of the only modern scholars writing against authenticity who offers real scholarship. His theory is that the forgery was for the purpose of moving the heavenly witnesses forward in the Latin Bible transmission. Here is his full section, which is simply assertion without evidence.

    Raymond Brown
    To the period before 550 belongs a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles, falsely attributed to Jerome, which is preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31). Although the Codex itself does not contain the Comma, the Prologue states that the Comma is genuine but has been omitted by unfaithful translators. The Prologue has been attributed to Vincent of Lerins (d. 450) and to Peregrinus (Künstle, Ayuso Marazuela), the fifth-century Spanish editor of the Vg. In any case, Jerome's authority was such that this statement, spuriously attributed to him, helped to win acceptance for the Comma. (1982 p. 782-783)

    So Brown goes out on a limb and says that right after Jerome died, a forger fooled everyone, and quickly wrote a really sweet Prologue, whose single nefarious purpose was to push through this new verse. See Ockham above.

    Beyond that, Brown adds a tidbit of information about who had which possible forger (remember, Chapman demolished the Peregrinus theory long ago). He gives us nothing about the substantive issues, indicating the rule of circularity.

    Archived at
    [TC-Alternate-list] circularity, the jewel - Vulgate Prologue examined - heavenly witnesses

  6. Default David Martin shreds frivolous arguments of Martianay and John Mill - Richard Simon

    David Martin (1639-1721) would not be expected to make so many excellent points, since he sounds equivocal on authenticity of the Vulgate Prologue.

    A critical dissertation upon the seventh verse of the fifth chapter of St. John's first epistle, There are three, that bear record in heaven, &c: Wherein the authentickness of this text is fully prov'd against the objections of Mr. Simon and the modern Arians - translated by Samuel Jebb (1719)
    Chap. V.-
    p. 23-32
    Of St. Jerom’s Preface to the Seven Canonical Epistles. (1719)

    The genuineness of the text of the first Epistle of saint John. chap. v. [verse]. 7., tr. from the French
    Of the judgment St. Jerom has made of this Text, in his Prologue to the seven Catholick Epistles. (1722)

    Tis impossible but that St. Jerom must have seen in the Italick Version a Text which Tertullian and St. Cyprian had read there before him, and which all the world had seen there as well as they, and which the great numbers of Bishops who liv’d in the same age with St. Jerom read there also. The toilsome and difficult pains he gave himself to purge that Version from the faults, which had crept into it, did not allow him to spare a Text, which would have been the greatest of all the faults he had to correct, if it did not really belong to St. John’s Epistle; but far from taking it away, he on the contrary has complain’d in very strong terms, in his Prologue to the seven Epistles, of the omission of this Text in some private Version, which appear’d in his time; the Authors of which he treats as unfaithful Translators: a reproach unjust as well as rash, if this passage had not been in the Italick Version, which was used by the whole Church; and if withal it was not in the Greek of the New Testament, since it was from the Greek, as from the Original, that the Latin Versions were made.These consequences are natural, and ’tis impossible to overturn ’em, but by destroying the principle from which they proceed, which is absolutely to deny that this Prologue is St. Jerom’s. And thus Mr. Simon has bent his whole force this way with a view to exclude the passage it treats of, as a forg’d and supposititious Text: Dr. Mill and F, Martianay have gone into the same opinion concerning the Prologue, but yet with different views, for they believ’d the passage of St. John genuine; their prejudice reach’d no farther than the Prologue. I have collected from the Writings of each all the reasons they have urg’d to shew that St. Jerom is not the Author: I have examin’d ’em step by step one after another, and have shewn ’em to be so weak, that Mr. Emlyn who has twice enter’d the lists since upon these matters, he has not been able to destroy one of my arguments.

    The most specious of those which had been urg’d against this Preface, was that the seven Epistles are there call’d Canonicals a name which F. Martianay; who is the Author of this remark, pretends was not given to these Epistles, ’till after the sixth Century, and consequently that it could not be St. Jerom, who wrote the Preface, where they are call’d by this name. This reason would be good, if the remark was just, but I have shewn from several Authors, that it is not: I shall not offend, if I here add two other instances. The first is from Vigilius, Bishop of Tapsum in the fifth Century, who in his Book against Varimadus says, “Tis written in the Canonical Epistles, my little children, this is the last time: the quotation is from the first Epistle of St. John. The other instance is taken from St. Jerom himself, who in an Epistle to Paul, Marcellus, and Eustochium, the same Eustochium to whom the Prologue is address’d, says to ’em, Jude the Apostle and Brother of James had said in his Canonical Epistle, &c. F. Martianay, who has read so often over the works of St. Jerom, of which he has given us a most beautiful Edition, and adorned them with the most learn’d Prefaces which have appear’d, would be much surpris’d, was he alive, to see his Criticism upon the word Canonical, confuted by St. Jerom himself; but the most learned men are subject to such mistakes.

    Tho’ it be a main point for those Gentlemen who dispute the Text of the witnesses in heaven to be genuine, to take from it the suffrage of St. Jerom in the Prologue here in question, yet Mr. Emlyn will not answer for the reasons which have been urg’d against this Prologue, and he does not find ’em strong enough for him to keep close behind so weak a bulwark; Mr. Martin, says he, may be one of those Writers, who are sure to defend what others have said upon a subject in debate; but for my part, I undertake to defend that only, which I think valid and conclusive. Let us pass by what he says of me, he don’t know me: let us dwell upon what he tells us of his own turn of genius; I undertake, says he, to defend that only, which I think valid and conclusive. He might at this rate have spar’d himself the trouble of writing his two last pieces in order to defend what others had said before him against the passage of St. John; he in this had less consulted his strength than his inclination, which has carried him to enter into an engagement which he would have done well not to have meddled with; he gets no honour by it. But whence is it, that after having engag’d so deeply in it, he gives up all the proofs urg’d against a Preface, which, if it subsists, is the total ruine of his side of the question? It is, he says, because he does not undertake to defend reasons which do not appear to him solid and conclusive: such a consession does not make much for their honour, and makes much for me, who have had the same opinion of it before him. Yet you must not believe that he entirely abandons the dispute; he has one shift left which appears to him secure, and with which alone he thinks to triumph. If St. Jerom, says he, was the Author of this Prologue, in which the passage that speaks of the three witnesses in heaven is characterize as the principal support of the faith, and the omission of this passage in some Versions mark’d with the odious name of unfaithfulness, would it be possible after this that St. Jerom should have never produe’d so terrible a passage against the Arians, when he opposed ’em in his Writings? I had largely answer’d this, and amongst other things had said, that this objection supposed this holy Doctor to have wrote some particular Treatise against Animism:whereas there is no such piece found among all the great Volumes we have of his; and that he had but scarce touch’d upon it as it came in his way in some of his Commentaries. Mr. Emlyn returns to me upon this subject, and contents himself with alledging in general the Comment upon Ezekiel, without marking any passage where Arianism is mention’d. This vague and confus’d manner of quoting a Book has its profit and advantages for those who judge that it is more secure to lurk behind this general form of speaking, than to appear in a distinct and express quotation. I have read St. Jerom’s Commentary upon Ezekiel more than once, and have found him so far from expressly engaging against Arianism, that he speaks not of the Holy Trinity but upon occasion of the mystical exposition of some expressions, which are found in this Prophet; and the passages which he quotes, tho’ rarely, are always such whose ideas have relation to those of the mystical terms and explications he gives, and which are often far fetch’d: instances of this observation may be seen in the xith Chapter verse 1. in the xlth Chapter, verse. 44. and in divers other places.

    To this I add, that a very considerable time having pass’d betwixt the Prologue and the Commentary upon Ezekiel, ’tis by no means surprizing that St. Jerom not being concern’d in the least with the affair of Arianism, should not have present in his mind a Text of which he had spoke with so much force upon a quite different occasion, as that of the revise of St.John’s Epistle was. He was working upon this revise about the year 389 or 390; for giving in the year 392, (which he notes to be the 14th year of the reign of Theodosius) a Catalogue of his Works, he sets down in the number the review of the New Testament: now he did not finish, as is gathered from his Works, his Commentary upon Ezekiel ’till the year 414, and consequently 24 or 25 years after he drew up the Prologue to the seven Epistles. Will Mr. Emlyn find that after so long a space of time St. Jerom must have present in his mind the noble vivacity with which he had spoke of the Text of the witnesses in heaven against the unfaithful Translators, who had not inserted it in their Version, that this Text must have plac’d it self under his pen, and be necessarily repeated there? If he thinks so, those who know mankind better, and how men of the greatest parts do not always think upon the same thing, how the most judicious content themselves with saying or writing what is most to their purpose, and how 24 or 25 years time are capable of fixing the mind to one thing, without prejudice to that which made a lively impression upon it 24 years before, will not find the least difficulty in comprehending, how ’tis possible that St. Jerom, after all the reasons I have given, should not have quoted the passage of St. John, of which he had spoke with so much zeal and force in the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.

    Mr. Emlyn carries his reasoning yet one step higher, and to give it the greater advantage, he represents the Author of the Prologue as taking upon him the Character of Restorer and Preserver of this passage, against the omission which he condemns in some Latin Versions; from whence Mr. Emlyn infers, that these characters cannot belong to St. Jerom, since he has made no mention of this Text in his Commentaries, nor in his Epistles.

    The Author of the Prologue does not give himself the great titles of Restorer and Preserver, nor represents himself under any of these ideas; ’tis from from himself Mr. Emlyn has taken them. The word and idea of Restorer would reach much farther than to those particular Versions, which are specify’d in the Prologue, and which, as we learn from St. Augustine, were almost of no consideration in comparison of the Italics: which was call’d she Common Version, because as I have several times observ’d, it was that of all the Churches: and the passage of St. John not being wanting in this Version, which was in the hands of all the world, the name of Restorer of this Text could not belong to the Censurer of those other obscure Versions, Which at most were only in the hands of some private persons. I say the same thing of the word Preserver; which is no less a stranger to this Preface than the other. The Text in hand had no need of any other Preserver than the original Greek, and the Bible of the Churches.

    But has Mr. Emlyn well consider’d that in making the Author of this Preface, whoever he was, since he will have him not to be St. Jerom, speak thus of himself, he makes him say by a necessary consequence, that this Text was in the Greek, and in the ancient Editions; for how otherwise would he have been the Preserver of it? And will Mr. Emlyn acknowledge this? He is taken, as said the Royal Prophet, in the net which be had laid. But whilst he extricates himself out of it as well as he can, let us resume his reasoning, and draw an advantage from it in favour of the truth I maintain. The Author of the Prologue charges the Translators with unFaithfulness; who had not inserted this passage in their translation; therefore he must himself have plac’d it in his; for the Latin Poets observation; was always just,

    Turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum.
    ‘Tis shameful for a man to reprove others, and fall himself into the same fault he blames in them. But this is what St. Jerom cannot be charg’d with, if this passage was plac’d in his Version, which these unfaithful Translators had not inserted in theirs. Now this passage was no less in St. Jerom’s Version than in the Italick; ’tis a fact which consists in proof; I have given a great number in my Dissertation, and I shall resume and continue that subject in the following Chapter.

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-03-2019 at 04:20 AM.

  7. Default Albert A. Bell and Jerome translating the full Vulgate

    Albert A. Bell (b. 1945)

    Jerome's Role in the Translation of the Vulgate New Testament (1977)

    For an argument that Jerome may well have produced the entire N.T. of the Vulgata, see Albert A. Bell, Jr., ’Jerome’s role in the Translation of the Vulgate New Testament’, New Testament Studies, 33 (1977: 230-33). - Theodore Letis

    From Sacred Text to Religious Text: An Intellectual History of the Impact of Erasmian Lower Criticism on Dogma as a Contribution to the English Enlightenment and the Victorian Crisis of Faith (1995)
    Theodore Letis
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-30-2019 at 11:56 AM.

  8. Default wild attempts to find an alternative to Jerome as author of the Prologue - attempt to claim Fuldensis Prologue was later

    Jerome's Prologue : Codex Fuldensis : Copied Later? Chapman Refutes

    Mike Ferrando:
    Berger suggested it was copied later into the text.
    Chapman refuted this supposition.

    Grantley McDonald
    Ghost of Arius
    [PAGE 54]
    77. Further on this preface, see Berger, 1904, 11-12, suggests that the author may have read Cassiodorus’ Institutiones, written in 544, just two years before Fuldensis was copied. However, I suggest that the degree of textual corruption in the text of the prologue as it stands in Fuldensis argues against such a close connection. Künstle, 1905, 27-28, also found Berger’s suggestion unlikely, and instead attributed the preface to Peregrinus. Chapman, 1908, 262-267, refuted Künstle’s attribution to Peregrinus, pointing out that the Spanish sources containing the preface all share certain textual corruptions not evident in copies from elsewhere, which one would not expect if the work had been composed in Spain.
    There is a bit about the Peregrinus attempt here:

    the Metzger charade - trying to keep Latin mss out of both Vulgate and Old Latin discussions

    how Raising the Ghost of Arius handles the Vulgate Prologue evidence

    And I have not seen anywhere that the "textual corruption" is specified. However, if Berger was somehow arguing that Cassiodorus led to the Prologue, that would be a very strained claim indeed. This whole question of alternate sources for the Prologue is rather interesting, and involves

    Künstle – Berger - Martin - Bludau - Chapman - Ranke - Fischer - Denk are all quickly referenced.
    Although at times it overlaps with the rogue's gallery list of supposed creators of the verse itself.

  9. Default who was the first to assert that the Prologue was not Jerome? and what reasons did they give?

    There was no doubt on authenticity in the medieval period.

    Nor was there any real doubt on Jerome's authorship made in the Erasmian period, although his decision to not include the Prologue in his Jerome edition was ripped by John Fell. (Fell could have raised the issue of how Erasmus also kept the Cyprian reference out of the heavenly witnesses material from c. 1520-1535, since Erasmus was familiar with the Cyprian text from his 1521 Cyprian edition.) The discussions with Stunica and any others should have their own study, on the Vulgate Prologue, which was the most visible, difficult issue for Erasmus to handle, when trying to support the non-authenticity position.

    Both of those, medieval and Erasmus, are planned to be discussed separately.


    There are five key figures to consider in looking at the genesis of the attack on Vulgate Prologue authenticity from Jerome. Until Martianay is is something of a stumble-bumble argumentation.

    John Selden (1584-1564)
    Christopher Sandius - (1644-1680)

    Richard Simon (1638-1712)
    Isaac Newton (1643-1727)
    Jean Martianay (1647-1717)

    John Selden (1584-1564) writing in 1651
    De synedriis et praefecturis juridicis veterum Ebraeorum libri ... in Epistoals Conanicas (1653, 1696 edition)

    The equivocal nature of what Selden wrote is discussed by many, such as Turton (see below) and Armfield. Grantley McDonald morphed him into the first full-orbed opponent of authenticity, without giving any quotes that actually support this unusual assertion.

    Ghost of Arius
    "Sandius (like Selden after him, see below) also asserted that the prologue to the Catholic Epistles was not written by Jerome, thus removing an important piece of evidence cited by defenders of the comma...." Sandius, 1669, 382-385. p.161

    Biblical Criticis
    "John Selden ... argued that it is a pseudonymous forgery... 20 Selden 1653, 2:136;" p. 20
    "John Selden... concluded that the prologue to the Catholic Episdes ... was not written by Jerome...." Sand 1669, 382-385. p. 111
    The Selden "Selden 1653, 2:136" should line up with the text of our 1696 Selden url above.

    The Ghost of Arius chronology error of placing Selden after Sandius was removed from Biblical Criticism, yet there is no errata in either publication. Note that there are also a couple of spots where the wording for Selden (Sandius as well, however the determination of whether he is equivocal or definite for non-Jerome needs its own review) is more properly equivocal on this topic, such as a "certain doubt".

    Plus, simply raising issues of authenticity, or claiming a position, does not remove an evidence. it just bring forth a back-and-forth dialog as to the weight and significance of the evidence, and whether the issues raised are really substantive. A disussion which has actually been won by the authenticity proponents, as I believe readers of this forum can see. And we have actually sought to go over each individual claim and point out the very awkward vector of forgery, acceptance and transmission implied in the forgery claim. With the victory really being sealed with the Codex Fuldensis discovery, since the supposed late dating of the Prologue had actually become the key argument. The arguments raised by Simon and Martianay were either referenced, or given half-heartedly, without specifics.
    And a particularly problematic paragraph on the evidence issue, involving a false dichotomy, is covered in the review page of The Ghost of Arius.
    Christopher Sandius (1644-1680) writing in 1669 (1712, note by Kettner)

    Sandius was far more negative than Selden, yet from Grantley we seem to have the same dual approach of making him both a skeptic raising doubts on one hand, and yet also making an assertion of non-authenticity on the other. We plan to look at his wording, and bring forth any actual arguments.
    "at praefatio illa non est genuina Hieronymi; nec legitur vel in operibus Hieronymi; vel in Bibliis vulgatis correctis"
    Google translate slightly modified:
    "yet the preface is not genuine Jerome; nor is it read in the works of Jerome, and in the Bible, or the vulgate Bible corrected "
    Basically it is fair to say that Sandius accused the Prologue of not being genuine, on thin reasoning. Turton thinks he may have extrapolated from Selden. We should review the full page more completely.
    Richard Simon (1638-1712)
    See Turton below and material on the:
    Facebook New Testament Scholarship Worldwide thread

    From the Facebook - New Testament Scholarship Worldwide thread:

    "If Erasmus, who had read many Greek and Latin copies of the New Testament, and frequently consulted S. Jerome's manuscripts, had applied himself to a strict examination of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, which he thinks was written by that Father, he would rather have been inclined to reject that Preface, as suppositious, than to charge S. Jerome with forgery" - p.4

    Then after discussing the date of extant mss, there is one internal argument given:
    "neither the name of S. Jerome, nor of any other writer, is prefixed to the Preface, in some of the ancient copies where it is found, which sufficiently shows, that we many on good grounds question S. Jerome's being the author of it" - p. 5

    Then, without concern for the forgery aspect, or motive, he takes a stab at the author:

    "he who gathered all the books of the Latin Bible into one body (the better part of which was translated or revised by S. Jerome) is really the author of that Preface" p. 6

    Then, after comparing with a Prologue that does not have the first person markers, he continues this idea, hand-waving the forgery aspect:

    "tis also probable, that the compiler of the books of the Latin version, which we call the Vulgate, not finding in S. Jerome a particular Preface to the Canonical Epistles, made according to that Father's style, some of whose expressions he has made use of, and amongst others, has inserted that word Eustochium" - p. 6

    Then, after discussion of the textual situation with the heavenly witnesses and the Preface, Simon argues:

    "This diversity of copies is in my judgment an evidence proof, that he did not compose that Preface to prefix it to the Canonical Epistles" - p.7

    However, an alternative, simpler, and Ockham-friendly explanation is simply that what the Prologue says happened, did happen.

    Note that Simon has two purposes, to vindicate Jerome from the accusation of Erasmus that he was the rogue interpolator, and offer an alternative explanation:

    "S. Jerome was not the true author either of the Preface or addition.. " - p. 7

    Then after discussion of ms. diversity like some mss with the text in the margin, we have:

    "this diversity does evidently prove that S. Jerome could not be the author of the addition in controversy, but that it was done by those who had a mind to adjust the text in S. James to the Preface" - p. 7

    Simon means John. This leads to what is now Metzger's claim:

    "All which different alterations are evident proofs that there was nothing of that addition in the first copies which were published iof S. Jerome's Bible" - p.8

    Which has major problems in explaining how the verse became so prevalent in the Vulgate line and also is circular to the non-authenticity of the Prologue.
    Then after the Council of Carthage (although the context is veiled) and Cyprian discussion, we have a hybrid section about the evidences and trying to find an alternate vindication of Jerome, and there is:

    "Jerome .. was not the author of the Preface to the Canonical Epistles, nor the addition inserted into St. John's epistle" - p. 10

    So Simon made his claim of non-authenticity and forgery about eight times, without giving any substantive evidence.

    Let's add some sections, we will put the full Simon section in its own post further down, with analysis of his "reasons".
    Isaac Newton (1643-1727) - he really simply implied the possibility that it may not be authentic, he did not structure any arguments, perhaps because he sensed their weakness.

    Jean Martianay (1647-1717)
    Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Operum tomus primus [-quintus], studio et labore monachorum ordinis S. Benedicti e congregatione S. Mauri

    Jean Martianay on the Vulgate Prologue
    In addition to Martianay's Latin work, the exposition of his arguments only exists in English among those that picked them to pieces. Calmet, Dolman and Lamy can be placed together, along with the comment from Genoud.

    It is helpful to note that the arguments raised by Simon and Martianay are very different, as pointed out by Turton below.
    "The principles, indeed, on which he condemned it, were designedly different from those of Simon"
    Simon's argumentation was extremely thin, and largely refuted by Fuldensis.


    Worthy of discussion in the early years is also:

    Pierre (Peter) Pithou (1539-1596)
    Richard Simon pegs him as examining mss. and strongly asserting authenticity, this may be the spot.

    Alfonso Salmeron (1515-1585)

    José de Sigüenza (1544-1606) - Jerome Historian
    The life of Saint Jerome, the great doctor of the church: in six books
    Farther on he says “ The present little preface only promises the four gospels, the order of which is Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, emended, comparing them and collating them with the Greek books and with those of the ancients in order not to deviate much from the Latin version in use; and in such a manner do we temper and moderate them that on correcting the places in which the sense appeared altered, all else remained as it was.” The same does he repeat on the canonical epistles in a prologue to the virgin Eustochium. “ Many days ago," he says, “ did we correct the gospels according to the truth of the Greek text.” From these passages and testimonies it seems a more proper manner of speaking to say that he emended the New Testament rather than that he made a new translation. But in whichever sense we may take it we can well say that it is all his own, because what he took away was taken away, and what he judged right to take and read from the ancient, that remained and was read,
    and is read now.
    Mill, Bentley and Benson are referenced in Turton.

    After the Attacks on Authenticity
    Thomas Smith (1638-1710)
    David Martin (1639-1721)
    Thomas Emlyn (1663-1741)
    Antoine Augustin Calmet (1672–1757) afawk, the earliest full response to authenticity attacks.

    Thomas Turton (1780-1864) pithy discussion of Selden, and very helpful overall, even if at times his logic and analysis falters
    In the year 1653, Selden published the second book of his treatise de Synedriis; in which, for some reason or other, he went out of his way to defend the genuineness of the disputed verse. Aware that the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, if Jerome’s, would be good evidence in its favour, he laboured hard to persuade himself that it really was Jerome’s; but, I suspect, without success. He writes very doubtfully on the subject; confesses that many editions of the Vulgate, which contained Jerome’s acknowledged prologues, did not contain the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles; and also mentions its absence from the works of Jerome. Whatever may have been previously thought of the prologue, the indecisive language of Selden would naturally tend to lessen its credit; but how far it had that effect is uncertain.

    We know, at least, that, in 1670,
    Sandius declared the prologue to be spurious; and, from the mode of expression he employed, there is some reason to suppose that he had been led to his conclusion by the statements of Selden

    1 ‘ At prsefatio ilia non est genuina Hieronymi; nec legitur vel in operibus Hieronymi, vel in Bibliis vulgatis correctis.’
    Intern. Paradox, p. 883.

    After this, Simon—when discussing the claims of 1 John v. 7. in his Histoire Critique (1689, 1690.)—adduced a variety of arguments to shew that the prologue could not justly be ascribed to Jerome.

    In 1693, appeared the Benedictine edition of the works of Jerome, under the superintendance of Martianay. The first volume of this edition contained the Bibliotheca Divina, or Jerome’s version of the Old and New Testaments, as derived from very old manuscripts—e vetustissimis manuscriptis codicibus; and prefixed to the Catholic Epistles is found the prologue in question. And thus did this notable composition gain admission, for the first time, into the collected writings of Jerome. Why it was then inserted is not very clear, for Martianay condemned it as a spurious work. The principles, indeed, on which he condemned it, were designedly different from those of Simon; to whom he seems to have entertained an extreme aversion. He states that all the Apostolic Epistles were printed from a copy in the Vatican
    1; 1 ‘Omnes Epistola' Apostolorum sununn fide editte sunt juxta Exemplar Vaticanum.’ p. 1591.but when enumerating, in opposition to Simon, several antient MSS. of the Latin version which contained the prologue, he does not mention the Vatican copy as one of them. Again, Martianay contradicts Simon whenever an opportunity is presented; but although Simon had affirmed that none of the MSS. of Jerome's works contained the prologue, Martianay does not assert that they did. It was, therefore, not in consequence of any newly discovered MSS. either of the Latin version, or the works of Jerome, that the prologue appeared in the Benedictine edition1.... When treating of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, Selden remarked—‘ At vero quamplurimae sunt Vulgatae editioncs quae prologo illo prorsus carent, etiam dum alios Hieronymi habent. Neque inter Hieronymi opera prologo illi locus.'

    We now proceed to Newton ; who, as we are told, ‘ascribed the Prologue to Jerome.’— “Between the years 1690 and 1700, Sir Isaac Newton wrote a dissertation upon 1 John v. 7.; in which he collected, arranged, and strengthened Simon’s arguments, and gave a clear, exact, and comprehensive view of the whole question1.” This dissertation affords, I believe, the only means of ascertaining the opinion of Newton, on the subject under consideration; and we there find the following passages.

    “The first upon record that represented the testimony of the Three in heaven is Jerome, if the preface to the Canonical Epistles, which goes under his name, be his."—

    “ From all these (Translators, Writers and Scribes) it will appear that the testimony of the Three in heaven was wanting in the Greek MSS. from whence Jerome, or whoever was the author of that preface to the Canonical Epistles, PRETENDS to have borrowed it."—

    “ It is not once to be met with in all the disputes, epistles, orations, and other writings of the Greeks and Latins, in the times of those controversies (about the Trinity); no, not in Jerome himself, if his version and preface to the Canonical Epistles be excepted'.''—

    Now passages of this kind must at least be understood to imply the existence of doubts on the writer’s mind, respecting the origin of the Prologue in question; and therefore, it cannot be quite correct to represent Newton as positively ascribing it to Jerome. The spuriousness of the work having been but recently maintained, and consequently, the notion not being, at that time, very prevalent, Newton might be satisfied with throwing out his suspicions on the subject, and then reasoning from it as if it were genuine: but that he had a strong impression that it was a forgery, must, I think, be very manifest to any one who will read his dissertation on 1 John v. 7.— On the whole, that Bishop Burgess should have enrolled Newton among the writers who
    attribute the Prologue to Jerome, is certainly ‘a thing to wonder at.’

    The last on the Bishop’s distinguished list is Le Clerc—the personification of caution itself. (continues long section)

    With regard to the credit attached to this famous prologue, the case seems to be—that, from the age of Erasmus to the date of Martianay’s edition of Jerome, not a single scholar perhaps can be found who, after a regular inquiry into the subject, stood by it as genuine; and that, from the date of that edition to the present time, the learned have fairly abandoned it. Mr. Porson, in his controversy with Archdeacon Travis, adopted and enforced the sentiments which had long been common to the great critics and the small, in this matter; and even now, Bishop Burgess does not avow sentiments of a contrary kind.
    We jump ahead to some of the convoluted circularity that is common from the contras:

    ...It was not, as his Lordship imagines, merely because the prologue complained of unfaithful translators,, that Mr. Porson concluded that the text of the heavenly witnesses was absent from the Latin MSS. of those times; but also because the very existence of the prologue itself cannot be accounted for, on any other supposition. The purpose for which it was written could only have been, to introduce the text into the Latin MSS.; in which it must therefore have been previously wanting. If the text already
    existed in the Latin MSS. why was the prologue written at all? ... it was written for the express purpose of providing a remedy for this defect.
    Here we have the total breakdown and self-destruction of the arguments of Porson, Turton and Westcott. (A fuller comment to be added.)

    p. 201 goes into Bentley and a comment about "the weightiest evidence". p. 203 has the wild claim about "that absurd
    medley of words which constitute the prologue", also Benson is referenced. Then there is a false conclusion on p. 206 about the discordance when the Prologue is included but the verse omitted (which is simply a verification of the Prologue claim.) p. 206 then goes into Porson on the style, then an interesting comment by Mill, pre-Fuldensis. Then Porson is quoted as it being "so bad... unworthy of his pen." This type of unsubstantiated dismissive nonsense is common. Next we have the argument from before Fuldensis, a false argument accompanied with two pages of speculation:

    Let us then suppose, with many learned men, that the prologue was first published in the eighth century1.
    All this false speculation then leads to Turton's false and ignorant conclusion:

    there is hardly to be found in antiquity a production of less weight than the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles.
    Then he switches to the Glassa Ordinaria, an important medieval confirmation of the Prologue as from Jerome. (The issues around Walafrid Strabo are basically irrelevant, as his importance was actually a result of considering him as an author of the Glossa.) The emaphsis on Bede now has the Fuldensis discovery and the Claude Jenkins material. Plus today we have the full-orbed representation of about 75 and more medieval writers affirming the heavenly witnesses. So the polemic of Porson and Turton here is pretty much worthless, and Turton concludes the topic on p. 218.
    Henry Thomas Armfield 1836-1898 - more discussion of Selden

    Possibly Estius, Gerhard, Diego Montoya, Cheynell,
    Didacus, Henry Hammond, Socinus, Poole summary, Jean Mabillon, Jacobus Trigland, Du Pin, Majus (Major), LeFevre, Kettner (Porson says he flipped contra on the Prologue), Ussher, Hugo de Sancto Caro, Bengel and Socinus get mention in Turton

    The next era includes Genoud, Gilbert Burnet, Ambrosius Dorhout, John Fell (Erasmus criticism)

    followed by the 1800s (post 1790)
    Porson and Travis, Burgess Brownlee et al and others in the 1800s.

    Note any backward summaries of Bulter Horne-Tregelles-Abbot, Orme, and this

    W.W. (William Wright?) 1845
    especially how he handles Erasmus and Newton

    Check some others like Turretin


  10. Default A. W. Argyle - who was the first to assert that Jerome did not revise the full New Testament

    A very difficult theory, mentioned by Hugh Houghton, with equivocation. It will be helpful to see how this theory developed. There are various phases of discussion. 1500s, the actual period from about 1900-1920, the articles mentioned here from the mid-late 1900s, and any current references.


    Notes on the New Testament Vulgate )1976)
    A. W. Argyle

    The use of the phrase "a priori improable" I find puzzling. Plus we have a real logic problem:

    It is a priori improbable that Jerome himself accomplished all this work single-handed in so short a time. True, Jerome appears to claim elsewhere to be the reviser of the whole New Testament (‘the New Testament I have restored in accordance with the Greek’, De Vir. III. 135, Ep. 71. 5), but here again Jerome may mean merely that in discharging his responsibility in planning and supervising the whole enterprise he saw to it that the whole work was restored in accordance with the Greek. In any case the whole of the New Testament revision cannot be Jerome’s personal work for there is indisputable evidence from Jerome’s many writings1 that when quoting New Testament books from Acts to Revelation he gives versions different from the Vulgate, just as C. H. Dodd in the last book he wrote (The Founder of Christianity) uses (as he himself candidly admits) translations of his own which
    differ from those in the New English Bible.

    The irony here is that the Dodd analogy destroys his "cannot be Jerome's personal work" claim. Jerome was under no obligation to use literally a translation he made years earlier.


    More on Argyle:

    A. W. Argyle (b. 1910)
    An Introductory Grammar of New Testament Greek by A. W. Argyle

    More books
    Also "Greek among the Jews'
    Argyle is referenced a lot on the speaking Greek issues, he also has Aramaic and synoptic issues


    To find Ted Letis resource.

    Letis says Jerome did all NT and mentions a 16th century debate as to whether Jerome did Vulgate ?

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts