+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Vuglate 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
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584340?...n_tab_contents (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.
    13
    Name:  Rebenich.jpg
Views: 15
Size:  89.3 KB


    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.)

    Jerome
    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
    Galatians

    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)


    VOL 2 – JEROME WRITINGS

    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 admin; 12-02-2018 at 10:16 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
    https://books.google.com/books?id=cnROAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA93 - (1785)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=nf0qAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA128 - (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.

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

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