Steven Avery
Administrator
Francis Turretin
Not sure if you've seen this from December 2025: https://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2025/12/johannine-comma-1-john-57-8-and-pseudo.html
www.facebook.com
Last edited:
Jerome’s Vulgate Prologue - Facebook NT Textual Criticism - 2028
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
www.facebook.com
Steven Avery
Administrator
Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7-8) and Pseudo-Jerome Prologue - Massive Cover Up?
In a previous post ( link to post ), I discussed the Pseudo-Jerome prologue to the catholic epistles, including the reasons why for centurie...
turretinfan.blogspot.com
Steven Avery
Administrator
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin There is nothing "pseudo" about it. Victor of Capua believed it was real and endorsed it. Jerome died in 420. Victor completed the Fuldensis Codex in 545 AD. Victor was fluent in Greek and Latin. There is an entry in my supplement demonstrating that Victor knew of I John 5:7 and alluded to it in his commentary on Genesis. You are grasping at straws
Glynn Brown
Mike Ferrando it’s completely pseudo. Jerome only translated the gospels in the New Testament.
Francis Turretin
Mike Ferrando
Regarding "pseudo":
a) Those scholars who have focused their study on Jerome do not include this work as one of his works. That should speak volumes. They do not have any compelling incentive to exclude any authentic work of Jerome, so why would they omit this if it were authentic? The answer, of course, is that they would not exclude it if it were authentic. The reason that they do not include it is that it is inauthentic.
b) There are multiple reasons to agree with scholars including:
- Jerome did not translate the Catholic epistles (or any part of the NT outside of the Gospels), but the author of the prologue purports to have prepared such a translation.
- The odd canonical order referenced in the prologue (i.e., the order with Peter's epistles first) is documented only from canon list falsely attributed the council of Rome of 382 (included in the so-called Gelasian Decree), but which originated after Jerome's death but before the penning of Codex Fuldensis.
- Referring to the catholic epistles as the "canonical epsitles" is not something Jerome did in any of his authentic writings, but it is the terminology used in the so-called Gelasian Decree (which, as mentioned above, is from after Jerome's death).
- The quality of the Latin is not good, but Jerome's Latin quality is famously good. In fact, the prologue is written in a way that has been frequently misunderstood. For example, the prologue has been understood as suggesting that the Greek had the Peter-first order, which of course they did not. Likewise, despite saying the exact opposite, the prologue seems to have been misunderstood as saying that others had subtracted from the text rather than that others had added to the text.
Regarding Victor of Capua who supervised and edited the Codex Fuldensis (if memory serves, he did a first review in 546 and a second in 547):
a) Codex Fuldensis does not explicitly attribute the text to Jerome. The implication that this is from Jerome comes from the section of the prologue defending the quality of the translation from charges of corruption, in which the author mentions the virgin Eustochium, whose name matches a frequent correspondent of Jerome's. The famous Eustochium predeceased Jerome by about three years.
b) Victor's fluency in Greek (or not) does not appear to be directly germane to this discussion. If it were alleged that Victor had checked the Greek of 1 John to compare it to the Latin, then it would be relevant as evidence that Victor's Greek of 1 John did not include the CJ (just as Victor's Latin does not include the CJ).
c) Victor's fluency in Latin is not doubted, given his location of service in Capua (modern day Italy) and as he has Latin writings that have survived. His fluency in Latin, coupled with his actively checking Codex Fuldensis, does not provide any vouching for the authenticity of the prologue, and provides evidence against the authenticity of the CJ (which the prologue opposes and the text of 1 John does not include).
Regarding Victor's knowledge of the CJ and alleged allusion to it:
a) It's not clear what update you mean. The 80 page 2025 supplement of "The Witness of God is Greater" does mention Victor, but does not contain any Genesis commentary by him or any allusion to the CJ. The 672 page "The Witness of God is Greater" document (last updated in July 2025, I think) does mention Victor of Capua, but does not appear to include any allusion from Victor's Genesis commentary. If you were not just misremembering, a more specific citation would be helpful in order to evaluate your claim.
b) Nevertheless, it seems hard to escape the fact that given that Victor reviewed and approved the Codex Fuldensis, he was aware of the CJ and rejected it.
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//a) Those scholars who have focused their study on Jerome do not include this work as one of his works. That should speak volumes. They do not have any compelling incentive to exclude any authentic work of Jerome, so why would they omit this if it were authentic? The answer, of course, is that they would not exclude it if it were authentic. The reason that they do not include it is that it is inauthentic.//
Oh, you mean BEFORE Codex Fuldensis was transcribed and published by Ranke in the 1868?? The same scholars that asserted that the prologue was created in the 9th century??
All the ink they spilled for 200 years insisting it was an afterthought of some forger to support the verses, were no different than the arrogant assertions about so many other things.
Again, Codex Fuldensis demonstrates that the prologue is authentic and the double-down is Victor of Capua WHO WAS THERE. Those who object have never been right. Sorry you have been infected by their bias.
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//b) There are multiple reasons to agree with scholars including://
These criticisms have been debunked by scholars. I have given their testimony in my large paper. Sorry you didn't see that. You just keep repeating the same tired old criticisms as if they had never been answered.
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//Regarding Victor of Capua who supervised and edited the Codex Fuldensis (if memory serves, he did a first review in 546 and a second in 547): a) Codex Fuldensis does not explicitly attribute the text to Jerome. //
Again, this is absurd. Victor specifically stated he included Jerome's introductions. The Prologue is included. Therefore... You are moving the goal posts as usual.
Again, Codex Fuldensis demonstrates that the prologue is authentic and the double-down is Victor of Capua WHO WAS THERE. Those who object have never been right. Sorry you have been infected by their bias.
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//b) Victor's fluency in Greek (or not) does not appear to be directly germane to this discussion. If it were alleged that Victor had checked the Greek of 1 John to compare it to the Latin, then it would be relevant as evidence that Victor's Greek of 1 John did not include the CJ (just as Victor's Latin does not include the CJ).//
Here we are... So, you didn't really READ the Prologue?? The verse is NOT QUOTED. So, Victor did not have a Greek manuscript that included the verse at the time. Thus, he did not attempt to CORRECT it with annotations. Instead Victor left it as it was including the prologue. The issue is about THE PROLOGUE, not the verse. You are switching horses in your arguments. But even this is another ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE.
However, in my Supplement, there is evidence that Victor discovered the verse because he used a direct allusion in his
commentary on Genesis (cf. Scholia Sermonum Severianus, bishop of Gabalon). Reading the bolded information in the blurbs will inform you as to the source of this writing by Victor of Capua. (2025 Supplement, p. 27, Appendix p. 64-65).
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//b) Nevertheless, it seems hard to escape the fact that given that Victor reviewed and approved the Codex Fuldensis, he was aware of the CJ and rejected it.//
Again, NO EVIDENCE of his rejection. All you have is a conjecture (desperate and empty). You are trying to conflate the evidence. The Prologue IS IN FULDENSIS completed 545 AD by Victor. Jerome died in 420 AD. The time between gives NO BASIS for your assumption that a forger could have passed off the prologue. Really, these arguments were wrong when it was wrongly assumed a 9th century creation. Yet you still fire them off as if they still had substance.
Mike Ferrando+
Glynn Brown
From my big paper. I guess you missed this.
• [Chapman] 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)
Glynn Brown
Mike Ferrando it seems that your big paper isn’t worth reading.
Tradition isn’t proof of anything. Repeating tradition without evidence isn’t worth anything either. Jerome’s main concern was the Old Testament,only the gospels were translated in the New Testament.
Why are you so desperate to defend this Latin corruption? You’re arguing against the evidence.
Dwayne Green
Author
Moderator
Glynn Brown I don't agree with Mike's conclusion, but you can't undercut his research. From what I can see, this is the biggest collection of Trinitarian references from the church fathers and more. Any informed discussion on the comma necessitates familiarity with his documentation regardless of your stance on the originality of the comma. I don't know of any more comprehensive documentation on this textual variant.
Francis Turretin There is nothing "pseudo" about it. Victor of Capua believed it was real and endorsed it. Jerome died in 420. Victor completed the Fuldensis Codex in 545 AD. Victor was fluent in Greek and Latin. There is an entry in my supplement demonstrating that Victor knew of I John 5:7 and alluded to it in his commentary on Genesis. You are grasping at straws
Glynn Brown
Mike Ferrando it’s completely pseudo. Jerome only translated the gospels in the New Testament.
Francis Turretin
Mike Ferrando
Regarding "pseudo":
a) Those scholars who have focused their study on Jerome do not include this work as one of his works. That should speak volumes. They do not have any compelling incentive to exclude any authentic work of Jerome, so why would they omit this if it were authentic? The answer, of course, is that they would not exclude it if it were authentic. The reason that they do not include it is that it is inauthentic.
b) There are multiple reasons to agree with scholars including:
- Jerome did not translate the Catholic epistles (or any part of the NT outside of the Gospels), but the author of the prologue purports to have prepared such a translation.
- The odd canonical order referenced in the prologue (i.e., the order with Peter's epistles first) is documented only from canon list falsely attributed the council of Rome of 382 (included in the so-called Gelasian Decree), but which originated after Jerome's death but before the penning of Codex Fuldensis.
- Referring to the catholic epistles as the "canonical epsitles" is not something Jerome did in any of his authentic writings, but it is the terminology used in the so-called Gelasian Decree (which, as mentioned above, is from after Jerome's death).
- The quality of the Latin is not good, but Jerome's Latin quality is famously good. In fact, the prologue is written in a way that has been frequently misunderstood. For example, the prologue has been understood as suggesting that the Greek had the Peter-first order, which of course they did not. Likewise, despite saying the exact opposite, the prologue seems to have been misunderstood as saying that others had subtracted from the text rather than that others had added to the text.
Regarding Victor of Capua who supervised and edited the Codex Fuldensis (if memory serves, he did a first review in 546 and a second in 547):
a) Codex Fuldensis does not explicitly attribute the text to Jerome. The implication that this is from Jerome comes from the section of the prologue defending the quality of the translation from charges of corruption, in which the author mentions the virgin Eustochium, whose name matches a frequent correspondent of Jerome's. The famous Eustochium predeceased Jerome by about three years.
b) Victor's fluency in Greek (or not) does not appear to be directly germane to this discussion. If it were alleged that Victor had checked the Greek of 1 John to compare it to the Latin, then it would be relevant as evidence that Victor's Greek of 1 John did not include the CJ (just as Victor's Latin does not include the CJ).
c) Victor's fluency in Latin is not doubted, given his location of service in Capua (modern day Italy) and as he has Latin writings that have survived. His fluency in Latin, coupled with his actively checking Codex Fuldensis, does not provide any vouching for the authenticity of the prologue, and provides evidence against the authenticity of the CJ (which the prologue opposes and the text of 1 John does not include).
Regarding Victor's knowledge of the CJ and alleged allusion to it:
a) It's not clear what update you mean. The 80 page 2025 supplement of "The Witness of God is Greater" does mention Victor, but does not contain any Genesis commentary by him or any allusion to the CJ. The 672 page "The Witness of God is Greater" document (last updated in July 2025, I think) does mention Victor of Capua, but does not appear to include any allusion from Victor's Genesis commentary. If you were not just misremembering, a more specific citation would be helpful in order to evaluate your claim.
b) Nevertheless, it seems hard to escape the fact that given that Victor reviewed and approved the Codex Fuldensis, he was aware of the CJ and rejected it.
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//a) Those scholars who have focused their study on Jerome do not include this work as one of his works. That should speak volumes. They do not have any compelling incentive to exclude any authentic work of Jerome, so why would they omit this if it were authentic? The answer, of course, is that they would not exclude it if it were authentic. The reason that they do not include it is that it is inauthentic.//
Oh, you mean BEFORE Codex Fuldensis was transcribed and published by Ranke in the 1868?? The same scholars that asserted that the prologue was created in the 9th century??
All the ink they spilled for 200 years insisting it was an afterthought of some forger to support the verses, were no different than the arrogant assertions about so many other things.
Again, Codex Fuldensis demonstrates that the prologue is authentic and the double-down is Victor of Capua WHO WAS THERE. Those who object have never been right. Sorry you have been infected by their bias.
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//b) There are multiple reasons to agree with scholars including://
These criticisms have been debunked by scholars. I have given their testimony in my large paper. Sorry you didn't see that. You just keep repeating the same tired old criticisms as if they had never been answered.
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//Regarding Victor of Capua who supervised and edited the Codex Fuldensis (if memory serves, he did a first review in 546 and a second in 547): a) Codex Fuldensis does not explicitly attribute the text to Jerome. //
Again, this is absurd. Victor specifically stated he included Jerome's introductions. The Prologue is included. Therefore... You are moving the goal posts as usual.
Again, Codex Fuldensis demonstrates that the prologue is authentic and the double-down is Victor of Capua WHO WAS THERE. Those who object have never been right. Sorry you have been infected by their bias.
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//b) Victor's fluency in Greek (or not) does not appear to be directly germane to this discussion. If it were alleged that Victor had checked the Greek of 1 John to compare it to the Latin, then it would be relevant as evidence that Victor's Greek of 1 John did not include the CJ (just as Victor's Latin does not include the CJ).//
Here we are... So, you didn't really READ the Prologue?? The verse is NOT QUOTED. So, Victor did not have a Greek manuscript that included the verse at the time. Thus, he did not attempt to CORRECT it with annotations. Instead Victor left it as it was including the prologue. The issue is about THE PROLOGUE, not the verse. You are switching horses in your arguments. But even this is another ARGUMENT FROM SILENCE.
However, in my Supplement, there is evidence that Victor discovered the verse because he used a direct allusion in his
commentary on Genesis (cf. Scholia Sermonum Severianus, bishop of Gabalon). Reading the bolded information in the blurbs will inform you as to the source of this writing by Victor of Capua. (2025 Supplement, p. 27, Appendix p. 64-65).
Mike Ferrando
Francis Turretin
//b) Nevertheless, it seems hard to escape the fact that given that Victor reviewed and approved the Codex Fuldensis, he was aware of the CJ and rejected it.//
Again, NO EVIDENCE of his rejection. All you have is a conjecture (desperate and empty). You are trying to conflate the evidence. The Prologue IS IN FULDENSIS completed 545 AD by Victor. Jerome died in 420 AD. The time between gives NO BASIS for your assumption that a forger could have passed off the prologue. Really, these arguments were wrong when it was wrongly assumed a 9th century creation. Yet you still fire them off as if they still had substance.
Mike Ferrando+
Glynn Brown
From my big paper. I guess you missed this.
• [Chapman] 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)
Glynn Brown
Mike Ferrando it seems that your big paper isn’t worth reading.
Tradition isn’t proof of anything. Repeating tradition without evidence isn’t worth anything either. Jerome’s main concern was the Old Testament,only the gospels were translated in the New Testament.
Why are you so desperate to defend this Latin corruption? You’re arguing against the evidence.
Dwayne Green
Author
Moderator
Glynn Brown I don't agree with Mike's conclusion, but you can't undercut his research. From what I can see, this is the biggest collection of Trinitarian references from the church fathers and more. Any informed discussion on the comma necessitates familiarity with his documentation regardless of your stance on the originality of the comma. I don't know of any more comprehensive documentation on this textual variant.
Last edited: