J
Jack Koons
Guest
Ted,
The following is an excerpt from your post (Post #104). Readers have the rest to read at their leisure; I simply want to address this point directly.
Note that Jerome opens his preface by allowing that even in his day and among the manuscripts that he had to work with that there was evidently some that differed in various points. Note also that in the last words he gives testimony that he 'corrected' some passages that 'seemed' to convey a different meaning. Is this passage that we are discussing one of those? It is reasonably believed by many believers that the KJ translators adopted some copyist's notes into the body of the Scriptures and there could naturally be some who would also consider that this same thing may have happened with Jerome in his translating work.
I pray that you accept this discussion for what it is. I can neither, at this point, deny or confirm that the passage was in John's original epistle, but hopefully, as we continue to study there can be some light shed on the truth.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
I would especially draw your attention to the words, Is this passage that we are discussing one of those? I (and others) believe there is reason to believe this is NOT one of those. Have you considered?
[bless and do not curse]"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested. - Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis, Trans. T. Caldwell.
The above quote is also noted at:
Codex Fuldensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following excerpt was taken from the above site:
The 1 John text section omits the Comma Johanneum. However, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles includes a direct reference to the heavenly witnesses, with the Prologue written as a first-person note from Jerome to Eustocium. In this Prologue unfaithful translators are criticized for removal of the verse. The Prologue from about 1700 on had often been attacked as a late forgery, not really by Jerome, at the time the earliest known extant Vulgate with the Prologue was about 800 AD. The Prologue was noted to be in the Codex Fuldensis in the mid-to-late 1800s.
Just because, someone attacks a document as a late forgery, (without proof) doesn't make it a forgery. Notice the same kind of language in the next quote:
"The mention of the threefold witness suggested to Christian students of a later day the Three Persons of the Trinity. And so, some time in the fourth century or toward the end of the third, a Spanish Christian, who wrote in Latin, formed a corresponding sentence: "There are three who bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Perhaps he wrote this on the margin of his copy of 1 John and some later copyist thought it was part of the text, but in any case these words were quoted as part of the Latin Bible in Spain at least as early as 380 A.D.,[bless and do not curse]on earth[bless and do not curse]being added to v. 8 to balance the insertion. This "gloss" spread, and finally became so universal in Latin-speaking Christianity that it was even translated into Greek and was added to a few very late Greek MSS. From these it found its way into printed editions, and so into the first English versions. But R.V. and A.S.V. rightly omit all mention of it, as it has no claim to be considered John's words."
The Abingdon Bible Commentary: First John, Ed. B.S. Easton, p. 1357
Where is the evidence for the above assertions? I have always been told to support everything I write with evidence. People may argue with the evidence, but at least it is provided.
How did Jerome mention the omission of the Comma by unfaithful translators from Greek into Latin, if 1) He had not known it to be in the Greek; 2) If he hadn't witnessed the result of unfaithful translators himself; and 3) How could he specifically mention the Comma's being in Greek, if it originated' as a gloss' in Latin?
Jack
The following is an excerpt from your post (Post #104). Readers have the rest to read at their leisure; I simply want to address this point directly.
Note that Jerome opens his preface by allowing that even in his day and among the manuscripts that he had to work with that there was evidently some that differed in various points. Note also that in the last words he gives testimony that he 'corrected' some passages that 'seemed' to convey a different meaning. Is this passage that we are discussing one of those? It is reasonably believed by many believers that the KJ translators adopted some copyist's notes into the body of the Scriptures and there could naturally be some who would also consider that this same thing may have happened with Jerome in his translating work.
I pray that you accept this discussion for what it is. I can neither, at this point, deny or confirm that the passage was in John's original epistle, but hopefully, as we continue to study there can be some light shed on the truth.
God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
I would especially draw your attention to the words, Is this passage that we are discussing one of those? I (and others) believe there is reason to believe this is NOT one of those. Have you considered?
[bless and do not curse]"Just as these are properly understood and so translated faithfully by interpreters into Latin without leaving ambiguity for the readers nor [allowing] the variety of genres to conflict, especially in that text where we read the unity of the trinity is placed in the first letter of John, where much error has occurred at the hands of unfaithful translators contrary to the truth of faith, who have kept just the three words water, blood and spirit in this edition omitting mention of Father, Word and Spirit in which especially the catholic faith is strengthened and the unity of substance of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is attested. - Jerome, Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, from the text of the prologue appended to Codex Fuldensis, Trans. T. Caldwell.
The above quote is also noted at:
Codex Fuldensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following excerpt was taken from the above site:
The 1 John text section omits the Comma Johanneum. However, the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles includes a direct reference to the heavenly witnesses, with the Prologue written as a first-person note from Jerome to Eustocium. In this Prologue unfaithful translators are criticized for removal of the verse. The Prologue from about 1700 on had often been attacked as a late forgery, not really by Jerome, at the time the earliest known extant Vulgate with the Prologue was about 800 AD. The Prologue was noted to be in the Codex Fuldensis in the mid-to-late 1800s.
Just because, someone attacks a document as a late forgery, (without proof) doesn't make it a forgery. Notice the same kind of language in the next quote:
"The mention of the threefold witness suggested to Christian students of a later day the Three Persons of the Trinity. And so, some time in the fourth century or toward the end of the third, a Spanish Christian, who wrote in Latin, formed a corresponding sentence: "There are three who bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one." Perhaps he wrote this on the margin of his copy of 1 John and some later copyist thought it was part of the text, but in any case these words were quoted as part of the Latin Bible in Spain at least as early as 380 A.D.,[bless and do not curse]on earth[bless and do not curse]being added to v. 8 to balance the insertion. This "gloss" spread, and finally became so universal in Latin-speaking Christianity that it was even translated into Greek and was added to a few very late Greek MSS. From these it found its way into printed editions, and so into the first English versions. But R.V. and A.S.V. rightly omit all mention of it, as it has no claim to be considered John's words."
The Abingdon Bible Commentary: First John, Ed. B.S. Easton, p. 1357
Where is the evidence for the above assertions? I have always been told to support everything I write with evidence. People may argue with the evidence, but at least it is provided.
How did Jerome mention the omission of the Comma by unfaithful translators from Greek into Latin, if 1) He had not known it to be in the Greek; 2) If he hadn't witnessed the result of unfaithful translators himself; and 3) How could he specifically mention the Comma's being in Greek, if it originated' as a gloss' in Latin?
Jack
Upvote
0
