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

Steven Avery

Here is how the shell game works:

1) a number of Old Latin mss have the heavenly witnesses

2) Bruce Metzger looks at some of them and says - "wait - in 1 John, we want to think of some of these as Vulgate"

3) note that the apparatus lists them as Old Latin ms, yesterday and today

4) the charlatan Metzger then reduces the Old Latin in his logic, without making any adjustment to his Vulgate claims!
Some of this from Metzger may be in Early Versions.

(Some of the posts and discussions are not that easy to find, especially this may have been discussed on CARM, and then purged.)

The plan is to collate a lot of this type of info in the next week or two.

Plus this can be used for bringing over and making more readable and accessible, forum info from years back!

Some may be in:
Last edited:

Steven Avery

searching for the Metzger charade details

The BVDB fan club may have found a good resource where the charade is explained, the CARM thread referenced above.

The thread has some nice stuff, but it points backwards for the Metzger info:

To try to leave Latin heavenly witnesses evidences out of both the Old Latin and Vulgate discussions is simply a charlatan approach. I pointed out a while back that Metzger began this scholastic nonsense, which is continued by parrots today.

Old Latin ms of the Heavenly Witnesses
Last edited:

Steven Avery

[TC-Alternate-list] heavenly witnesses - Metzger word-parsing disinformation attempt

James entertained and informed us with the unravelling of the Metzger Disinformation Campaign on the Mark ending.

Mark 16, Bruce Metzger, and Misinformation
June 19,2012

And we know the Metzger Parrots bring the same arguments over here and there, often through the NETBible paraphrases of Metzger.

And I ran into the Metzger routine on the heavenly witnesses the other day, so I decided to begin to unravel some of the similar disinformation. So I will post here, extracting from three items I prepared the fast few days on TWeb, and tweaking a bit:


1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth,
the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
and these three agree in one.


Dean John Burgon demolishes Westcott-Hort textual theories - p. 4
June, 2012


Metzger Text

From A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger:
5.78 , 8 {A}

After the Textus Receptus adds the following: , , , . . (8) . That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

(A) External Evidence. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88v.r.: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenthcentury codex Regius of Naples.
221v.r. a variant reading added to a tenthcentury manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenthcentury manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
636v.r.: a variant reading added to a sixteenthcentury manuscript at Naples.
918: a sixteenthcentury manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318: an eighteenthcentury manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)

(B) Internal Probabilities. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.

For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, I. John v. 7 and Luthers German Bible, in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458463.


My posts cover three critical issues:

(1) The omission of any reference of the Council of Carthage of 484 AD.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 54146] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

(3) The passage ... is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine),

More hard evidence items could be added, such as the omission of the Vulgate Prologue and the Vulgate disinformation. (Nobody would ever know that the heavenly witnesses are in many thousands, the vast majority, of Vulgate mss !.) And the vagueness and sketchiness on the actual ECW evidences. Which, other than the Greek mss and the versional, covers basically all the hard evidence attempts in the Metzger section.

Other points are simply not discussed properly, such as the powerful grammatical issues, the very understandable and strong internal evidences (which are seen much clearer in the larger section, at least verses 6-9), the aspect of inclusion/omission and homoeoteleuton, etc. The omissions are glaring. The reason is simple, this is a Metzger propaganda piece, not a textual study. This is designed to bring down the Hortian Fog to the reader.


1) Omission of the Council of Carthage

[TC-Alternate-list] Council of Carthage, 484 AD, heavenly witnesses in the confession of faith by 100s of bishops
Steven Avery - Feb 6, 2011

Watch how Metzger tries to cover his back and yet not tell the reader about the hundreds of bishops affirming the statement of faith with John's verse described as "clearer than light".

"In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle"

Now the other 5th century quotes are important, including the multiple quotes in De Trinitate and Contra Varimidum which corroborate the Council history, but this Council is one of the "super-evidences". And Bruce Metzger plays dumb, and plays his readers for fools. And until the recent explosion of Internet studies, with some success.


2) No "Greek Fathers" - first appearance in Greek

"The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215."

First, I will add that silences can be tricky. Many writers have conjectured, and shown evidences, that the orthodox Greek writers might find the verse problematic. What would "most certainly" occur, may be far from certain. To be fair, though, this is a reasonable general contra argument, the problem is that it is presented in a special word-parse to eliminate one major evidence, and other significant evidences as well.

There are a number of important Greek evidences that are hidden by the typical Metzger word-parsing "quoted by none of the Greek Fathers". e.g. The verse is referenced by Athanasius in the "Disputation with Arius in the Council of Nice", written in Greek, which should be included as an "appearance in Greek".

[TC-Alternate-list] heavenly witnesses - Disputation of Athanasius with Arius - UBS-4 omission
Steven Avery - Oct 2, 2011

This is placed as an evidence in parenthesis the UBS-3 apparatus as Ps-Athanasius (UBS-4 improperly dropped the entry) and has lots of authorship discussion. (For more information, an excellent source is A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witnesses, (1867) Charles Forster p. 59-64). However, since this a work that cannot be demonstrated to be directly by Athanasius, the Metzger word-parsing allows him to deceive his readers into thinking there are no Greek evidences till the Lateran Council.

Notice that the text is directly referencing the Arian -Trinitarian controversies, as is the case with numerous Latin evidences of the era as well. Another tricky-by-omission above, Metzger strains to tell you that the heavenly witnesses were not used in extant Greek in the controversies, but totally omits the large-scale Latin evidences. The goal is to create a false sense of a late Latin addition by hand-wavings combined with word-parsings combined with omissions. To really understand the evidences, you really have to go back to the amazing verse debate, especially in the 1700s and 1800s, and discard modern Metzger-style tainted pabulum.

Granted, the Art of Metzgerian Word-Parsing to hide evidences is not at all limited to the heavenly witnesses, and could be the base of a course on Deceptive Writing 101. Plus, to be fair, there are times where he may be taking the tricky writing from others. And you will see his technique copied continuously, either in direct quotes, or in rephrasings as in the NETBible. Once you know the game, you can play "how many things wrong do you see in this picture".

Another example of an evidence about Greek mss and the doctrinal battles is the Vulgate Prologue, a fascinating study. However, since that is written in Latin, referencing Greek mss, it is simply word-parsed out of commission by Metzger. In fact, its omission could be a separate example of a major Metzger trick.

We can also add other Greek evidences, like the Origen Scholion, of our recent posts, and the Expositeo Fidei, discussed in the excellent "New Plea" of Forster p. 266-268 (Forster, following Knittel, shows how the Greek church was continually using language that could only sensibly be traced to verse 7, even if it dropped out of most of the manuscripts in the first centuries.) And here is another Greek writing of interest.

Synopsis Sacrae Scripture

See there are, right away, a number of important Greek evidences, the Disputation being the most directly relating to a "Greek father". However, by word parsing , Metzger can trick his readers into not considering any such evidences. The purpose of Metzger writing is not to inform, but to dissuade.

Note: Westcott and Hort were even more false than Metzger:

"There is no evidence for the inserted words in Greek, or in any language but Latin, before Cent. XIV, when they appear in a Greek work written in defence of the Roman communion, with clear marks of translation from the Vulgate. " (Introduction to the GNT, Notes on Selected Readings, 1881)


3) Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine) -
.. calling Cyprian "not found"

Another shading and mishandling of evidences by Bruce Metzger:

"The passage... is not found .. in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine)"

First, this manages to skirt around the actual Old Latin ms evidence, which is heavily for the verse, in the approximately 10 mss involved. How did it get into the Old Latin mss if not in the "early form" 2nd-3rd century ? It also skirts around auxiliary evidences, like Ps-Cyprian in the apparatus. Nor does it give any sensible explanation to account for the supposed jump from the not found "early form" to the (disguised by Metzger) heavy usage from the late 4th century onwards.

More importantly, Metzger is simply dead wrong.

Cyprian is properly given as a positive citation in parenthesis even in the skewed UBS-4 apparatus, yet the actual text (there is also a second corroborative allusion) is even more powerful evidence than indicated:

The Treatises of Cyprian
Cyprian 250 AD Treatise I On The Unity of the church - Roberts, Donaldson edition

The Lord says,
"I and the Father are one;"
and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,
"And these three are one.

For a short summary of the Cyprian issues in recent writings, you do read the Daniel Wallace hand-wave paper, the Martin Shue response, and the excellent summary given in the Tim Dunkin paper. Again, it is good to study the earlier debate carefully.

Somebody reading the Metzger deception section would not even know about this evidence, which is one of a class of super-evidences for (1) the antiquity, and (2) the Johannine authorship, of the heavenly witnesses.

Incidentally, Tertullian has an allusion as well, similar in style to the second corroborating Cyprian reference in the Epistle to Jubaianus.

And there are lots of complexities on the Augustine material, with even Bruce Metzger writing:

"The silence of Augustine, contrary to prevailing opinion, cannot be cited as evidence against the genuineness of the Comma. He may indeed have known it"
Annotated bibliography of the textual criticism of the New Testament p. 113 Bruce Manning Metzger, 1955.
Techie correction from Bill Brown:
Metzger was quoting Fickermann. (He did not disagree with the quote.)

So you now have Metzger vs. Metzger !

And every element of the Metzger assertion on the Old Latin crumbles.

This is extremely significant, in terms of competing theories of inclusion and omission of the heavenly witnesses.


Thanks for your attention ! Thoughts and feedback and sharing welcome.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

[textualcriticism] the snowball effect of misinformation a-b-c

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart, 1993).
Bruce Manning Metzger

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:

and these three are one.

There are actually three major pieces of disinformation in the Metzger paragraph, which has worked to confuse numerous modern writers, including Daniel Wallace, and that confusion has affected other discussions.


Working backwards.

(c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

First, in the context of Vulgate recensions, let us note that referencing Alcuin without referencing the Cassiodorus efforts and heavenly witness reference, and the Theodulf recension (at least this was mentioned by Brooke) and the question of the Bede manuscript is a bit of rather blatant-cherry-picking and not real scholarship.

More significantly, how could a scholar talk about the Vulgate manuscript line and "forget" to tell his reader that about 95% of c. 1000 of hand-written Vulgate manuscripts with 1 John have the verse ? Unless they put agenda before scholarship.


(b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716])

However, Bruce Metzger does not know how Jerome issued 1 John 5:7 (allowing a Jerome edition of the book). And any real scholarship that references Codex Fuldensis, under the auspices of Victor of Capua, would have to reference the Vulgate Prologue, in the first-person style and knowledge of Jerome. The Prologue that directly accuses unfaithful translators of dropping the verse !

And thus bringing forth the fascinating discordance, by the same scribe, within Codex Fuldensis, pointing to exemplars even closer to the days of Jerome. And even if, despite the Fuldensis refutation, or contraindication, of the forgery theory, this is not considered to be Jerome writing, it surely is a powerful piece of evidence of the verse in Vulgate and Old Latin manuscripts way before Fuldensis.

From Bruce Metzger, no reference at all.
Just an assertion supported by rigging the evidence.


(c) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate

What does "the Old Latin in its early form" really mean ? After all, the extant Old Latin manuscripts favor the verse by about 8-2 !. So this is a way of ignoring the manuscript evidence, and any other evidence you feel to ignore.

How can Bruce Metzger include Augustine and ignore the hundreds of Bishops at the Council of Carthage, and Priscillian and Fulgentius ? All strongly witnessing to the early Old Latin manuscripts. What type of scholarship rigging is this ?

Any the Cyprian evidence is so strong that now even a UBS apparatus acknowledges it as favorable. And Metzger knew of the Fickermann paper that says that Augustine may well have had the verse. And the Tertullian reference is corroborative to the two Cyprian references.

This rigging is major, and has caused many falsely to think the Old Latin does not support the verse !

Although many examples are available of the snowball effect of such disinformation (the Wikipedia article made more errors that were distributed wide and far) here is one from Daniel Wallace. In a classically circular fashion, Daniel Wallace leans on Metzger misinformation to support the "usual explainings away" (Arthur Cleveland Coxe) of the Cyprian reference .. based on distorting the Old Latin evidence.

The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian
Daniel Wallace

Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations.

As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss.

However the Old Latin "texts" show tons of evidence of the verse. The manuscripts are 8-2, and early church writer and even the Council of Carthage of 484 consistently and directly reference the verse. Negative Old Latin evidence is very sparse, indeed.

Thus, in this logic, the Cyprian citation is not a real reference to the verse because it is claimed (wrongly) that the Old Latin evidences do not support the verse. And, to complete the circle, the Old Latin evidences can be disregarded once the Cyprian citation is hand-waved. Since the Cyprian citation accepted refutes any pretension that the early Old Latin Bible did not have the verse.

Circularity, the jewel.


Other papers responding to the Daniel Wallace paper include one by Martin Shue and one by Timothy Dunkin

[textualcriticism] the snowball effect of misinformation a-b-c

Hi Folks,

One of the unfortunate results of disinformation through word-parsing is a snowball effect. Future readers, even scholars, ignore the parsing, the desired effect of a partisan position is achieved, and the error is multiplied. And this creates confusion in the evaluation of other evidences.

In Textual Commentary (1993) Bruce Metzger wrote about 1 John v:7 (borrowing from Alan England Brooke).
Last edited:

Steven Avery


[TC-Alternate-list] both sides against the middle (lose-lose argumentation) - Carthage confession, Prologue - heavenly witnesses - Dec 30, 2012

Hi Folks,

On the censored forum, James Snapp is able to post. And he made a very notable comment, that really gets to the heart of a lot of argumentation. (I am going to conjecture that he has run into a similar schema in argumentation against the Mark ending).


The discussion is the heavenly witnesses (which James still considers an interpolation, however with a respectful sense toward the arguments for). James makes a number of good points about the slick Metzger game as well. (He was mentioning evidence ultra-selectivity, I will mention that word-parsing goes hand in hand.)

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

I surmised it was an interpolation based on the numerous ways it was quoted by Vigilius Tapsensis. This is the very problem that I find with this passage. It is quoted in different forms all through out its history.

(emphasis added)

James Snapp
I dont recommend using that line of reasoning if you discuss the Comma Johanneum with well-prepared defenders of it. For their response will be immediate: you are thus unfairly placing the CJ in a lose-lose situation: because there are variations in how it is quoted, you question its genuineness. But if there were no variations, its detractors would say that such uniformity in fourth-century and fifth-century witnesses shows that it must have originated at about that time: had it been in the text-streams earlier (they would say), it would have acquired unique barnacles in each text-stream, but when we see that it is unbarnacled, the explanation is that it only recently was introduced into the stream.

In addition, a well-informed person could present you with dozens of genuine passages which have similarly been quoted with variations, compelling the conclusion that the looseness with which a passage is quoted does not imply that the passage itself is not genuine; on the contrary, it demonstrates that there was something there to misquote!

Gold star to James.- noting lose-lose argumentation is a critical aspect of honest dialog

Wait, there is more.


They rehash arguments from the past which were answered long ago.

James Snapp
Perhaps in some cases they do. But perhaps, in other cases, the confident claims that a particular issue was thoroughly explored long ago, and that the results are spectacularly clear, are propagandistic revisions of episodes in which the conclusions were extremely tentative, the evidence was open to interpretation, and the eventual consensus, instead of being the fruit of pure research, developed largely thanks to clever/ruthless marketing. In general this may be something that merits its own discussion, but, specifically, concerning a point that pertains to the Comma Johanneum, one example may be mentioned: it is routinely assumed today that the prologue to the Catholic Epistles in Codex Fuldensis was not written by Jerome. But who has read, or even seen, the scholarly work that aspired to demonstrate that this is the case?

I can think of only one such work: Porson's 11th letter to Travis. But when Porson finally got around to the subject of the Prologue, he was running under such a head of rhetorical steam that it is not easy to get a clear view of the nature of his objections. And when they come into view, they are small: Jerome can't be the author because Jerome's name is absent from the Prologue in a particularly large number of copies of it. (Suddenly manuscripts may be counted, after all!) Jerome can't be the author because Jerome would have written in a more dignified style. Jerome's manuscripts simply couldn't be so different from the others of which evidence has survived. Jerome can't be the author because Jerome would have referred to the "catholic" epistles rather than the "canonical" epistles. Jerome would have mentioned his restoration of the Comma Johanneum in his correspondence with Augustine. Jerome would have harshly castigated those who removed the CJ. And so forth. Porson seems to be Jerome's very close friend, and nearly capable of reading his mind.

Let us observe, at least, that Porson's research led him to the conclusion that "the Prologue was written in some part of the time between Bede's death and the ninth century." If incorrect conclusions indicate that something is wrong with the research that led to them, then obviously something is amiss here (inasmuch as the Prologue is found in Codex Fuldensis, produced in the 540's, well over a century before Bede was even born). It looks to me like Porson, despite all his aggressive rhetoric, did not really present a strong case that the Prologue was not written by Jerome or a co-worker of Jerome; his case is mainly an accumulation of small and individually answerable objections.
(SA: mulitplication of nothings) More importantly, he did not present evidence that the Prologue is significantly later than Jerome. So: inasmuch as Porson did not satisfactorily settle the question about the precise composition-date of the Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, who did?

James is raising spectacularly important issues. I'm not going to comment much now, I want his writing here to be seen, considered, and allowed to settle. There is one more paragraph, on Prologue authenticity, as seen by Latin manuscript expert Dom John Chapman, however I think that should be handled separately.


I find it interesting that when Erasmus published Jeromes works, he refused to publish the Prologue with them.

Refused is warp speech. Erasmus occasionally made puzzling decisions in the ECW publications, he had the leeway, sometimes related to heavenly witnesses evidences. e.g Erasmus gave us no publication of Unity of the Church by Cyprian and it was not referenced in any conversations with Stunica and others.

However, the specific Erasmus view of the Prologue was a major part of the discussion with Stunica. Something that the learned gentlemen on the censored forum either do not know, or do not want to discuss responsibly. Erasmus clearly accepted authenticity, as did every single writer until the heavenly witnesses were politicized, and Erasmus looked to blame Jerome not just for the Prologue, but for the heavenly witnesses verse !


James has another good section. Some comments.

(2) Gregory Nyssa - I think you mean Gregory Nazianzen

(3) Jude 1:25 homoeoteleuton analogy. First time I have seen it (by memory), interesting.

(4) very powerful point from Cornwall on Vigilius showing Latin from Greek

(5) add the fact that many readings are simply a couple of manuscripts, of manuscripts that could easily be there rather than here


At the censored forum, James took a whole group back to Textual School 101, it is an interesting read.

The Confession of the African Bishops in Carthage


Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Archived at
[TC-Alternate-list] both sides against the middle (lose-lose argumentation) - Carthage confession, Prologue - heavenly witnesses


Heavenly Witnesses - James Snapp takes on the den of contras on the censored forum

This is a continuation of the previous post.

[TC-Alternate-list] both sides against the middle (lose-lose argumentation) - Carthage confession, Prologue - heavenly witnesses
Steven Avery - Sun Dec 30, 2012

Since the posts on the censored forum, trying to respond to James Snapp, are rather astounding, I think I will use two of them (after the last post of James) as dropping off points for real discussion. The two posts from that forum are by a gentleman I will call "contra". If any of those gentlemen want to be named, my suggestion is they can post on this forum directly.


Alfred Plummer Contra the Pure BIble - Heavenly Witnesses, Ending of Mark

The first post quotes Alfred Plummer, another one of those from whom Bruce Metzger plumbed words and ideas to hone his deception writing. One of the main Metzger precursors. James mentioned another one, Unitarian John Scott Porter (1801-1880).

This is Alfred Plummer (1841-1926), quoted by the censored forum geniuses.
Note the incredible arrogance of Plummer, which is, I conjecture, one reason why they like this writing on the censored forum.

Plummer quoted by contra
Some will perhaps think that this Appendix [On the Three Heavenly Witnesses] is wasted labour: that it is a needlessly elaborate slaying of the slain. But so long as any educated Englishman, above all, so long as any English clergyman (1), believes, and indeed publicly maintains, that the passage is genuine, or even possibly genuine, trouble to demonstrate its spuriousness will not be thrown away. [Plummer, A. (1916). The Epistles of S. John. Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (pp. 171–172). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.]

This arrogance against the pure word of God from Plummer is a Hortian (Mr. Moral Certainty) acquired learning.

Here is Plummer in the similar depths of deception making basically the same claim with the same bravado for removing the Mark ending. Notice how Plummer tries to claim that removing the text that is supported by 99.9% of the Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts is a position "proven" by textual criticism .. which here is a euphemism for the Hortian Fog.

Plummer arrogance on Mark ending
In discussing the integrity of our Gospel acc. to St Mark we may confine ourselves to the last twelve verses found in our Bibles (xvi. 9—20) and to the much shorter duplicate found in four uncial MSS., two of which are mere fragments. That neither of these endings is part of the original Gospel is one of those sure results of modern criticism which ought no longer to need to be proved.

This shows that the problem is Plummer's spiritual and scholastic walk, not anything intrinsic about the fulcrum verse of the pure Bible battle, 1 John 5:7. Clearly, it is not really the Greek manuscript tradition that concerned Mr. Plummer. Since in the ending of Mark that manuscript tradition, in Greek and Latin, overwhelmingly favors inclusion, by 99%++ . We see simply the results of the Hortian Fog upon the scholastic establishment


Henry Thomas Armfield - the disputed text, the Arian omission issue

The Essex Rector referenced by Plummer is Henry Thomas Armfield, who wrote a rather neat book on the heavenly witnesses, showing far more insight than Plummer.

Note: I do not know who the York Convocation gentlemen is who properly denounced the decrepit Revision. In the USA we had Thomas DeWitt Talmage who did not mince any words about the Revision, and was written up in the New York Times.

Thomas DeWitt Talmage
The Brooklyn Tabernacle held an overflowing congregation yesterday morning. Mr. Talmage recited the Lord's Prayer to the doxology, and then solemnly said: "There we are compelled to stop." Taking up the Bible he turned to the fifth chapter of John, but passed it with the remark, "I will not read that, for it has been abolished or made doubtful by the new revision."

Returning to Armfield.

The three witnesses : The disputed text in St. John : considerations new and old -
Henry Thomas Armfield (1883)

contra on censored forum - footnote quote from Plummer
Footnote 1: “An Essex Rector has recently (Feb. 1883) thought it worth while to publish a book restating most of the old and exploded arguments in defence of the disputed text: and a member of the York Convocation (April, 1883) denounced the Revised Version as most mischievous, because people now heard words read as Scripture in Church and then went home and found that the words were omitted from the new Version as not being Scripture; and he gave as an instance the passage about the Three Heavenly Witnesses, which had been read in the Epistle that morning. He afterwards stated in a published letter ‘that the last word had not been spoken on this text, and that he was quite content himself to read it in the A.V., as required in the Church Service … Whether the text was expunged by the Arians (!), or interpolated by the Western Athanasians, is as much a question as ever.’

And I would agree that this is far too simplistic. The great irony, showing the bias and ignorance of Plummer and the contra, is that Henry Thomas Armfield wrote with rather fine insight on the omission question. A charlatan writer takes the popular York Convocation speaker to task, seeing him as an easy target, and ignores the writings with more depth.

Emphasis added:

Jerome’s famous hyperbole, ‘The whole world groaned and was amazed to find itself Arian,’ fades into insignificance compared with the supposition that long before Jerome’s day the Arians had acquired influence enough to expunge a decisive passage from every copy of the Bible in every language, so that neither Jerome, nor any Christian writer of his time, or before his time, had any knowledge of its existence!

This is the big lie technique, usually it is attempted by more subtle word-parsing. In the modern Internet discussion, one of the Daniel Wallace students writes in this deficient manner also (like Plummer, talking as if the verse vanished from the face of the earth).

The simple truth. Thousands of manuscripts are extant from that period with the heavenly witnesses. Many dozens of commentators wrote about the verse. Three church councils specifically focused on the verse, including remarking that this is luce claris, clearer than the light, in Carthage 484.

And there are specific indications of its suppression by some being noted, related by the Vulgate Prologue, sensibly Jerome. And independently involving Augustine. Two textual giants of the era.

(Remember, though, once a text line is split, suppression can also take the forum of choosing one text that is more comfortable in a difficult textual situation, so we should be slow to impugn motives too widely.)

Where was the passage lying hid all those centuries? How was it rediscovered?

Open your eyes, Plummer, your vision is down the drain.

The passage is easily available, by reading the mass of manuscripts in Christian lands all over Europe, which had the verse. By reading the writings of the dozens of commentators who used the verse in interpretation and study. By reading about the Council of Carthage of 484, or the Lateran Council in which the heavenly witnesses played a central role, or the Synod of Sis and the Armenian tradition. For the largest base of Christian writing, nothing ever vanished, and no rediscovery was needed.

Those who have been endeavoring upon critical principles to obtain a pure text of the Greek Testament have been accused of unsettling men’s minds by shewing that certain small portions of the common text are of very doubtful authority. But what profound uncertainty must be the result if we once admit, as a legitimate hypothesis, the supposition that an heretical party in the Church could for several hundred years rob the whole Church, and for many hundred years rob all but Western Christendom, of the clearest statement of the central doctrine of Christianity. What else may not the Arians have expunged? What may they not have inserted?

Note, though, that the tricky Plummer (overall, though, I do not think he is as tricky as Metzger) dealt with the popular preacher's style comment, and ignored the far more insightful writing, on the same topic, of Henry Thomas Armfield. Why ? Simply because of a type of dishonesty that comes over people when they are in the Hortian Fog.

The Armfield section of interest starts around p. 36.

Henry Thomas Armfield has a really neat quote about the propensity for forgery accusations to fly about whenever there is a heavenly witnesses evidence (the heavy drinker, the bitter skeptic Richard Porson, was incredibly adept in whining forgery).

Henry Thomas Armfield:
"how is it that while genuine Fathers avoided quoting the disputed text, an imitator did not shrink? " (p. 58)

When I first read that, I though it was hilarious.
And insightful at the same time.


Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles - note from Jerome to Eustachium

The next post is first James, (Waterrock) followed by the contra.

James. (all this is to contra)
Regarding the Prologue: while it is good to know whether the Prologue was written by Jerome (as Dunkin thinks) or by someone else (as Porson cogently argued), its composition-date is more important than the identity of its composer.

Wait a minute, there was nothing cogent in the Porson reasons, as you noticed James. Let's not bend over backwards too far.

Anyway, my view: both are important. The early dating without Jerome as author is very consequential. With Jerome as author it adds virtually a probative element to heavenly witnesses authenticity. Maybe I will go into that on a soon-coming post. So far, I think that John Chapman went in the right direction, but stumbled right at the end, and leaves you with what is the most unsatisfactory and unlikely alternative.

In the excerpt that you provided, Dunkin wrote that
“The claim was made by early textual critics in the 17th century that Jerome's Prologue was a forgery dating to the Middle Ages.”

Just to be clear, middle ages here can be pinned down to 700-900 AD.

A number of individuals tried to claim that the Vulgate forgery was late, in that date range. This was the "wisdom" of the textual opponents of the heavenly witnesses (which tended to be the opponents of the TR, Mark ending opponents were rare at that time). James is 100% right to emphasize that a theory that collapses by the weight of future discoveries tells us a lot about the bias and lack of insight of the theorists. (My phrasing.)

Indeed, that is exactly what Porson (and his echoes) did.

And Porson (who often simply used the earlier arguments with extra acidity) was echoing a number of others. David Martin around 1715 gave the most important example, with the 800 AD dating (Charlemagne passed in 814).

F. Simon supposes it put in by some of those who revised the Bible under Charlermain.

Now, it is clear that the contras have been struggling to explain exactly why they consider the Prologue as spurious, without sounding too circular :

"it's spurious because it references the heavenly witnesses"

That can get a bit threadbare.

So I suggest they go their Vulgate Prologue leader Richard Simon and try to extract the arguments from the learned but struggling Simon. Simon at least has a few pages on the question, maybe they can extract something more coherent than Porson, Porter and Plummer.


Richard Simon contra Authenticity of the Vulgate Prologue

Critical History of the Versions of the New Testament (1689)
Richard Simon

In my experience, the more people actually know and understand the arguments on both sides, the more they more towards authenticity. (It is possible for a person with a real vested interest, like scholastic advancement, to stagnate, but that is the exception.) And that move to understanding is what happened with me some years back, with Cyprian being a special emphasis. I found myself astounded by the arguments that were being constructed in an ultra-convoluted way to deny the Cyprian citation, and that astonishment itself worked as a tipping point.

Remembering the words of James Snapp about how the new Fuldensis facts on the ground decimated (or hurt severely) the Prologue position of forgery, let us look at Richard Simon.

It may be alleged as a proof of their being after wards inferred in St. Jeromes Bible, that there are extant certain very ancient and exact Manuscripts thereof, in which we do not find them (p. 83)

We find that Simon blundered with the most basic kindergarten blunder, of claiming proof on evidence from silence of extant manuscripts. And today we know that Simon was simply a nothing, totally wrong logically and scholastically. As Fuldensis appeared, with an iron-clad date of no later than 546 AD. Also being copied under rather skilled and knowledgeable auspices, Victor of Capua leading the way.

Thus, based on his own logical incompetence, Simon quickly goes to
"this counterfeit St. Jerome" .. "the pretended St. Jerome" (p. 87).

Oops, so maybe you can't really use Simon and will have to find some one else. This is not the only section from Simon, however it is enough to show that he is extremely unreliable.

So let us go back to James

James Snapp
But if they had been aware of Codex Fuldensis they would not have done so; they would have claimed that it was a forgery, but not one dating to the Middle Ages. It can’t post-date Codex Fuldensis.

Actually, it is quite unclear whether there would ever have been a forgery allegation to parrot if it was not thought that the Prologue was very late, not created until about the time of Charlemagne. The forgery allegation was built on this late dating.


Hand-Waving - the Contra Way

Now we have one of the humorous hand-wave of those who have too much invested in fighting the verse, because they think they have to do that to fight the AV.

I see the mistake that they made in the 18th century concerning the date of the "Prologue" as irrelevant. They made that assumption based on the current evidence at that time.

Remember, this is a contra that does not even know what is the evidence, he is just parroting Metzger and the pre-Parrots. He is struggling to figure out why he is supposed to believe it is a forgery. He can quote a number of names, maybe look for the word "consensus" somewhere .. but the actual reasons and analysis, lost in the fog.

You are supposed to be able to say "Metzger .. Fee ... Ehrman .. Comfort ... Elliot" and we are supposed to be sooo impressed. Try to understand the circularity, though. They don't really need a reason, they do not even have to know the supposed arguments for or against the Vulgate Prologue authenticity. From their perspective, the heavenly witnesses simply could not be mentioned by Jerome. Impossible. Ergo, the Prologue must be a forgery.

In round numbers, how many of these gentleman, other than Raymond Brown, have written one sensible sentence about Cyprian and the Council of Carthage and the thousands of Latin manuscripts ? They write to deceive, it is virtually built-in.

Please note, the Vulgate Prologue forgery was a theory that was only formulated after the heavenly witnesses debate, before that not a single writer is known to have questioned the authenticity of the Prologue.

Forgery theories are notoriously unreliable, self-serving and frequently based on special pleading. Bruce Metzger essentially considered the Pastorals as 2 Peter as forgeries, despite all the first person elements in the letters. And the basis for those accusations are super-flimsy. So you can see that dark elements come to play at times when the Bible, and Bible supports, are blithely accused of being forgeries. Caveat emptor.

KJVOs often do just the opposite. They will base arguments on items proven to be erroneous long ago e.g, supposing the vowel-points of the Hebrew text to be in the original text come to mind.)

This is an oversimplification of a complex question, which also includes matres lectionis. At any rate, here it is just a diversion. The contras are talking about the superb writings of Ellsworth and others, the thoughts of James Snapp, etc. And they whine about the KJV defenders, constantly. Try to stick with the program.

If you want to whine about an AV defender and the heavenly witnesses, then you should do it in real dialog with them on a forum, but that you find impossible. You look like a bunch of kids in a sandbox.

I fail to see the earlier date of the "Prologue" proves it is original to Jerome.

While this is largely my position (without the word "proves") it was clearly not that of James Snapp. More on this planned later. At the very least, you should see the inverse. If the Prologue is late, then it cannot be Jerome. If the Prologue is around 400 AD-425 AD, then the probability of Jerome being the author is significant, the concept is sensible.


Forgery Involving Jerome Correspondence

See Bart Ehrman's recent book, Forgery and Counterforgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics, (2012) Oxford University Press, pp. 82-83. Dr. Ehrman provides a letter from Jerome in which he complains a forged letter is being circulated among the African Bishops in his name.

First Raymond Collins.
Letters That Paul Did Not Write: The Epistle to the Hebrews & the Pseudepigrapha (1988)
Raymond F. Collins
Heretics frequently found a means of gaining credibility for their doctrines by publishing them under a false name. According to one forged letter, Jerome is alleged to have attributed the translation of the Bible into Latin (the Latin Vulgate edition) to the folly of his youth.

Then to Ehrman.
It should be pretty clear that apples and kumquats are involved, however we can look at it more later.
Let's simply get the data to the page tonight.

Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early Christian Polemics (2012)
Bart D. Ehrman

Forged letters became a real and widespread problem in the highly charged polemical environment of the Christian community at the end of the fourth Christian century and into the fifth. And so we have the complaint of Jerome:
My brother Eusebius writes to me that, when he was at a meeting of African bishops which bad been called for certain ecclesiastical affairs, he found there a letter purporting to be written by me, in which I professed penitence and confessed that it was through the influence of the press in my youth that I had been led to turn the Scriptures into Latin from the Hebrew; in all of which there is not a word of truth.
That he was not the author of the letter should have been obvious from the style; in any event, Jerome considers himself fortunate, tongue in cheek, for not being "self-accused" by the forger of truly criminal activity.
It was impossible for him, accomplished as he was, to copy any style and manner of writing, whatever their value may be; amidst all his tricks and his fraudulent assumption of another mans personality, it was evident who he was.... I wonder that in this letter be did not make me out as guilty of homicide, or adultery or sacrilege or parricide or any of the vile things which the silent working of the mind can revolve within itself Indeed I ought to be grateful to him for having imputed to me no more than one act of error or false dealing out of the whole forest of possible crimes. (Adv. Ruf. 2.24) (Translation of W. H. Fremantle in NPNF, 2nd series, vol. 3) In another place Jerome himself is falsely accused by Rufinus of forging a letter in the name of Pope Anastasius, a letter that, as it turns out, was genuine (Adv. Ruf. 3, 20). Elsewhere Rufinus feels that he has been unjustly accused of forging a letter in Jeromes name to a group of African bishops (Jerome, Adv. Ruf. 3, 25). Again, Jerome writes Augustine to ask if the letter he has received is actually by him (Epist 102.1). As we have already seen, Augustine too exposed a forgery of a letter allegedly by Victorinus summoning him to a council meeting. 51. Augustine, Epist 59, 1, 2.

It should not be objected that the forging of letters is generically different from the forging of literary works. Generic differences do matter. But many of the early Christian forgeries we will be examining—including those found in the New Testament—are precisely letters. (p. 82-83, also referenced on p. 104)
Analogous instances occur in Christian sources, as when Augustine avers that the enemies of Christ have attempted to slur the Saviors reputation by associating him with magical practices, in a letter forged in his name addressed to Peter and Paul (Cons. Evang. 1.10). Jerome, as we have seen, on one occasion had to defend himself against slurs leveled against him in a forged correspondence: "he found there a letter purporting to be written by me ... in all of which there is not a word of truth. - Adv Rufinus 2. 24

Let us point out that a forgery when Jerome is alive is shown being "caught". Rather easily. Forgeries when a person is alive, or recently deceased, is a very difficult and tricky business. It is a crime, at least ethically and morally. There has to be motive. (In fact, some of these contra geniuses come right out and say that the motive was to push along the heavenly witnesses, which opens up a whole nother pile of questions. Who ? Why ? Where ? Was the verse that well established that they would think this note would tip the edge ? etc.) To be successful there has to be a whole ton of effort to understand the person and his style and thinking. There are obvious risks of getting people very angry. Or worse. You could easily lose your job, (there is a story along that line with Tertullian and some deliberate textual change.) People are naturally suspicious if a personal note just appears after the people are deceased. Then, to actually get your forgery into Bible copying, takes a whole special type of clout. Maybe you should run a scriptorium ? Maybe you should have a chain of scriptoriums, Vulgate King. Dunkin Inkwells.

The beat goes on. These are some of the difficulties to be considered. You can see that the reference to some false letter, caught, actually works to show how difficult is this whole concept, when applied to something like a Prologue that is written in the first person and actually placed in the Holy Bible, carefully examined by scribes, and learned men.


Chapman lucidly proposed a composition-date for the Prologue in the early 400’s, thus positing an author who was practically contemporary with Jerome. And that’s pretty early evidence! I don’t know how many copies of First John 5:7, in Greek or Latin, are earlier than the early 400’s, but there are not many.

Your last sentence is a little unclear. The earliest manuscript evidence is some Old Latin mss, dated between 5th century and 7th. The earliest agreed upon ECW is Priscillian, about 390. The earliest understood and accepted by many evidence is Cyprian.

However, the point is good, and I touch on it above. Who is accepting what about the heavenly witnesses at 400 AD ? Standard modern theory tries to claim that the verse was not in the Old Latin, was not in the original Vulgate, and just sort of appeared around the time of Priscillian and then really appeared around 800 AD. (Read Porson and the Metzger charade.) This is all nonsense, but trying to morph it into something sensible is difficult, and then you have to try to explain your 400 AD Prologue "forgery".

Even if the "Prologue" is contemporary with Jerome- so what? The issue is did Jerome author it. Why would there be no mention of the Comma in the rest of Jerome's writings?

Actually there are clear allusions involving Jerome's compatriots and one directly from Jerome. Priscillian shows that Latin Bibles in that day had the verse. Carthage a bit later shows that the verse must have had a massive presence in the Old Latin line. And Jerome would see a good selection of Latin Bibles. Clearly, Jerome did know of the heavenly witnesses.

Lots of things do not get mentioned for various reasons. Sometimes things get mentioned, and the book or letter is gone today, non-extant. Commentaries on 1 John were far less frequent than Gospel commentaries. The manuscript split might hamper mentions. Some mentions are allusions, en passant. The reasons abound.

Why would the Comma Johanneum be absent from Codex Fuldensis? This seems to be the important issue.

And if you put your thinking cap on, that shows you that the Prologue and the 1 John Vulgate text came from two separate streams even by 545 AD. And the scribes under Victor of Capua, copied faithfully, and left them alone. Which is a very good indication that what occurred, is exactly what Jerome warned about in the Prologue. The 1 John 5:7 text would be omitted by copyists. (Although not always maliciously, as I explained above.) Explaining perfectly the bifurcation.

It still stands that the Comma is absent from the earliest copies of the Vulgate.

The earliest Vuglate copy (in the epistles) is Fuldensis, explained above. There are a number of games played as to whether manuscript evidences are Old Latin or Vulgate (one of the tricks). In point of fact there are a number of early Latin manuscripts with the heavenly witnesses. Metzger and the Parrots try to disallow evidences from counting toward either the Old Latin and the Vulgate, a real shoddy trick, whether conscious or just methodological stumbling ignorance. Michael Maynard blew the whistle on this one.

And before the 8th century, by memory there is only Fuldensis as an omission, and that has the Prologue. Amiatinus is 8th century, and by then we have La Cava, Speculum and more ms with the verse. Manuscripts that tend to have Acts 8:37, btw, also tend to have the heavenly witnesses.

Scrivener who did not accept the Comma as genuine gave it an early date. Early and original are two different issues.

RIght. That was because Scrivener accepted the Cyprian reference. However, all the textual theories popular today, like Wallace and Ehrman, want the verse added in the later Trinitarian controversies, (thus, the rather pitiful Wallace paper.) and the Cyprian acceptance decimates their theories.

Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper (1852-1931), like Scrivener, accepted Cyprian, as is also rather usual for actual Cyprian specialists. The difference is that Pieper followed it up logically, unto accepting verse authenticity, where Scrivener just left a blank wall of dissonance. Latin Bibles at 200 AD with the verse == authenticity.

Ultimately, if you are going to deny heavenly witnesses authenticity, you can not logically straddle this issue. You take the Scrivener or Wallace position, and then try to cover their gaping holes.

James Snapp
You asked for a list of all of the modern scholars who defend Jerome’s authorship of the Prologue. I don’t think there are any, except for scholars who promote the KJV and the Textus Receptus.

The first question is all the people on any side who have enough background to even give an informed, non-circular opinion, who have written on the question with any cogency. Will you get to five fingers ? Will you get to one finger ? Thus, the question simply becomes academic, dissolving into the ether.

James Snapp
But there are not a lot of scholars who regard the Prologue as a medieval composition anymore, either. It remains a valid piece of evidence that someone – probably, if Chapman is correct, someone in the early 400’s – was upset that some people were omitting the words about the Father, Word, and Spirit in First John.

John Chapman passes by motive, one of the weaknesses of his position. (See my paragraph above). He acknowledges how "clever" the forger was, almost as if he were Jerome. He does not give any substantive reasons for thinking it a forgery. (The Irish reason sounds very non-substantive.)

Leading to the obvious question as to whether his conclusion is not the normal circular one .. e.g. Jerome did not write about the verse here or there, the Comma was not authentic in early Bibles or in the time of Cyprian .... so Jerome could not be discussing it in the Prologue. Must be a forger.

Notes on the early history of the Vulgate Gospels
John Chapman
p. 266 - main section.

One key paragraph shows that Chapman was still influenced by the now-discarded Karl Künstle,theory of Spanish Bible interpolation origin (while rejecting the specifics of Priscillian as the interpolator).

Kiinstle has made it certain that the diffusion of this celebrated interpolation came from the Spanish Bibles, and that the Spanish Bibles obtained it (probably through Peregrinus) from the Bible of Priscillian. (p. 263)

And his own theory is ultra-convoluted, giving Lord Ockham indigestion.

On the other hand only a Spaniard was likely to condemn all MSS. which omitted the Comma; and Priscillian is particularly likely to have defended it. I think it may be safely inferred that Pseudo-Jerome had before him a Prologue to the Catholic Epistles in which Priscillian defended this text, but Pseudo-Jerome has made his expressions orthodox. (p. 264)

So, the Chapman non-Jerome authorship is based on the circular base of verse interpolation in the 300s in the Spanish Bible, not on anything intrinsic to the actual Prologue, which he de facto acknowledges as very Jeromian.

Why would modern scholars and specialist in their field reject Jerome's authorship of the Prologue? Are they all tainted with Liberalism? Are they all Lemmings?

Short answer, yes to the lemmings.

This is what KJVOs, with no advanced degrees, so specialized training, and often without training in the original languages, loudly proclaim.

Actually, very few folks have addressed the Vulgate Prologue in any depth. And one of them is James Snapp, non-KJV. Another one is Tim Dunkin. And I am interested in the topic. That is the whole known world-wide crew of folks loudly proclaiming the need to revisit the Vulgate Prologue. Maybe there is a little mention elsewhere, like KJVToday.

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
Last edited: