Tertullian, On Prayer - Some Highlights

The following quotations are from the translation of Tertullian's On Prayer, as translated by Alistair Stewart-Sykes in "Tertullian, Cyprian, & Origen: On the Lord's Prayer" published by St Vladimir's Seminary Press, as volume 29 of their Popular Patristic Series.  My comments follow each section.  One overarching observation, however, is that although Tertullian goes in detail through the Lord's Prayer, and discusses other New Testament teachings on prayer, such as head coverings for women, Tertullian does not bring up the doxology of the Lord's Prayer, which is found in the majority of later manuscripts of Matthew's gospel.  

Section 1, p. 41:

Whatever was of the old has either been transformed, as has circumcision, or else completed, as the remainder of the law, or fulfilled, as prophecy has been, or perfected as is faith itself.

Tertullian does not spell it out here, but this seems to be an early reference to baptism taking the place of circumcision.

Section 1, p. 42:

Therefore the words in which John taught them to pray are not extant, because earthly things should yield to heavenly.

Notice the point behind Tertullian's point.  The reason for what is recorded in the New Testament is to found the New Testament church and its religious practices.  That's why John's teachings on prayer aren't provided to us, because they were not meant for us.

Section 1, p. 42:

Therefore let us consider, blessed ones, his heavenly wisdom firstly regarding his instruction to pray in secret, by which he both demands that a person believe, in that he he should be confident in the ability of almighty God to hear and to see in houses, and indeed in a hidden chamber, and desires a proportionate faith, that he should trust him who is everywhere to hear and to see, and should offer his devotion to him alone.

Notice that what Tertullian is saying is that we should offer the devotion of prayer to God alone.

Section 2, pp. 42-43:

For that matter the Lord most frequently proclaimed to us that God is Father, indeed, he also demanded that we should call nobody "father" on earth, except him whom we have in heaven.

Considering how much Roman Catholics try to downplay this particular command, it is interesting to see Tertullian doubling down on it.

Section 2, p. 43:

However, when we say "Father" we are also naming God in a form of address which demonstrates both devotion and power. Moreover the Son is invoked in the Father, for he says: "I and the Father are one". Nor is the mother, the church, neglected since the mother is found within the Father and the Son, for the name of the Father and Son find their meaning in her. Therefore under one term and with one name we honor God along with those who are his, both recalling God's commandment and scorning those who have forgotten the Father.

Notice that it does not even occur to Tertullian to say that Mary is our mother, or anything like that.  Instead, he focuses on the church being our mother.

Section 3, p. 44:

Besides this, as regarding our own request, when we say, "Let your name be hallowed," we ask that it be hallowed among us who are in him and, at the same time, in others whom the grace of God still awaits, so that we should be obedient to the command to pray for all, even for our enemies. Consequently, as a result of this terse expression, we do not say "Let it be hallowed in us," but manage to say: "in all people."

Notice Tertullian making the distinction between believers and unbelievers as being God's grace.  It's hard to tell how consistent he is on this point, but it's certainly a valid distinction.

Section 7, p. 47:

The Lord knew that he alone was without wrong, so he taught us to pray: "Pardon us our debts."

Once again, notice that it does not occur to Tertullian that there might be people, such as the mother of our Lord, who are sinless.  The Pelagian errors were apparently not yet propagated.

Section 8, p. 48:

For he did not order even Abraham to make a sacrifice of his son for the sake of putting his faith to the test, but of demonstrating it, so that he might provide an example of the instruction which he would in time law down, that one should not hold even one's children more precious than God.

The first part of this claim is thought-provoking.  Certainly, God already knew what Abraham would do, so it's true that the main purpose was the demonstration of Abraham's faith. 

Section 9, p. 49:

God alone could teach us the manner in which he would have us pray. Therefore, the practice of prayer is laid down by him, and when it was brought forth from the divine mouth it was animated by his spirit.

This is also a key observation.  We cannot make up our own worship practices.  God alone can teach us how to worship him.  Thus, the justification for any worship practice must come from God.

Section 14, p. 51:

Hereditary criminals, aware of their ancestral guilt, they dare not lift them up to the Lord lest some Isaiah should cry out, lest Christ should shrink from them. But we do not simply lift them up but spread them out in imitation of the passion of the Lord, so confessing Christ as we pray.

Tertullian evidently believes that guilt can be inherited.

Section 15, pp. 51-52:

But since we have touched upon one matter of empty expression it will not be irksome to observe other practices likewise, which are reasonably to be discredited as vanity, since not one of them is authorized by any injunction, whether dominical or apostolic. Things of this nature are to be considered not religion but superstition, they are affected and forced, are not reasonable service but fussiness, and should surely be suppressed, if only because they put us on a level with the gentiles. For it is the practice of some of them to make their prayer with their coats removed. It is thus that they attend their idols. But if this were the right thing to do, surely the apostles would have included it when they taught on the manner of prayer, unless some might think that Paul left is cloak behind with Carpus when he was praying! Perhaps God might not hear those with their coats on, God who listened to the saints in the furnace of the Babylonian king when they prayed in their pantaloons and their hats!

Notice the need for rules about worship to come from the Lord or the apostles.  Notice also that the absence of such a rule proves its lack of importance.

Section 16, p. 52:

And again, there are those whose custom is to sit down then the prayer is sealed. I perceive no reason, except one which children might offer. What is it? If Hermas, whose writing is called The Shepherd, or something like that, had not sat upon his bed when his prayer was finished but had done something else, would we claim that this too should be made an observance. Surely not. He says this simply as part of the story, and not as an instance of discipline. Otherwise we would only be able to pray in a place where there was a bed, and it would make it contrary to Scripture if anyone sat on a chair or a bench.

It seems to me that Tertullian does not accept the authority of the Shepherd of Hermas, but at the same time he seems to suggest that it is being treated like Scripture.

Section 16, p. 53:

Since it is disrespectful to sit down in the presence of, and in spite of the presence of, one who is greatly to be revered and esteemed, how much more is it irreligious to act in such a way when in the sight of the living God, whilst the angel of prayer is still standing by? Or are we protesting to God because prayer has tired us out?

Reverence is certainly an important aspect of worship.  I would note to oppose Tertullian here, that it seems that the apostles allowed seated worship (see James 2:3 for example).

Section 21, p. 56:

Those who allow immunity of the head to virgins seems to make their case on the basis that the apostle does not mention "virgins" but "women" as being veiled, thus not mentioning gender by saying "females" but rather the class of the gender, by saying "women".

This distinction may also be one of the reasons that Mary was so surprised to be told that she was blessed among "women", since she had not taken that step toward being a woman as distinct from a maiden. 

Section 23, p. 60:

However, the custom received is that on the Lord's day of resurrection alone we should avoid not only this [TF: in context, this refers to kneeling], but every attitude of concern, postponing business matters as well so that we might yield no place to the Devil. The same is true in the period of the Pentecost, which we likewise mark through the dignity of rejoicing.

It's interesting to notice the day or rest treatment that the Lord's day is being given, though it's not perfectly clear to me if he means every Sunday or only once annually.

Does Grace Sherman rescue David Allen? Or does Allen's Appeal Backfire? What does it mean that 1 John 5:1a is "condition" and 1 John 5:1b is "consequence"

Previously (link), we considered David Allen's putative attempt to respond to James White's challenge regarding providing a consistent exegesis of 1 John 2:29, 1 John 4:7, and 1 John 5:1.  We observed that Allen provided both a written response and a video.  In this post, we consider the most central part of that response that has not been addressed to date.

The following is a transcript from Allen's video (starting around 38 minutes, 47 seconds into the video):

Number four, semantic structural analysis. As linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate with respect to 1 John 5:1, the semantic structure of the two propositions, proposition one, if anyone believes that Jesus is God's anointed, and proposition two, he is the one whom God has caused to live spiritually, i.e. be regenerated. Now notice this: semantically what is being communicated there -- the communication relationship there is one of condition consequence from a semantic standpoint. The condition is faith and precedes the consequence, which is regeneration. This is the natural way to interpret the verse. 

This closely follows p. 3 of Allen's written response, so closely that we can say he's just reading his written response:

There another place in the video where Allen makes reference to his position on this point. Starting around 21 minutes, 39 seconds into the video, Allen responds to Flowers by saying (transcription, as with the previous transcription, is Youtube's, lightly cleaned up by the present author):

Right. Well, I'm going to go ahead and raise some eyebrows by saying that I'm going to differ with you and Carson a little bit, because I actually think there are good reasons to think that 1 John 5:1 really can't be interpreted to argue for regeneration preceding faith.

But it's not on grammatical grounds. I'm going to get to all this in a minute. I'll just tease this right now. It's rather on semantic grounds. Semantic structure makes it pretty clear that what's happening there is faith preceding regeneration. So I'm a little bit stronger on that. I understand what Carson is saying. I don't disagree with what Carson is saying except to say that I think when you bring in the full orbed -- all of the exegetical material -- looking at it from a semantic perspective, contextually, you don't have a case for regeneration preceding faith, but you can have a case for faith preceding regeneration. So that would sort of be okay be how I might word that. 

I previously mentioned that I don't know what difference Allen intends between semantic and grammatical grounds, but at that time I did not have the benefit of having Sherman's work in front of me.  Incidentally, the book is published by "Summer Institute of Linguistics" in 1994 and lists as authors, "Grace E. Sherman and John C. Tuggy." The publisher has bios on a number of their authors (link to bios) but neither Sherman nor Tuggy are on the list.  I was able to locate archives of publications attributed to Tuggy (link), which shows an active interest in linguistics; the archives similarly listed a shorter two other linguistic-related publications associated with Sherman's name (link). Not that credentials are the be-all or end-all, but I was not able to locate any information regarding whether these authors have any specific training.  I only mention this because Allen calls them "linguists," in citing them. 

In order to respond to Allen, it's necessary to consider Sherman's book, of which page 91 is the single cited page.  On the other hand, in view of James White's challenge, it would be good also to consider whether Sherman anticipated the challenge (by more than two decades!) and provided the answer to the problem of applying Allen's (borrowed) analysis(?) at 1 John 5:1 to 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7.

Sherman has a note that is of particular interest at 1 John 2:29 and then nothing at all of interest at 1 John 4:7, except that her silence as to the parallel structure suggests she simply has not considered the issue.  From Sherman's analysis and conclusions for 1 John 2:29 and 1 John 4:7 we can more clearly demonstrate the fundamental inconsistency at 1 John 5:1.

First, pp. 55-56 address 1 John 2:29a:

Notice that in the "Relational Structure" section, Sherman does not break down 2:29b.  However, when analyzing 2:29a, Sherman says that "The Greek grammatical structure indicates a condition-CONSEQUENCE relation. However, we know that the protasis of the condition is true, so that this functions as a reason-RESULT, here encoded as 'since'."  

When it comes to analyzing 2:29b, Sherman says that the Greek "has been begotten" is figurative, and that this signifies spiritual regeneration.  Thus, Sherman translates/interprets the text as "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."

Second, pp. 79-81 address 1 John 4:7c:

As can be seen, Sherman does not further divide 1 John 4:7c, but treats the unit as a 'HEAD".  Sherman identifies the first appeal in this section (including 1 John 4:7) as "In a sense, this is the climax of the whole Epistle."  This is reasonable observation.  Note as well that once again Sherman explains "has been born from God" figuratively, in this case translating/interpreting it as "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" and to explain it thus:

The context shows that physical birth is not in view here; what is referred to is God's causing us to live eternally, that is, to associate properly with God, as a child with a father in a family.

Within the argument John is making, Sherman properly considers that 4:7c fits logically under "Love has its source in God," (i.e., 1 John 4:7b).  This, of course, is behind a right understanding of 1 John 2:29b as well: because God is the source of righteous acts, we know that the one who continues in doing what is righteous got that from God.

The challenge, of course, is to apply this same principle consistently when it comes to 1 John 5:1a-b (according to Sherman's division).  As noted above, p. 91 is the single page of Sherman's work that addresses 1 John 5:1a-b:

Note that on the page, Sherman has divided 1 John 5:1a as "condition" and 1 John 5:1b as "CNQ" (p. vi explains that this abbreviation means "consequent").  Allen asserted that "linguists Grace Sherman and John Tuggy demonstrate" but, as you can see, there is mere assertion, not demonstration.  Incidentally, I have referred to the author as "Sherman" instead of "Sherman and Tuggy" because of the preface of the book, which indicates that the initial work was Sherman's and that Tuggy (to paraphrase) beefed up the justifications of the positions set forth by Sherman.  In cases where there is bare assertion, it seems better to credit Sherman.

Note, however, that the "NOTES" skip right past 1 John 5:1b, and the notes on 1 John 5:1 are focused on the title "Christ."  

Nevertheless, Sherman twice provides the translation/interpretation: "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  

I should add that the discussion of 1 John 5:1 resurfaces on the next pair of pages, pp. 92-93:

Notice here that the translation/interpretation offered pushed into a chiastic structure.  Sherman argues that "there is no doubt that the whole verse is an aphorism" and again "Verse 1 is a generalized statement in which the actors are unspecified or unidentified ...." (p. 93)

Recall from James White's challenge:

The Provisionist position is that 1 John 5:1 must be understood with the substantive participle in the present, "Everyone who believes (as a result) is born from God."  I believe the natural reading is "everyone believing has been born from God," with the perfect passive action preceding and conditioning the action of the participle. 

Based on the interpretation/translations offered by Sherman, it seems that notwithstanding the "condition/consequence" labelling, Sherman supports White more than Allen.  Specifically note:

• 1 John 2:29b "if anyone continues doing what is right, then God has caused him to live spiritually."
• 1 John 4:7c "if anyone loves his Christian brothers, he has been caused by God to live spiritually and he knows God experientially" 
• 1 John 5:1b "If a person believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One, he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."

This (of course) agrees with White's analysis as to the relative time issue.

What then of the condition/consequence point?  Recall that Sherman had identified something as being condition/consequence based on Greek grammar, but based on knowledge that the protasis is true, Sherman recategorized as reason-result, at 1 John 2:29a.

So, what are some other examples of condition/consequence and reason/result offered by Sherman?  At p. 24 we see multiple examples:

What we can glean from these examples is that if we assume that Sherman has common sense, we see that she is not using "condition/consequence" to mean that the condition is the cause of the consequence.  Rather, Sherman is using "condition" and "consequence" to express the fact that the truth of the condition statement guarantees the truth of the consequence statement. 

I wish there were a better explanation, but it seems that Allen may have mistakenly assumed that Sherman's "condition/consequence" meant something like "cause/effect," when it plainly does not (see multiple instances on p. 24 that cannot reasonably be thought to be cause/effect).  As a result, it seems that Allen has quoted Sherman as supportive of his position, when Sherman does not address the specific conclusion of the relative timing of initial faith and being born of God and her proposed interpretation/translation most closely aligns with James White's.

Sherman does not say that the condition is faith or that this precedes the consequence, nor that the consequence is regeneration.  Instead, Sherman says that the condition is the statement (the portion following the if, of course) "If anyone believes that Jesus is God's Anointed One" and the consequence is the statement "he is one whom God has caused to live spiritually."  Notice that Sherman uses the the present tense for the condition statement and the perfect tense for the consequent statement.  The meaning of condition/consequence in this analysis is that if the condition is true, then the consequence is true.  In other words, if A is 5:1a is true, then 5:1b is true.  That's all that "condition" and "consequence" means here.  Moreover, given that Sherman has maintained the present/perfect distinction, the most natural read of the text is parallel to that of 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.

Finally, for the same reason that 1 John 2:29a is grammatically a condition-consequence statement, so also is 1 John 2:29b and 1 John 4:7c.  And Sherman does not offer any reason or explanation (or even assertion) to handle these three parallel texts differently from one another.

Six Curious Cases of Improper(?) Pluralization in the King James Version

Two of the reasons I love the KJV are: it tends to be a literal translation and it makes it easy to distinguish between you (singular) and you (plural).  There are times when the King James seems to depart from the literal sense of the underlying Hebrew or Greek.  Sometimes that is for readability.  Other times, the reason is not clear.  In six instances in Deuteronomy, the KJV seems to errantly use a plural pronoun to represent a word that is grammatically singular in Hebrew.  The first instance is Deuteronomy 6:15.  

Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God [is] a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

The corresponding Hebrew is this:

(Deuteronomy 6:15)  כִּי אֵל קַנָּא יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּקִרְבֶּךָ פֶּן־יֶחֱרֶה אַף־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בָּךְ וְהִשְׁמִידְךָ מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה׃ ס

The key word is "בְּקִרְבֶּךָ" (Bekirbecha or Bəqirbek̲ā), which the King James translates as "among you".  The same Hebrew word, with the identical inflection, is found in a total of 19 verses in the Hebrew Scriptures (18 other places) using the Westminster Leningrad Codex text as the Hebrew text.   

Internal Consistency

As mentioned above, in six places in Deuteronomy, the word is translated with a plural ("among you") in the KJV, with the the remaining instances all being translated with a singular.

1. Exo 33:3 "in the midst of thee"
2. Exo 33:5 "into the midst of thee"
3. Deu 6:15 "among you" (apparent error)
4. Deu 7:21 "among you" (apparent error)
5. Deu 13:1 "among you" (apparent error)
6. Deu 16:11 "among you" (apparent error)
7. Deu 17:2 "among you" (apparent error)
8. Deu 23:16 "among you" (apparent error)
9. Deu 28:43 "within thee"
10. Jos 7:13 "in the midst of thee"
11. Isa 12:6 "in the midst of thee"
12. Jer 4:14 "within thee"
13. Hos 11:9 "in the midst of thee"
14. Amo 5:17 "through thee"
15. Mic 6:14 "in the midst of thee"
16. Nah 3:13 "in the midst of thee"
17. Zep 3:12 "in the midst of thee"
18. Zep 3:15 "in the midst of thee"
19. Zep 3:17 "in the midst of thee"

Historical Basis

What is the source of this apparent error? One option is that this is the propagation of an error from the Tyndale translation, or from one of the other pre-KJV revisions of that Tyndale translation.  In this case, all the apparent errors arise in a book that Tyndale translated.

Tyndale

Tyndale translated the Pentateuch and Jonah.  He consistently translated this word as a plural:

1. Exo 33:3 "among you"  (different from KJV)
2. Exo 33:5 "apon you" (i.e., upon you) (different from KJV)
3. Deu 6:15 "among you" (same as KJV)
4. Deu 7:21 "amog you" (same as KJV)
5. Deu 13:1 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
6. Deu 16:11 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
7. Deu 17:2 "amonge you" (same as KJV) 
8. Deu 23:16 "amonge you" (same as KJV)
9. Deu 28:43 "amonge you"  (different from KJV)

As you can see, the KJV departs from the pluralization of the Tyndale text in three places, but maintains the pluralization in the other six places.  

Bishops

The Bishops' Bible had the whole OT, of course.  It had:

1. Exo 33:3 "amongest you" (different from KJV, essentially Tyndale)
2. Exo 33:5 "vpon you" (different from KJV, essentially Tyndale)
3. Deu 6:15 "among you" (same as KJV)
4. Deu 7:21 "among you" (same as KJV)
5. Deu 13:1 "among you" (same as KJV)
6. Deu 16:11 "among you" (same as KJV)
7. Deu 17:2 "among you" (same as KJV)
8. Deu 23:16 "among you" (same as KJV)
9. Deu 28:43 "among you" (different from KJV, same as Tyndale)
10. Jos 7:13 "among you" (different from KJV)
11. Isa 12:6 "in the midst of thee" (same as KJV)
12. Jer 4:14 "with thee" (revised to "Within" in KJV)
13. Hos 11:9 "in the middest of thee" (Same as KJV)
14. Amo 5:17 "through thee" (same as KJV)
15. Mic 6:14 "in the middes of thee" (same as KJV)
16. Nah 3:13 "in the middest of thee" (same as KJV)
17. Zep 3:12 "in thee" (expanded to "in the midst of thee" in KJV)
18. Zep 3:15 "with thee" (revised to "in the midst of thee" in KJV)
19. Zep 3:17 "in the mids of thee" (same as KJV)

King James Revision Committee

In each of these places, we have notes in the form of an annotated 1602 Bishops' Bible:

Exo 33:3

(F2v)

Exo 33:5

(F2v)

Deu 6:15

(M1r)

Deu 7:21

(M1v)

Deu 13:1

(M4r)

Deu 16:11

(M5r)

Deu 17:2

(M5r)

Deu 23:16

(N1v)

Deu 28:43

(N3r)

Jos 7:13

(O2r)

Isa 12:6

(QQ5r)

Jer 4:14

(Tt4v)

Hos 11:9

(Ddd5v)

Amo 5:17

(Eee2v)

Mic 6:14

(Eee6r)

Nah 3:13

(Fff1r)

Zep 3:12

(Fff3r)

Zep 3:15

(Fff3r)

Zep 3:17

(Fff3r)

Subsequent Versions Maintaining Singular/Plural Pronoun Distinction

Nearly all contemporary translations do not make a distinction between second person singular (thee) and second person plural (you), making it hard to say whether contemporary translations agree or disagree with the King James on this point.  However, there are a number of translations subsequent to the King James that maintained the "thee/you" distinction, and that consequently can be used to test this:  

Citation	KJV (post-Blaney)	Websters 1833	YLT 1862	Darby 1890	ASV 1901
Exodus 33:3	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Exodus 33:5	into the midst of thee	into the midst of thee	into thy midst	into the midst of thee	into the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 6:15	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 7:21	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 13:1	among you	among you	in your midst	among you	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 16:11	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 17:2	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 23:16	among you	among you	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Deuteronomy 28:43	within thee	within thee	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee
Joshua 7:13	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Isaiah 12:6	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Jeremiah 4:14	within thee	within thee	in thy heart... of thy strength	within thee	within thee
Hosea 11:9	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	In thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Amos 5:17	through thee	through thee	into thy midst	through the midst of thee	through the midst of thee
Micah 6:14	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Nahum 3:13	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Zephaniah 3:12	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Zephaniah 3:15	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee
Zephaniah 3:17	in the midst of thee	in the midst of thee	in thy midst	in thy midst	in the midst of thee

As you can see, Webster's did not touch the translation of this word in any of the instances.  Young's literal corrected all of the plural cases to singular, except for Deuteronomy 13:1.  Darby did the same as Young's, though not copying Young's. The ASV also corrected Deuteronomy 13:1.  

Conclusion

It seems that the ASV is simply an improvement to the KJV in these six places in Deuteronomy, by providing a more literal rendering of the underlying Hebrew word, which is singular.  Can Tyndale's original translation work be defended on a formal equivalence grounds? Of course. 

In other words, we don't deny that the overall sense of the text is conveyed by the King James Version, even though the translation is not strictly literal here.  It seems unlikely that the sense will be misunderstood by the reader who knows that "thee/thou/thy/thine" are singular and "ye/you/your/yours" are plural.  So, I am not suggesting that this minor translational defect has created any problems.

On the other hand, the King James revision committee revised four other places in the Bishops' Bible where a plural was used for a singular when translating this word, and it would have been more consistent for them to have revised in these places as well.  We have no indication at all from the revisers as to why they did not revise in these places. They may simply not have noticed the issue.  

Oddly enough, King James defenders will defend the plural on the strangest of grounds.

Will Kinney (by way of example of a KJ defender) argued: 

This is not an error. It is a common thing for God to address the plural "you" along with the singular "thee" or "thou" directed towards each individual within the "you" group of all the Israelites.

As Dr. Peter Van Kleeck explains - “It is singular—“you” is Israel as a unified whole.

...

It is very common for God to go back and forth between the “you” plural and the “thee” or “thou” singular even in the same verse.

If Dr. van Kleeck (Kinney does not specify whether he means Sr. or Jr.) said that, he's speaking loosely at best.  The word, "you," in Tyndale's English is not grammatically singular.  Moreover, taking Deuteronomy 6:15 as an example, in the same verse "thee" is used of Israel as a unified whole:

Deuteronomy 6:15 (For the LORD thy God [is] a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD thy God be kindled against thee, and destroy thee from off the face of the earth.

So, while I agree that the "you" in Deuteronomy 6:15 refers to Israel as a unified whole, it does so using a plural pronoun (as well as using a preposition, "among," which requires a plural object).

God did not give Moses the King James, he gave Moses the Hebrew.  In the Hebrew, in this verse, God does not "go back and forth" as Kinney describes it: God consistently uses the singular.   

I have suggested before and will increasingly suggest that we need to improve the King James Version.  This is not a major error, or one that seems likely to me to be of any doctrinal significance.  Nevertheless, it is a less literal translation of the Hebrew text.  

Comparison to Ancient Versions

Ancient versions are not binding.  Nevertheless, we are confident that the King James translators were aware of the Septuagint and Vulgate versions and that they at least considered them in some way in their translation process.  It is trickier to confirm their handling of the word, because we are not always sure whether they had precisely verbatim the same underlying Hebrew text and because we are not sure that they are always woodenly literal in their translation style.  The Vulgate and Septuagint texts handle this word thus:

1. Exo 33:3 "in the midst of thee" | tecum | μετὰ σοῦ
2. Exo 33:5 "into the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐφ᾿ ὑμᾶς
3. Deu 6:15 "among you" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
4. Deu 7:21 "among you" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
5. Deu 13:1 "among you" | in medio tui | [13:2] ἐν σοὶ 
6. Deu 16:11 "among you" | vobiscum | ἐν ὑμῖν
7. Deu 17:2 "among you" | *phrase omitted* | *phrase omitted*
8. Deu 23:16 "among you" | tecum | [23:17] μετὰ σοῦ 
9. Deu 28:43 "within thee" | tecum | ἐν σοί
10. Jos 7:13 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν ὑμῖν
11. Isa 12:6 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῆς
12. Jer 4:14 "within thee" | in te | ἐν σοὶ
13. Hos 11:9 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοὶ 
14. Amo 5:17 "through thee" | in medio tui | διὰ μέσου σου
15. Mic 6:14 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοὶ 
16. Nah 3:13 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί
17. Zep 3:12 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοὶ 
18. Zep 3:15 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν μέσῳ σου 
19. Zep 3:17 "in the midst of thee" | in medio tui | ἐν σοί

As you can see, in the vast majority of the cases, both the Vulgate and the Septuagint translate using a singular.  For example, among all the verse, the only time that the Vulgate uses a plural is Deuteronomy 16:11.  The Septuagint also uses a plural in Deuteronomy 16:11 as well as using a plural in Exodus 33:5 and Joshua 7:13.  Interestingly, the Septuagint seems to change to third person in Isaiah 12:6.  In Deuteronomy 17:2, there seems to be either a shorter base text or a translation that combines two phrases in Hebrew into one.

One word of caution about the Vulgate and Septuagint in the list of above.  I have completed this section in a hurry - please verify before re-posting.

Based on this analysis, only one of the six places defensible on the basis of ancient translations would be Deuteronomy 16:11.  However, if one defends on that basis, the other five places still need improvement.

N.B. Thanks to Mike Tisdell for bringing one of these verses to my attention, leading to the article.

Update: 

Christopher Yetzer offered the following reply:

I wouldn't call those an error for several reasons. 1. thee/thou/thine were already archaic, so to follow current standards wouldn't necessarily be an error. 2. "you" can refer collectively as a unit. 3. They never made the claim to follow this supposed principle throughout the Bible (similar to italics). 4. Possibly different translators working on different sections caused some inconsistencies, but not errors. Inconsistencies are not errors in and of themselves (consider amongst/among or Easter). If both renderings are possible, than neither is an error. 5. Several of the ones in Deuteronomy are in close proximity to "the Lord thy God." Possibly they felt that this was a good combination for English in those places. 6. Previous Bible translations had "among you" in more places than the KJV. For instance your first one on the list Exodus 33:3, Tyndale, Great, Matthews and the Bishops all had "among you".

Keep in mind that Yetzer qualifies his entire set of arguments by saying that he would not call those six places an "error."  Whether they are a called an error or not is less interesting to me than whether there is room for improvement in the King James version when it comes to providing a highly literal translation of the underlying Hebrew text.  

As to Yetzer's first argument, the premise that using the second person singular and second person plural distinctly was "already archaic" may have a little merit, despite Shakespeare famously distinctly using "thee" and "you" in literature contemporary to the King James revision and in literature intended for popular consumption.  In support of Yetzer's idea, a 1660 Quaker book reports people being beat for using "thou" to address other people (link to source).  This premise, even if sound in itself, nevertheless would not support Yetzer's conclusion.  After all, the King James revisers did not generally revise the text away from using "thee" distinctly from "you." Furthermore, this wording is not traceable to the King James revisers, but instead is traceable to Tyndale, and the use of "thee" was not already archaic in the time of Tyndale. Tyndale's text, before and after the King James revisers handled it, contained a mixture of use of "thee" and "you."

As to Yetzer's second argument, once again, the premise that "you" can refer to a collective unit is not especially controversial.  However, the referent of the Hebrew word translated by "you" in (for example) Deuteronomy 6:15 is the same as the referent of the Hebrew words translated by "thee" in the same verse.  The switch between singular and plural pronouns is - at best - an unnecessary and confusing choice.  In particular, there is an available English way to translate the Hebrew word, namely, "in the midst of thee," without introducing a plural pronoun to refer to the collective unit.  Switching the number from singular to plural does not serve any apparent reason, given that it is not necessary to the task of translation.

As to Yetzer's third argument, once again, we can generally agree with the stated premise (although it's not perfectly clear which "principle" Yetzer is targeting).  Whether the King James revisers claimed to follow the principle of literal translation throughout the Bible or not, this is a less literal translation than another available translation, namely, "in the midst of thee" or "in thy midst." Additionally, whether the King James revisers claimed to follow the principle of using "thee" for the singular and "you" for the plural, that was the convention in the time of Tyndale, and it is the most obvious explanation of the King James revisers' correction of the Bishops' Bible in at least four places just relating to this word. Indeed, inconsistently following the principle of using "you" only for plural undermines the primary benefit of having the thee/you distinction present in the text. 

As to Yetzer's fourth argument, the first Westminster company is thought to have had the primary charge of revising the section of the Old Testament from Genesis to 2 Kings (See also, Alistair McGrath's "In the Beginning").  All six of the oversights and all four of the valid corrections come from this section.  So, it is less likely that this came from a difference of translational methodology or style.  Inconsistency is excellent evidence of error, even if there are cases where inconsistency is due to something other than error.  In this instance, however, difference of translation committee does not adequately explain the discrepancy.

Nested in Yetzer's fourth argument is the suggestion that if both ways of translating are valid translations, than neither can be an error.  In principle, we could grant, some Hebrew word could be translated by two English words that are precise synonyms of one another (perhaps "amongst" and "among" are an example of this), and consequently equally good word choices.  On the other hand, "thee" and "you" are not precise synonyms in the English in which the King James is written.  In this instance, the use of "in the midst of thee" is clearly superior to "among you" in terms of exposing the fact that the underlying Hebrew is continuing to use the singular.  This may be only a small advantage, but it is an advantage.  Moreover, this small advantage also seems to be the justification for four changes to the Bishops' Bible with respect to this specific Hebrew word.  

As to Yetzer's fifth argument, the argument seems to premised on speculation that appears unconnected to the wording choice selected.  Yetzer wrote: "Several of the ones in Deuteronomy are in close proximity to "the Lord thy God." Possibly they felt that this was a good combination for English in those places." First, it's unclear what measure of "good" Yetzer has in mind.  Respectful?  Something else? Of the 19 places where bekirbecha appears, "Lord thy God" (as a phrase) appears in the KJV only in Deuteronomy 6:15, 7:21, 16:11, 17:2, and Zephaniah 3:17.  Furthermore, it is only directly proximate in Deuteronomy 7:21 and Zephaniah 3:17.  So, even if we were to assume that it was somehow better as being more reverential or the like (which I don't agree with for even one second), this standard is not followed with consistency.

As to Yetzer's sixth argument, his premise is part of the argument presented above.  The King James revisers properly corrected the Bishops' Bible in four other places, but failed to do so here.  This is similar (but more severe) than their failure to fully correct the archaic usage of "Easter" found in a few places in the Bishops' Bible where the meaning was "Passover." 

*** Further Update

Yetzer provided a still further reply, which I will quote in chunks and respond to piece by piece.

I think you define "error" differently than most. I forget if you describe "Easter" as an error or not? Would you say that you are consistent and if modern Bibles translate using slightly different language, you would still call it an error, or is it only the KJV?

If you read the original post, you will notice that I use phrases like "apparent error".  Rather than focusing on whether it is an error or merely an apparent error, I focus on whether it is a translation that can be improved upon.  The answer to my question, of course, is "yes, there is room for improvement."

It's obviously not an error in translation by the King James first Westminster company, for the simple reason that it was not their translation: it was Tyndale's translation in form adopted by the Bishops' Bible and untouched.  Nevertheless, it is reasonable classified as an editorial oversight like the editorial oversight at Acts 12:4 where the King James revisers failed to update "Easter" (which meant "Passover" when Tyndale originally translated Acts - see discussion here, for example), despite updating the English of John 11:55 and 1 Esdras 1:12 (among other places).  The editorial oversight is more significant in this instance than in that instance because (1) there is evidence of continued usage of "Easter" as meaning "Passover" after 1611, (2) there is only one such oversight when it comes to Pascha but there are six oversights when it comes to bekirbecha, and (3) "you" expressed (in English) the wrong number of the word (i.e., plural rather than singular) , rather than being merely a potentially misleading rendering in 1611.

From my standpoint, the Tyndale translation itself is relatively modern.  So, I don't find "modern" a helpful way of distinguishing Bibles that are even more modern than the King James.  However, of course, Yetzer is free to use whatever designation he wants.  

Additionally, framing this in terms of "slightly different language" does not capture my concern.  The issue isn't that the translation does not capture full nuance of the underlying language, but that the translation is less literal than a reasonable alternative translation without any good justification for not being literal in this instance.

Finally, whether I'm consistent or not is more about me than about the issue.  However, I'm quite willing to criticize other revisions of Tyndale's translation than the King James.  For example, in my original article, I point out that of all the subsequent revisions of the Tyndale translation (i.e., Webster's, Young's, Darby's, and the ASV) that I reviewed in the post, only the ASV fully corrected this issue.  Moreover, on this particular issue, most of the translations that Yetzer considers "modern" fail me, because they simply make no effort to represent the difference between you singular and you plural.

Yetzer continued:

I agree that there are inconsistencies in the KJV. I am uninterested in changing anything. Most people who want to change things are not using it anyways. I believe any further changes is a waste of time and unproductive or helpful to those who want to have the KJV as an English standard. I have talked a lot about this, but deciding who would do it and gaining acceptance across a broad range of users is not going to be possible at this point. Even the changes which took places after the initial printing were minor and attempted to keep the text as close as possible to the 1611.

There are, of course, numerous successful later revisions of the Tyndale translation, including not only the New King James Version but also more significant revisions stemming from the Revised Version from the late 1800s.  While there are many departures, one still sees the influence of the Tyndale translation on translations like the ESV.

However, I think we can provide a better improvement to the KJV than that represented by the ESV.  Whether it will be commercial successful or not, I leave for other folks.

Yetzer continued:    

According to Nikolaos Lavidas’ 2021 book The Diachrony of Written Language Contact: A Contrastive Approach published by Brill, he states, “Tyndale’s texts, translations and polemical texts, contain examples of syntactic archaisms (Canon 2016), that is, borrowings and re-introductions of obsolete forms from an earlier period of the language—what one would characterize as evidence of a type of written contact with earlier forms of English. One such example is the use of the early/archaic second person singular and plural pronouns in Tyndale’s texts: the second person plural pronoun had begun to appear in all, singular and plural, contexts in Early Middle English. Tyndale used the verbal forms for second singular and plural number productively, as well as the distinction between the subject pronoun ye and the object pronoun you, following earlier texts. However, the first attestations of the nominative you, instead of ye, appeared in the 14th century and was productively used in the literary language by the 1540s.” [TF has conformed the quotation to p. 41 of the book] 

This quotation points out that Tyndale adopted the rules that were (according to Lavidas) beginning to go out of style.  In accordance with those rules, the six places noted above should be translated "in the midst of thee" or "in thy midst." If not for those rules, the four places that were corrected by the King James revisers should not have been corrected.   One cannot have it both ways.

Incidentally, as noted by Vaughn, Canon refers to Elizabeth Bell Canon, “Buried Treasure in the Tyndale Corpus: Innovations and Archaisms,” Anglica, an International Journal of English Studies, 2016, 25/2, pp. 151-165.

Yetzer continued again:

and “A careful study of the court records of the northern English city of Durham suggests that “you” had replaced “thou” as the normal form of address in spoken English by about 1575. The decision to use “thou” was a departure from the norm...” McGrath, Alister. “The Story of the King James Bible” in Translation That Openeth the Window. Society of Biblical Literature. 2009. p. 13

McGrath said the same thing in his 2008 book, "In the Beginning" referenced above.  The quotation continues in this way (pp. 267): "The decision to use "thou" was a departure from the norm, intended to make a point--for example, in the following exchange between a social inferior and his superior" [followed by an exchange in which the social inferior uses "ye" and "yours" whereas the social superior uses "thou" and "thy"].

I would respectfully push back on McGrath on this point, at least in that the King James revisers were revising an existing translation that already had the the thou/you distinction.  Perhaps they intentionally wanted the Bible to sound more upper class, but they inherited a Bible with the distinction present.

Furthermore, as with the material from Lavidas, if the translators did decide to maintain the distinction consciously to make a point, then they should have correctly followed that distinction in these six passages.  If they were not doing so, then they should not have altered the four other passages.  One cannot have it both ways.

Yetzer continued: 

3. The principle I intended was making a difference between the archaic thee/thou/thine and you/your/yours.

Lavidas and McGrath argue that this was indeed a principle adopted and the evidence seems to support their contention that it was an intentional use of the distinction to convey information from the underlying text into English.    

Yetzer continued:

4. There are some people who hypothesize that the committees were more divided than normally considered.

It's certainly possible that the first Westminster company did not go through the text collectively, but rather did so individually.  This would explain the inconsistent revision due to a lesser translator handling the six verses where correction should have been offered.  This explanation, however, comes at the expense of the usual line of argument that the King James revision should be given huge weight because of the large number of involved translators.

In other words, it may well be that in practice if one of the translators charged with revising a particular verse proposed a revision, the fellows in his company checked his work to see if the revision was good.  However, if no revision was proposed, there was nothing to check, and consequently no check was made, leading to editorial oversight problems like these six oversights.

While I find Yetzer's proposal intuitively pleasing, I note that would imply that the companies did not strictly follow the guidance provided by Archbishop Bancroft.  This would also mean that while we might place higher credence in translation work that is original to the 1611 King James revision of the Tyndale Bible, we should not place the same credence in passages like these six where there was no original work by the committee. 

Yetzer then concluded by referring to an article in which he argued that the 1602 Bishops' Bible that I have excerpted above was not from the KJV translators.  Timothy Berg, on the other hand, has an article that I found more persuasive on the point (see here).

An Unknown 15th Century French Commentator on the Woman of Revelation 12

The British Museum houses a manuscript designated, add ms 17399, which is available online in a variety of places (here is an example).  The manuscript is dated to the fifteenth century (specifically it is thought to date between AD 1475-1499), and the author is currently unknown.  There is a prologue attributed to Gilbert de la Porrée (1076-1154) followed by what the Museum itself describes as "Apocalypse ... in prose with glosses."  I don't think we should assume that the commentary on the Apocalypse is his work, though I would welcome the insights of any French medievalists who may have more insight than I do.

I was gratified to see that the author continues the tradition we saw in Latin commentaries of not mistakenly associating this woman with Mary, the mother of my Lord:

(source)

As you can see, the author associates the woman with the holy church.

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 centuries it has been rejected as spurious.  I provided a translation of the text of the prologue as it appears in a 19th century printed edition.  However, no sooner had I posted the translation than I needed to provide an update that there were some evidence that the text as provided in that printed edition is significantly erroneous as to a very critical word.  The critical word is the word translated "omitting."  In fact, however, the textual evidence is that the prologue (as found in the oldest manuscripts) actually says "attaching".  This is quite a difference.

The Latin text of the prologue in its earliest known manuscript (dated to the 6th century) is this:

Non ita ordo est apud graecos qui integre sapiunt et fidem rectam sectantur. Epistularum septem quae canonicae nuncupantur: [[ut]] in latinis codicibus inuenitur quod petrus primus est in numero apostolorum primae sint etiam [[eius]] epistulae in ordine ceterarum. Sed sicut euangelistas dudum ad ueritatis lineam correximus ita has proprio ordine deo nos iuuante reddidimus Est enim prima earum una iacobi, petri duae, iohannes tres, et iudae una

Quae si ut ab eis digestae sunt ita quoque ab interpraetibus fideliter in latinum eloquium uerterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec sermonum se uarietas inpugnaret. illo praecipue loco ubi de unitate trinitatis in prima iohannis epistula positum legimus in qua est ab infidelibus translatoribus multum erratum esse fidei ueritate conperimus trium tantummodo uocabula hoc est aquae sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione potentes et patri uerbique ac spiritus testimonium committentes. In quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur et patris et fili et spiritus sancti una diuinitatis substantia conprobatur. In ceteris uero epistulis quantum nostra aliorum distet editio lectoris prudentiae derelinquo. 

Sed tu uirgo christi eusthocium dum a me inpensium scribturae ueritatem inquiris meam quodammodo senectutem inuidorum dentibus conrodendam exponis qui me falsarium corruptoremque sanctarum pronuntiant scribturarum. Sed ego in tali opere nec aemulorum meorum inuidentiam pertimesco nec sanctae scribturae ueritatem poscentibus denegabo.

The meaning is the following: 

The order among the Greeks (who think soundly in full and who follow the right faith) of the seven epistles (which are called canonical) is not [[as]] it is found in Latin codices, because Peter is first in the number of the apostles, his letters also [[should be]] first in the order of the others. But just as we long ago corrected the evangelists to the line of truth, so also, God helping us, we have restored these to their proper order. For the first of them is one of James, two of Peter, three of John, and one of Jude.

Which, if—just as they were arranged by them—they likewise had been faithfully translated into Latin speech by the translators, they would neither make ambiguity for readers, nor would the variety of the expressions attack itself. Especially in that place where, concerning the unity of the Trinity, in the first epistle of John we read it to have been set (in which we have discovered that much has been erred by unfaithful translators from the truth of the faith) there being only three words—namely of water, of blood, and of spirit; they, in their own edition, are presumptuous and join the testimony of the Father and of the Word and of the Spirit (to it). In which passage especially both the catholic faith is strengthened and the one substance of divinity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is proved. And in the other letters, how much our edition differs from that of others, I leave to the prudence of the reader.

But you, virgin of Christ Eustochium, while you demand from me the truth of Scripture bestowed (by me), you in a certain manner expose my old age to be gnawed by the teeth of the envious—those who proclaim me a falsifier and a corrupter of the holy Scriptures. But I, in such a work, neither fear the envy of my rivals, nor will I deny the truth of holy Scripture to those who ask.

Before we even get to the portion related to 1 John 5:7-8, note that there are two other sections of this prologue.  A first portion discusses the order of the epistles.  The second portion is the portion related to 1 John 5:7-8.  A third portion is a portion that seems designed to suggest that the author is Jerome, by mentioning Eustochium, someone to whom Jerome frequently wrote.

In particular, Jerome's works include the following thirteen works that mention or refer to Eustochium:

1. Letter 31 to Eustochium (c. 382-4)
2. Letter 22 to Eustochium (c. 384)
3. Translation of the Psalms based on the Greek (to Paula and Eustochium) (386)
4. Commentary on Ephesians, Galatians, Philemon, and Titus (to Paula and Eustochium) (c.387)
5. Translations of Job, Chronicles, and the Books of Solomon according to the Greek (to Paula, Eustochium, Dominion, and Rogatianus) (c. 387)
6. Commentary on Ecclesiastes (to Paula and Eustochium) (388/9)
7. Translation of Origen's Homilies on Luke (to Paula and Eustochium)(389/90)
8. Letter 108 to Eustochium (c. 403)
9. Commentary on Haggai (to Paula and Eustochium)(Pre-406)
10. Commentary on Micah (to Paula and Eustochium)(Pre-406)
11. Commentary on Nahum (to Paula and Eustochium)(Pre-406)
12. Commentary on Zephaniah (to Paula and Eustochium)(Pre-406)
13. Letter 157 to Paula and Eustochia (?) - this may simply be his prologue to the Translation of the Psalter from Greek, I'm not sure

(source)

It's worth noting from the same source: "Jerome’s translation of Scripture took over 40 years. He translated the Gospels and the Old Testament, but not Acts, the New Testament epistles, or Revelation."  (link)

So, there are two important points here.  One important point is that the prologue to the catholic epistles is not recognized amongst Jerome's works.  Another important point is that Jerome did not offer a translation of the catholic epistles.  

The Gelasian Canon falsely attributed to the Council of Rome of 382 and associated with (again, probably falsely) Gelasius, bishop of Rome 492-496 CE.  The most likely authorship is somewhere in the South of Gaul in the 6th century (i.e. the 500s).  That canon list has the following book order:

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealot, the Apostle one epistle.

Introduction to the New Testament, Raymond F. Collins (1992), p. 3. (see similarly, here)

Notice two points of interest.  First, the list refers to these letters as the "canonical epistles" instead of the "catholic epistles," and second, the list places the epistles of Peter out of order ahead of the epistle of James.  By contrast to the Pseudo-Gelasian/Pseudo-Damasian canon list, the manuscripts having this prologue follow the traditional Greek order, which has James before Peter's epistles.

As was pointed in a previous post (link to post), the use of the description "canonical" epistles in this prologue is one of the clues to the fact that Jerome is not the author, since he would have described them as the "catholic" epistles.  However, 6th century South Gaul has such nomenclature and they have a canonical order that idiosyncratically matches with the order criticized by this prologue.

The Latin of the prologue is not itself a model of clarity (even setting aside the question of whether the in-line corrections to the oldest manuscript are accurate).  Indeed, this prologue has been taken by others as suggesting that the author of the prologue is claiming that the Greeks put Peter first in the canonical order.  However, considering the final portion about restoring the order, it seems that the author is being critical of Latin orders not Greek.

From this opening salvo, the author of the prologue launches a salvo against the insertion of the Johannine Comma.  He claims that just as these faulty Latin codices have jumbled up the order of the books, they have also created chaos and confusion through their various interpolations into the text, especially the one they placed where there should only be three words, but they have joined three more.

Again, the Latin is not a model of clarity here.  Some have taken this text in almost the opposite way, particularly because the word "committentes" (joined) was deliberately altered to read "omittentes" (omitted), thereby suggesting that the prologue was critical of scribal omissions.  Such omissions, of course, would not be examples of creating conflict through a variety of words.  However, generally such views of the text ignore that context.

The accusation of deliberate tampering is rather serious.  What's the basis? The basis is the status of the word "committentes" (also spelled as conmittentes) in the oldest manuscripts, as well as the presence or absence of the Latin interpolation known as the Johannine Comma (in some form or other).  The evidence from the earliest manuscripts is as follows:

Codex Name	Approximate Date	Status of "Committentes"	Status of the Comma Johanneum
Codex Fuldensis aka Victor Codex aka Codex Bonifatianus I	6th	Committentes	Absent
Codex Iuvenianus aka Codex Vallicellianus	8th-9th	omittentes (with evidence of possible washing)	Absent in main text, added in margin
BnF Latin ms. 8847	8th-9th	c and m obviously erased	Absent
BnF, Latin ms. 11505	8th-9th	c obviously erased	Absent
Codex Theodulphianus	8th-9th	omittentes with an umlaut	"Son" variation of CJ
St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 75	9th	c obviously erased	Absent
London, British Library, MS Add. 10546	9th	c is present	Absent
Codex Ulmensis	9th	c apparently erased	Absent
London, British Library, MS Add. 24142	9th-10th	c absent	1 John not present due to incomplete ms.
BnF Latin ms. 1	9th	c obviously erased	Absent
BnF Latin ms. 2	9th	c absent	Absent
BnF Latin ms. 3	9th	c is present	Absent
BnF Latin ms. 4	9th	c apparently added then erased	Absent originally, but added later
BnF Latin ms. 47	9th	c is present	Absent originally, but added later
BnF Latin ms. 111	9th	c apparently erased	Absent originally, but added later
BnF Latin ms. 250	9th	c apparently erased	Absent
BnF Latin ms. 13174	9th	c and m apparently erased	Absent originally, but added later
Bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims. Ms. 2	9th	c and m obviously erased	Absent originally, but added later
Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek, Msc. Bibl. 1	9th	c and m mark apparently erased	Absent
Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 185	9th	c is present	Absent
Codex Fulda	9th	c absent	CJ without "in earth" and with the comparative variant
St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 63	9th	c and m apparently erased	Absent originally, but added later with comparative variant
Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 9	10th	c and part of o erased	Absent originally, but added later
Codex Rodensis aka BnF Latin ms. 6	10th	c and n mark present	Absent
Codex Cavensis	10th	c and n present	Absent
Codex Toletanus	10th	c and n present	Present with "in Jesus Christ" variant

I have to credit the blog, "The Fathers True Monarchy" whose page on this specific issue was the launching pad for my own work (link).  I have some reservations about the page because I don't know the author of the page, and the reference to "Monarchy" makes me worry that the author might be opposed to Chalcedonian Trinitarianism (and Nick Sayers has asserted, and I have no reason to doubt him, that the author is a Jehovah's Witness, which would indeed be an example of a theology I completely reject).  Moreover, the page seems to be devoted to study of the Johannine Comma, and such a single-minded focus can lead to distortion. Nevertheless, the truth is the truth, regardless of who is calling it to our attention.  Moreover, the author has provided a mountain of evidence.

As best as I can, I've attempted to verify the evidence provided with my own research.

( F ) = Codex Fuldensis, (circa. 6th century C.E.), officially known as Hessian State Library, Codex Bonifatianus I, also known as the: “Victor Codex.” 

Folios 434r: "c" and two "m"s are present:

(871:folio 343r)

Folio 463r: No Johannine Comma is present:

(929:folio 463r)

Rome, Biblioteca Vallicelliana B.25II [Codex Iuvenianus, Codex Vallicellianus] (circa. 8th-9th century A.D.)

This one has "omittentes" but there are traces of possible washing/erasure in the left margin.

(folio 45r)

The main text lacks the heavenly witnesses, but there is a  marginal annotation.

(folio 62v)

BnF Latin ms. 8847 (circa 8th-9th century A.D.)

Folio 144r The current reading, “omittentes”, shows obvious erasure of “c” and the second “m”.

Once again, however, the interpolation is not made in the text (Folio 148r):

BnF, Latin ms. 11505 (circa 8th-9th century A.D.)

Folio 206r There is obvious erasure of the "c":

Folio 211v The Johannine Comma is not inserted:

BnF Latin ms. 9380 [Codex Theodulphianus] (circa 8th-9th century A.D.)

Folio 305r The wording is now "omit..." but there is an umlaut above the word and there is a marginal annotation that is very hard to read. 

Folio 308r Something similar to the Johannine Comma is present, although "Son" is used rather than "Word":

It is interesting that even this example, the text of the prologue and the text of the Epistle do not align.  

St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 75 (circa. 9th century A.D.)

Folio 769 There is a clear erasure of the "c" before "omit..."

Folio 778 There is no Johannine Comma present.

London, British Library, MS Add. 10546, (circa. 9th century A.D.)

Folio 402r The "c" is present:

Folio 407r There is no Johannine Comma present.

London, British Library, MS Add. 11852 [Codex Ulmensis] (circa 9th century A.D.)

Folio 169v The "c" appears to have been erased:

Folio 187v There is no Johannine Comma present:

London, British Library, MS Add. 24142 (circa 9th-10th century A.D.)

Folio 247v The "c" is not present

Unfortunately for the purpose of comparison, the manuscript does not include the Catholic epistles after 1 Peter 4:3.  So, it's not possible to check whether the Johannine Comma was included.

BnF Latin ms. 1 (circa 9th century A.D.)

Folio 377v The "c" has obviously been erased.  Also, note the interesting marginal note (in a later hand).

Folio 382r There is no Johannine Comma Present.

BNF, Latin ms. 2 (circa. 9th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 407v There is no "c" present.

Folio 412v There is no Johannine Comma present

BnF Latin ms. 3 (circa. 9th century [A.D.] C.E.)

Folio 353v The "c" is present:

Folio 357v There is no Johannine Comma present

BnF Latin ms. 4, (circa. 9th century A.D.)

Folio 152v The text does not have a "c".  To my eye it looks like there may have been a correction above the line to add the "c," but that this correction has been erased.  

Folio 157v The original did not include the Johannine Comma, but a later hand has erased the text and added a marginal replacement with the Johannine Comma:

BnF Latin ms. 47 (circa. 9th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 141v The "c" is present.

Folio 146v The Johannine Comma is not in the text, but is added in the margin by a later hand:

BnF Latin ms. 111 (circa. 9th century [A.D.] C.E.)

Folio 122r There is what appears to be an erasure where the "c" should be:

Folio 126r The Johannine Comma is not present, but there is tampering by a later hand to add the Johannine Comma to the text (via adding a word to the column and a footnote):

BnF Latin ms. 250 (circa. 9th century [A.D.] C.E.)

Folio 61v The "c" appears to have been erased:

Folio 66v The Johannine Comma is not present:

BNF Latin ms. 13174 (circa. 9th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 72v The word seems to have been altered to remove the "c" and one of the "m"s based on the spacing of the letters compared to other words:

Folio 98r The Johannine Comma was not present in the text, but has been added by a later hand:

Bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims. Ms. 2 (circa 9th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 163v There is evidence of erasure where the "c" would be.

Folio 168v There is no Johannine Comma, although a later hand has added it partially by extending the column and partially in the margin.  The marginal addition is partially lost, due to what appears to be trimming of the sheet (although possibly the scan is incomplete?).

Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek, Msc. Bibl. 1. [formerly A.I.5] (circa 9th century A.D.)

Folio 392r  The "c" seems to have been erased, as does the duplication line above the "m".

Folio 397r  There is no Johannine Comma.  There seems to be a note regarding its absence by a modern hand.

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 185 (circa. 9th century A.D. [C.E.])

Folio 78r The "c" is present.

Folio 87v There is no Johannine Comma.

Codex Fulda. Aa 11 (circa. 9th century C.E.)

Folio 257r The "c" is absent, with no obvious sign of alteration:

Folio 262v A version of the Johannine Comma is present (without the "in earth" and with the so-called "comparative variant"):

St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 63 (circa. 9th century A.D. [C.E.])

Folio 245 The letter "c" is not present.  However, the spacing of the letters of the word "omit tentes" is suspicious, as though it has been re-written to change from the longer "committentes".

Folio 277 The main text does not have the Johannine Comma, but it has been added at the bottom of the page in two stages as the "comparative" variant.

Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 9 (circa. 10th century C.E.)

Folio 303v The c (and part of the o) has been erased:

Folio 307r The Johannine Comma was not originally present, but was added partly above the line and partly in a footnote:

BnF Latin ms. 6 [Codex Rodensis] (circa 10th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 67v The "c" is plainly present.  An "n" is added to the "o" rather than duplicating the "m".

Folio 73r The Johannine Comma was not originally present in the text, but has been added in the margin (except for the "in terra", which has not been added):

Cava de’ Trirrenei, Biblioteca statle del Monumento nazionale della Abbazia Benedettina della Ss. Trinita, Codices Cavenses, Cod. 1 Biblio Sacra [Codex Cavensis] (circa. 10th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 273r The "c" is present and the "n" is present explicitly.

Folio 276v The original text does not have the Johannine Comma.  The quality of the scan is not high enough for me to tell whether the marginal note is an insertion thereof.

Toledo, Catedral, Biblioteca del Cabildo, 35–8 [Codex Toletanus] (circa 10th century C.E. [A.D.])

Folio 352 (700/749 in the pdf) The "c" is present and the "n" is present explicitly.

Folio 357 (710/749 in the pdf) The Johannine Comma is present with the "in Jesus Christ" variant.

Finally, I should add some responses to my friend, Nick Sayers, who has attempted to argue that the prologue belongs to Jerome himself, and that the original text was "omittentes" or that the word "committentes" makes no difference in the meaning/interpretation of the prologue.  For now, I will leave this as a placeholder for such responses.  To summarize Nick's arguments, he thinks that the authorship view is outdated because it does not reflect the discovery of codex F from the 6th century, and he thinks that the meaning of the prologue is favorable to including the Johannine Comma based on comments by Grantley MacDonald.  There is not much of substance to these replies, but I will try to see if there is any way to expand them into something more substantial, against which to provide a detailed response.

Nick's Youtube episode about this, "Examining: Pseudo-Jerome Prologue, 1 John 5:7-8, the Johannine Comma and the Latin by TurretinFan 1," makes the following arguments:

Around 29 minutes in, Nick says that arguments from vocabulary are generally weak arguments.  He thinks that both sides aren't experts at the language enough to say. He acknowledges that Valla used that to disprove the Donation of Constantine.  Ultimately, though, this is not an argument about general vocabulary, but about the use of technical theological vocabulary.

Around 40 minutes in, Nick argues that Migne's arguments are out of date because of the discovery of Codex Fuldensis. I partly agree with this point, but while Codex Fuldensis undermines some of Migne's arguments, it creates new problems that Nick has not addressed.

Around 45 minutes in, Nick argues that it just depends which edition you've read, whether it says "unfaithful scribes" or "unfaithful translators."  On the contrary, there is no ambiguity because "translatoribus" is (as it sounds) a  reference to those who translate, not those who copy.  Nick brought this up again, around 1 hour 55 minute in as well.  Nick pointed out that someone on the "Faith Saves" blog by Thomas Ross uses "scribes" and so Nick is not alone in this.  However, whether Nick is the only one who makes this error is not the point.  It's definitely "translators" not "scribes," and I think Thomas Ross would have to concede this as well. 

Around 1 hour in, Nick accidentally mutes himself for a while.  He then goes on to question whether it is possible for Jerome to use a word that he doesn't usually use and how much Latin could change in a century.

Around 1 hour 24 minutes in, Nick refers to Richard Simon as "basically the father of modern text criticism" as an ad hominem to attack the credibility of the argument my blog page quotes from Migne. Nick glosses over the fact that Socinus used this prologue and claimed it was Jerome's.

Around 1 hour 35 minutes in, Nick begins discussion of the Greek order of books.  Here, I was reproducing arguments against the authenticity of the prologue.  However, I have a better interpretation of the prologue than what is offered in that argument, which can be found above.  Nick tries to appeal to lost manuscripts, but the solution is much simpler: the author is criticizing the Cassiodorus order.

Around 1:hour 50 minutes in, Nick brings up Cyprian.  This doesn't seem particularly relevant.

Around 1 hour 59 minutes in, Nick brings up the fact that for some manuscripts, they are Jerome's Vulgate in one part, and something else in another part.  What Nick had not realized, however, was that Jerome only translated the Old Testament, some of the Apocrypha, and the Gospels.  He didn't translate the Apocalypse, Acts, Paul's epistles, or the Catholic Epistles.  The specific issue Nick refers to is not related to 1 John, as such, but instead refers to the substitution of a Gospel Harmony for the four gospels in the codex.

Around 2 hours 4 minutes in, Nick talks about the theology of the author of the blog post that has done the most work on this particular issue.

Around 2 hours, 11 minutes in, Nick brings up the comments by Grantley McDonald in the comment box of the blog post.  While Nick does not build on the substance of the comments, he appeals to McDonald to confirm that the textual variant regarding "committentes" is not a significant issue.

Grantley McDonald, in a blog comment on March 5, 2020, argued:

However, I doubt that “committentes” is the correct reading. The author – incidentally, I don’t believe that it was Jerome – claims that some scribes or translators write down (“ponentes”) the water, spirit and blood, but miss out the Father, Word and Spirit. The only possible sense I can wrest from “committentes” is that some scribes or translators “commit to writing” the testimony of the Father, Word and Spirit. “Committentes” would thus mean the same thing as “ponentes” – but then of course the author’s pointed contrast disappears. He is unhappy that some authors leave out the Father, Word and Spirit, not that they also commit these words to the page. Arguing simply from the sense of the passage, I think “omittentes” must be the correct reading.

There are several possible ways in which the “o-” could have been read as “com-”. Once this had happened in one manuscript copy, it was likely transmitted to further copies unless later scribes intervened. It would be interesting to trace the variants in the entire text of the prologue in the various manuscripts to see if this variant could be isolated to a particular textual family. Of course, such an error could have happened independently more than once.

Firstly, the “c-” might have crept in through visual similarity with the “o-”. But this still leaves some details unexplained.

Alternatively, it is possible that Fuldensis (or its archetype) was copied from a defective exemplar in which this word was illegible or damaged (a real possibility if the archetype was written on papyrus). The scribe of Fuldensis might then simply have guessed at the missing letter or letters.

A third possibility is perhaps the most plausible: it is possible that an early scribe mistook the “o” for an abbreviation. The Tironian sign for “con-” or “com-”, preserved as an abbreviation in many different kinds of Latin hands through the middle ages, looks like a reversed “c”, which is easily confused with an “o”. (See Ulrich Friedrich Kopp, Tachygraphia veterum 2 [= Palaeographia critica vol. 2.2], p. 52). This would explain the misreading quite economically.

Then, as you have shown in some of the manuscripts, some later readers corrected “committentes” to “omittentes”, because they clearly realised that “committentes” just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

Some responses:

First, while the Migne Latin here reads "ponentes," Fuldensis does not read "ponentes" but "potentes."  Interestingly, while it is not alone in this reading (it is joined at least by one other early manuscript), it is certainly a minority reading amongst the manuscripts I examined (the majority reading is "ponentes" and the other minority readings seem to be other forms of ponere).  The letters "n" and "t" can look alike in Latin, so it is possible that there was a transcription error, though it is harder to see how "potentes" would have been accidentally transcribed from "ponents" rather than vice versa.  However, for the same reason, "ponentes" is the more natural word to be present here.  In any event, too much weight should not be given to the word "ponentes" given the textual variant in two of the earliest manuscripts of this text.

 

Second, the author's expressed concern is that the variety of expressions in the criticized translations attack themselves ("sermonum se uarietas inpugnaret").  Omission of a text cannot do this.  Insertion of a text might do this.  The point of the author may be that they ought to have written down only three words, but they joined the testimony of the father, word, and spirit.

Third, I agree that hypothetically an "o" could be mistaken for a Tironian note shorthand for "con." However, again, if GM is correct about the context, it's hard to understand what sense "committentes" would have to the copyist, such that it would be a natural mistake. Furthermore, we see multiple clear examples of deliberate scribal tampering in the opposite direction from GM's proposal.  

Fourth, because GM was unaware of the further difference of "potentes" vs. "ponentes" he has not considered an additional stage of drift in the meaning of the text due to scribal changes.  In a first stage, the "potentes" is changed to "ponentes" and then at a later stage, "commitentes" is changed to "omittentes."  Finally, the Johannine Comma is fully inserted into the main text of 1 John based on the prologue's new wording and its asserted connection to Jerome.

Fifth, I don't see any evidence that GM has considered the alternative view that the author is complaining about the insertion, not the omission.  That's not really a fault of GM, but it means that he has not necessarily considered all the angles of this particular question.

Incidentally, I don't claim to have Grantley McDonald's ability in Latin.  None of my arguments hang on one-upping McDonald's ability, or questioning it in any way. I have included the textual evidence regarding "potentes" in an appendix to this post.

Around 2 hours 33 minutes in, Nick says that "sometimes" the comma is not present in manuscripts that have the prologue.  However, in the manuscripts that have the prologue from the earliest known manuscript until the 10th century, only 3 out of 26 have the CJ in any form, and they don't have it in the same form as one another.

Around 2 hours 42 minutes in, Nick brings up Augustine and his spiritual (Nick calls it allegorical) interpretation of the text.

Around 2 hours 50 minutes in, Nick appeals to the Latin reading abilities of Erasmus and Valla. Nick has not identified where either of them ever addressed this prologue.  Even if they did do so, Nick has not identified that either of them were aware of the textual variants between the later prologues and the earliest copies of the prologue.  I leave it up to Nick if he wants to provide a citation to Erasmus and/or Valla.  I will, however, note that I don't claim to have the ability to read Latin that Migne had (he wrote primarily in Latin) but I think he and others have misunderstood the first section of the prologue, and that if the first section is so badly worded that it is hard to understand, it's not a stretch to say the same about the second section.

Around 2 hours 59 minutes in, Nick brings up Steven Avery's blog, which claims that there was a "major emphasis" on the lateness of the manuscripts that have the prologue.  This argument should be overcome by the discovery of the Codex Fuldensis.  However, there remain several other major problems for the letter.

Appendix I: Potentes, Ponentes, and Ponerent in the manuscripts to the 10th century

Codex Fuldensis, folio 434r has "potentes"

Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Manoscritti, ms.B 25II, folio 45r has "potentes"

BnF Latin ms. 8847 folio 144r has "ponentes":

BnF, Latin ms. 11505 folio 206r has "ponentes"

BnF Latin ms. 9380 folio 305r has "ponentes"

St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 75, folio 769 has "ponentes" 

London, British Library, MS Add. 10546, folio 402r has "ponentes"

London, British Library, MS Add. 11852, folio 169v has "ponentes"

London, British Library, MS Add. 24142, folio 247v has "ponentes"

BnF Latin ms. 1, folio 377v has "pontentes"

BNF, Latin ms. 2 folio 407v has "ponentes"

BnF Latin ms. 3 folio 353v has "ponentes"

BnF Latin ms. 4 folio 152v has "ponentes"

BnF Latin ms. 47 folio 141v has "ponentes"

BnF Latin ms. 111 folio 122r has "ponentes"

BnF Latin ms. 250 folio 61v has "ponentes"

BNF Latin ms. 13174 folio 72v has "ponentes"

Bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims. Ms. 2 folio 163v has "ponentes"

Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek, Msc. Bibl. 1 folio 392r has "ponentes"

Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 185 folio 77v has "ponentes"

Codex Fulda. Aa 11 folio 257r has "ponentes"

St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 63 folio 245 has "ponentes"

Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 9 folio 303v has "ponentes"

BnF Latin ms. 6 folio 67v has "ponentes"

Cava de’ Trirrenei, Biblioteca statle del Monumento nazionale della Abbazia Benedettina della Ss. Trinita, Codices Cavenses, Cod. 1 folio 273r has "ponerent"

Toledo, Catedral, Biblioteca del Cabildo, 35–8 folio 352 doesn't have "potents" and does some to have some conjugation of ponere, though I don't feel comfortable saying which one it might be:

*** 

Update of January 6, 2026:

Mike Ferrando wrote:

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.

I respond as follows:

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 (417 for Eustochium, 420 for Jerome).  

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. 

*** Update of January 8, 2026

In response to another person who pointed out that Jerome did not translate any of the New Testament apart from the gospels, Mike Ferrando wrote:

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)

A more precise citation would be The Journal of Theological Studies (Vol. XXIV. No. 94. April 1923. Milford). Dom J. Chapman: ‘St. Jerome and the Vulgate N.T. III,’ pp. 284-5. 

The main problem is not the precision of the citation but that Ferrando has misunderstood Chapman’s claim.  A second problem is that if the proofs were of overwhelming strength, one would simply give the proofs, without having to rely on the intermediate citation of scholarship from a century ago. 

The Benedictine monk, Dom John Chapman, O.S.B. (1865-1933; originally Henry Palmer Chapman), was a respected scholar of patristic studies, to be sure. He even published “Notes on the Early History of the Vulgate Gospels,” (1908) and worked on a commission on the revision of the Vulgate translation from 1919-22.  

Jerome of Stridon (born c. 342-347; died September 30, 420), was a friend of Damasus of Rome (usually referred to as Pope Damasus or Pope Damasus I). Damasus was born c. 303 and died December 11, 384.  Thus, Jerome was somewhere between 38 and 44 years old when Damasus died.  

Yet the author of the prologue speaks of the author’s “old age” (“senectutem”), but even in the 4th century, a man of about 40 years had not entered old age.  

Jerome’s preface or prologue to the four gospels (New Advent link, Early Church Texts link) (A.D. 383) indicates that Jerome revised the Gospels by a comparison to Greek manuscripts.  In 403, Augustine wrote to Jerome to thank him, saying: “we are in no small measure thankful to God for the work in which you have translated the Gospels from the original Greek”.  However, some people have thought that Jerome was correcting Augustine when he responded (in 404) by saying: “since you approve of my labours in revising the translation of the New Testament”.  Such an assumption is utterly unnecessary to Jerome’s point.  Jerome’s point was merely that if Augustine acknowledges the verified quality of his translation from Greek to Latin, Augustine should give Jerome the benefit of the doubt regarding the quality of his translation from Hebrew to Latin.  Thus, it is a mistake to see Jerome as correcting Augustine on this point.  

Even if we would grant (for arguments’ sake) that the substitution of “New Testament” for “Gospels” was a claim to have revised the entirety of the New Testament, Jerome was only about 60 years old by A.D. 404; “senectutem” would seem an ill-fitting word to describe him even then, as it usually refers to a greater extremity of old age.  Moreover, the usual claim is that the New Testament was done for Damasus, not subsequent to Damasus’ departure from this life (and so we are back to the 380s, when Jerome was about 40).  

To some extent, however, this may be a moot point, because Chapman is not claiming that Jerome translated the New Testament, just that he revised it.  Even though the last century of scholarship may not support Chapman on this point, it’s ultimately a different claim that Jerome produced a recension and that Jerome provided a translation.

For example, even before Chapman’s birth, Joseph Dixon wrote:

St. Jerome first corrected the old translation of the four gospels at the request of Pope Damasus; he afterwards corrected the rest of the New Testament all by the original Greek “Novum Græcæ fidei reddidit.” This was well received, as appears from St Augustine, and it is this correction which is inserted in our vulgate. That St. Jerome only corrected the ancient vulgate, and did not translate de novo, as far as regards the New Testament, appears from his preface addressed to Pope Damasus. Again, from the number of changes which St. Jerome, in his writings, points out as desirable in the old vulgate of the New Testament and which we find in ours, we have a clear argument for the assertion, that St. Jerome’s collections have been adopted in the version of the Latin church.

Dixon, J. (1853). A General Introduction to the Sacred Scriptures: In a Series of Dissertations, Critical Hermeneutical and Historical. United States: J. Murphy., p. 106.

Likewise, W.W. in J. Kitto’s, A Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, vol. 2, entry for “Vulgate,” (1845), p. 935, frankly explains:

Jerome's recension. Jerome did not translate the New Testament from the Greek, but at the request of Damasus, bishop of Rome, he amended the old Latin, by comparing its corruptions and various readings with the best Greek manuscripts, making, however, no alteration, unless the sense absolutely required it; but in his Commentary he often departs from this text.

So, even when scholarship believed that Jerome revised the New Testament (up to Chapman's time), there was still an important distinction between revising it and translating it.  Moreover, the argument that Jerome even revised the remainder of the New Testament stands on shaky ground.  That argument, however, does not need to concern us here.

In response to my comments about the non-acceptance of the prologue by scholars of Jerome, Mike Ferrando wrote:

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.

No, of course I mean now, a hundred and fifty years after that.  I mean this linked list (link). More broadly, I mean those associated with the Clavis Patrum Latinorum or otherwise active in the study of the life and works of Jerome of Stridon.

MF alleges bias, but it is unclear why contemporary Jerome studies would have any bias on this question.  Likewise, given that the best reading of the prologue is against the inclusion of the Latin interpolation, it is unclear what bias would motivate any opponent of the interpolation to deny Jerome’s authorship.

If Victor of Capua was there when the prologue was composed (which is possible), it is just proof that the prologue is not the work of Jerome, who was dead for over a century.

In response to my comment that there are multiple reasons to agree with the scholars, Mike Ferrando wrote:

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.

False, and suggests that MF has not read or at least has not understood the criticisms offered. However, I certainly leave open the door for Ferrando to find something in his 600+ page florilegium that could answer.   

Regarding my observation that Codex Fuldensis does not explicitly attribute the text to Jerome, Mike Ferrando responded:

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.

It’s not clear if Mr. Ferrando understands what “moving the goal posts” means.

Where does Victor say this?  A word search of Ferrando’s compilation does not turn up any such quotation from Victor, though perhaps MF is paraphrasing.

What exactly did Victor say?  The heading of the prologue does not say “of Jerome” in Codex Fuldensis.

 

Regarding my observation that Victor’s Greek skills are irrelevant (etc.), MF responded:

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).

One really has to wonder what’s going on with MF.  The prologue mentions the interpolated reading, and even MF’s own compendium lists that mention as a “Hit” and is cited by MF's secondary sources on multiple occasions.  ("The Witness of God is Greater: 1500 years of the Heavenly and Earthly Witnesses. A Source Book. Updated 7/17/2025; for "hit" see p. 268, for other citations see pp. 43, 263, 265, 266, 366, 414, and 632)

MF then goes on to speculate that Victor did not have a Greek manuscript that included the verse, and consequently he did not attempt to correct the verse with annotations. If Victor didn’t have a Greek manuscript, then Victor’s Greek skills are irrelevant, which is where I started this observation.

As for the alleged “direct allusion” (which sounds like an oxymoron):

1. This appears to be a translation of a fragment of Severian of Gabala collected by Victor of Capua.
2. The commentary of Severian is on Exodus 3:6, specifically the text, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.”  I have no idea why MF keeps mentioning Genesis.
3. The explanation of this text is: Oportebat in tribus patriarcharum principibus figuram sanctae Trinitatis ostendi. This means: “It was fitting that, in the three patriarchal princes, the figure of the Holy Trinity be shown.”
4. It is simply unreasonable to call this any kind of allusion to the Latin interpolation at 1 John 5:7-8.

I can only speculate why MF thinks this is relevant.  My guess is that MF got a word search hit on the words "Pater" "Verbo" and "Sancti Spiritus" near one another, that MF took that hit to be an allusion, and then passed along what he thought was the corresponding text to his Latin translator, Sarah Van der Pas, whose work on the Glossa Ordinaria has been of great value).  She translated what he provided, but what he provided was the wrong text (i.e., not the text he meant to ask her to translate).  He probably meant to provide not that Scholia of Severian of Gabala, but rather one on a different page of the same work.

Specifically, although p. 64 of the appendix (p. 65 in the pdf) shows part of p. 275 of a work MF is citing, p. 276 has commentary by Severian (provided by Victor) on Genesis 2:7 (link to page).  That scholia says:

Et inspiravit in faciem ejus spiraculum vitae (Gen. ii, 7).

Victor, episcopus Capuae, ex Scholia Severiani, episcopi Gabalonis (2).

Inspiratione id est operatione Sancti Spiritus dantur intelligi: ut, quemadmodum Pater cum Verbo suo cuncta fecisse cognoscitur in eo quod refertur, Dixit Deus (Verbo enim suo dicit; et sic (3), dicente Deo; Verbo suo facere intelligitur universa): sic et Spiritus Sanctus ut cooperatore et creatore pariter esse doceatur, dicitur: Inspiravit Deus, id est, Spiritu suo animam procreavit. Inspiravit igitur dictum est, ut creatorem quoque intelligas Spiritum Sanctum. Emitte, inquit, Spiritum tuum, et creabuntur (4). Vitae vero spiraculum, humanae vitae cognosce spiritum procreatum, ne arbitreris animam, quod nefas atque profanum est, particulam existimare divinae substantiae, quam animam constat esse mutabilem, dum sit sancta Trinitas incommutabilis et incommutabiliter semper beata.

My translation (not anything like the quality of  Sarah Van der Pas):

“And he breathed into his face the breath of life” (Gen. 2:7).

Victor, bishop of Capua, from the Scholia of Severian, bishop of Gabala.

By “inspiration,” that is, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, these things are given to be understood: namely, that just as the Father is known to have made all things with his Word, in that which is reported, God said (for he speaks by his Word; and thus (3), God speaking, all things are understood to be made by his Word), so also the Holy Spirit is taught to be likewise a co-worker and creator, when it is said: God breathed, that is, by his Spirit he brought forth the soul. He breathed, therefore, is said, so that you may also understand the Holy Spirit to be the Creator. Send forth, he says, your Spirit, and they shall be created (4).

But by the breath of life, understand the spirit of human life as something created, lest you suppose the soul—something which is impious and profane—to be a particle of the divine substance, since it is established that the soul is mutable, whereas the Holy Trinity is immutable and immutably always blessed.

Although this is a reference to the triune God as Father, Word, and Spirit, there is no reason to think that this is an allusion to 1 John 5:7-8.  However, since it relates to Genesis and is only one page away from the irrelevant (i.e., even less relevant than the above) material provided in MF's appendix, I am guessing that this is the text MF probably intended to cite.

After writing the preceding portion, out of curiosity I looked at page 65 of the Supplement, and loe and behold there is a reproduction of the very page 276 I mentioned.  Moreover, item II (on the left hand side of the page) is what I am referencing, whereas item V is what MF provides at page 27 of the Supplement.   

Regarding my observation that Victor reviewed and approved the Codex Fuldensis, so Victor was aware of the CJ and rejected it, MF wrote:

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.

The evidence is the non-insertion of the CJ into the text of 1 John 5:7-8, despite the mention of the CJ in the prologue.

This is not an argument about the authenticity of the prologue, obviously.

As for whether a forger could have “passed of the prologue,” there are numerous works that took advantage of the names of famous men during the patristic period and beyond, and the next century after his death is the prime time to introduce such a work.  In this case, the time between is more than a century, which is more than enough time for a forger to forge.  For a contemporary example of a forgery that was accepted, consider the Salamander Letter.  This was a forgery purporting to be written by Martin Harris in 1830, and accepted by the leadership of the Mormons as authentic in 1985, which is a comparable time span to what MF is describing.