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:
- Letter 31 to Eustochium (c. 382-4)
- Letter 22 to Eustochium (c. 384)
- Translation of the Psalms based on the Greek (to Paula and Eustochium) (386)
- Commentary on Ephesians, Galatians, Philemon, and Titus (to Paula and Eustochium) (c.387)
- Translations of Job, Chronicles, and the Books of Solomon according to the Greek (to Paula, Eustochium, Dominion, and Rogatianus) (c. 387)
- Commentary on Ecclesiastes (to Paula and Eustochium) (388/9)
- Translation of Origen's Homilies on Luke (to Paula and Eustochium)(389/90)
- Letter 108 to Eustochium (c. 403)
- Commentary on Haggai (to Paula and Eustochium)(Pre-406)
- Commentary on Micah (to Paula and Eustochium)(Pre-406)
- Commentary on Nahum (to Paula and Eustochium)(Pre-406)
- Commentary on Zephaniah (to Paula and Eustochium)(Pre-406)
- 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:
Folio 463r: No Johannine Comma is present:
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"
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:
***
Appendix II: Attribution to Jerome in the copies (added January 12, 2026, updated January 13, 2026)
Codex Fuldensis, folio 433r has "Prolugus" without identifying an author and folio 434r likewise has "Explicit Prologus" (abbreviation expanded) without attribution, though with distinction to an "alius prologus" that follows:
Roma, Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Manoscritti, ms.B 25II, folio 44v marks the end of the Acts of the Apostles, but does not introduce the prologue, folio 45r begins without any heading, and folio 45v concludes the prologue with "explicit prologus" but without any attribution of authorship:
(folio 44v)
(folio 45r)
(folio 45v)
BnF Latin ms. 8847 folio 144r has "Incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicit prologus" (abbreviations expanded) but no attribution of authorship:
BnF, Latin ms. 11505 folio 206r has "Incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicum" and "explicit prologus" but no attribution of authorship:
BnF Latin ms. 9380 (said to be of Theodulf) folio 305r has "Incipit argumentum epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicit argumentum" (abbreviations expanded) but no attribution of authorship:
Interestingly (to me, at least), the prologue does not begin "Non..." (for example, "Nonita ordo est apud Graecos..." but "Qui integre sapiunt ...".
St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 75, folio 769 has "Incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicit prologus" (abbreviations expanded) but no attribution of authorship:
London, British Library, MS Add. 10546, folio 402r has "Incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicuit prologus" but no attribution of authorship:
London, British Library, MS Add. 11852, folio 169r has "incipit prologus beati hieronimi presbiteri in VII epistolas canonicas" thus ascribing authorship to the presbyter, Blessed Jerome:
London, British Library, MS Add. 24142, folio 247r (image 501) has "Incipit argumentum epistolarum canonicarum" and folio 247v (image 502) has "explicit argumentum" but there is no authorship ascription:
Interestingly (to me, at least), the prologue does not begin "Non ita" but "Qui integre ...", like the manuscript said to be Theodulf's noted above.
BnF Latin ms. 1, folio 377v has "Incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicuit prologus" but no attribution of authorship:
BNF, Latin ms. 2 folio 407v has "Incipit prologus VII epistolarum canonicarum" (abbreviations expanded), but does not identify authorship:
BnF Latin ms. 3 folio 353v has "Incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicuit prologus" (abbreviations expanded) but no attribution of authorship:
BnF Latin ms. 4 folio 152v has many changes, amongst which are the addition of "Beati Hieronimi Presbiteri" (abbreviation expanded) by what appears to me to be a later hand (see, for example, the different stroke for abbreviating):
BnF Latin ms. 47 folio 141v has "Incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicit prologus" (abbreviations expanded) but no attribution of authorship:
BnF Latin ms. 250 folio 61v has "Incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicit prologus sancti hieronimi". I suspect that the "explicit prologus..." is either in whole or in part the work of a later hand, but it is difficult for me to prove. I note for the reader's interest that in the previous cases where attribution to Jerome was made, he was described as "blessed" (beati) not "saint" (sancti). Nevertheless, note ms. 13174, below.
(Zoomed in version of the "explicit prologus sancti hieronimi")
BNF Latin ms. 13174 folio 72r has "incipit prologus sancti hieronimi presbiteri" and folio 72v has "explicit prologus" thus ascribing authorship to St. Jerome the Prebyter.
Bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims. Ms. 2 folio 163v has "incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicit prologus" without any authorship attribution:
Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek, Msc. Bibl. 1 folio 392r has "Incipit prologus septem epistolarum canonicarum" and "explicit prologus" (abbreviations expanded) but does not say who the author is:
Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 185 folio 77v has "incipit prologus ... canonicae" in a clear hand, and two words that I cannot decipher plus "VII epistolae" in a fancy scribal hand, and folio 78r ends the prologue without authorship ascription:
St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 63 folio 245 has "incipit prologus septem epistolarum sancti Hieronimi" (abbreviations expanded) and simply provides a starting indication of the next prologue after on folio 246, thereby identifying St. Jerome as author:
Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 9 folio 303v has "Incipit prologus sancti Hieronimi Presbitiri Epistolas[?] apostolas[?] VII," which ascribes authorship to St. Jerome the Presbyter, while the following folio, folio 304r, ends the prologue without further authorship discussion:
It's difficult for to tell when the "incipit" and "explicit" were added. I think they are original, but I'm not sure. It's odd to me that some of the "explicit" are in the margins, though, so perhaps they were added later by a different scribe.
Cava de’ Trirrenei, Biblioteca statle del Monumento nazionale della Abbazia Benedettina della Ss. Trinita, Codices Cavenses, Cod. 1 folio 273r has "incipit prologus IHeronomi de insequentibus septem kanonichis aepistolis" and "explicit prologus". The odd spellings aside, this attributes the prologue to Jerome. Also, like the MS said to be Theodulf's and MS Add. 24142, the prologue omits the portion before "quae integraes sapiunt ..."
Toledo, Catedral, Biblioteca del Cabildo, 35–8 folio 352 has "Incipiunt Prologus Iheronimi" and "explicit prologus" thereby ascribing authorship to Jerome:
Detail showing "qui integre sapiunt"
| Codex Name | Approximate Date | Stated Authorship | Initial Variant / Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Codex Fuldensis aka Victor Codex aka Codex Bonifatianus I | 6th | None | "Non ita" | Has "Inc. Epistolae Canonicae" before "Inc. Prologus" |
| Codex Iuvenianus aka Codex Vallicellianus aka Biblioteca Vallicelliana, Manoscritti, ms.B 25II | 8th-9th | None | "Non idem" | No "Incipit" at all for the Prologue |
| BnF Latin ms. 8847 | 8th-9th | None | "non ittcc"[?] |
| BnF, Latin ms. 11505 | 8th-9th | None | "Non ita" |
| Codex Theodulphianus | 8th-9th | None | "qui integre sapiunt" | Calls it "argumentum" rather than "prologus" |
| St Gall, Stiftsbibliothek, 75 | 9th | None | "non ittcc"[?] |
| London, British Library, MS Add. 10546 | 9th | None | "non ita" |
| Codex Ulmensis | 9th | Beati Hieronimi Presbiteri | "non ita" |
| London, British Library, MS Add. 24142 | 9th-10th | None | "qui integre sapiunt" |
| BnF Latin ms. 1 | 9th | None | "nonita" |
| BnF Latin ms. 2 | 9th | None | "non ita" |
| BnF Latin ms. 3 | 9th | None | "non ita" |
| BnF Latin ms. 4 | 9th | None / "beati Hieronimi Presbiteri" | "Nonita" | Authorship added after the fact, not by the original hand |
| BnF Latin ms. 47 | 9th | None | "non ita" |
| BnF Latin ms. 111 | 9th | None | "non ita" |
| BnF Latin ms. 250 | 9th | None? | Sancti Hieronimi | "non ita" | Authorship possibly added later |
| BnF Latin ms. 13174 | 9th | Sancti Hieronimi Presbiteri | "non idem" |
| Bibliothèque Carnegie de Reims. Ms. 2 | 9th | None | "non ita" |
| Bamberg, Staatliche Bibliothek, Msc. Bibl. 1 | 9th | None | "non ita" |
| Karlsruhe, Badische Landesbibliothek, Aug. perg. 185 | 9th | None | "non ita" | puzzling original phrase before "VII Epistlolae" |
| Codex Fulda | 9th | Hieronimi Presbiteri | "non ttcc"[?] |
| St. Gallen, Stiftsbibliothek, Cod. Sang. 63 | 9th | Sancti Hieronimi | "non ita" |
| Bern, Burgerbibliothek, Cod. A 9 | 10th | Hieronimi Presbiteri | "non ita" | possibly the authorship is later added |
| Codex Rodensis aka BnF Latin ms. 6 | 10th | Hieronimi Presbiteri & Sancti Hieronimi | "non ita" | One name given in the incipit, the other in the explicit |
| Cava de’ Trirrenei, Biblioteca statle del Monumento nazionale della Abbazia Benedettina della Ss. Trinita, Codices Cavenses, Cod. 1 | 10th | IHeronomi | "quae integraes sapiunt" |
| Codex Toletanus aka Biblioteca del Cabildo, 35–8 | 10th | Iheronimi | "qui integre sapiunt" |
As shown in the table above, of the 26 earliest manuscripts, 17 do not explicitly state the authorship in the original text.
***
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. 95. April 1923. Milford). Dom J. Chapman: ‘St. Jerome and the Vulgate N.T. III,’ pp. 284-5. For reference here are links to each of the sections of this article: Vol. 93 Part I, Vol. 94 Part II, Vol. 95 Part III, Index)
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.
I've also added a second appendix above, which shows that the majority of early manuscripts of the prologue do not explicitly identify Jerome as the author of the prologue.
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):
- This appears to be a translation of a fragment of Severian of Gabala collected by Victor of Capua.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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 off 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.
*** Update January 13, 2026
In response to my documentation that the majority of the 26 earliest copies of the prologue do not explicitly identify Jerome as the author, Mike Ferrando responded:
Great. As Martin debunked long ago, there are other prologues by Jerome that do not have his name attributed to them. Sorry you missed that.
a) That's not what it means to "debunk" something. Simply raising a counter-point is not "debunking" the point. And, in this case, the counter-point (while not wholly invalid) is weak.
b) For example, even assuming it's true that some "other prologues" by Jerome were transmitted anonymously that doesn't establish that this anonymous one is by Jerome.
c) Second, I question the assertion that "other prologues" by Jerome were transmitted without attribution to Jerome. Which other prologues are you/"Martin" claiming were transmitted in this way? When you say, "Martin," I assume that you're referring to David Martin's "The genuineness of the text of the first Epistle of Saint John 5:7" (1722), of which Chapter VIII is related to this prologue. In that chapter, he does not seem to mention these "other prologues" that you refer to. Likewise, a word search of the latest revision of TWoGiG for "prologues" does not return any relevant hits. What's your citation to back up your claim?
d) The really large number of works falsely attributed to Jerome during the medieval period should make people cautious about accepting a book as Jerome's simply because it was identified as such in the middle ages.
