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: