One controversial verse, when it comes to the KJV/modern translations debate is 1 John 5:7. I’ll give 5:8 also.
KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
ESV: 7 For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three agree.
-
Big difference, huh?
As I said in a previous comment, verses don’t simply vanish from Scripture. The accusations from KJV-users are serious indeed. If this phrase (known as the Comma Johanneum) was originally part of Holy Scripture, its deletion is an attack on the Holy Trinity. I argue on the contrary, that this phrase is not Holy Scripture, but rather something added by a scribe later. Allow me to elaborate.
When Erasmus was preparing the Textus Receptus, he originally left this phrase out. Now the phrase had been in the Latin Bible of the Catholic Church, but Erasmus never found a Greek manuscript containing the verse. Erasmus took a lot of criticism for his decision, and in the end said that if he could find only one Greek manuscript containing this verse, he would include it into the Textus Receptus.
Lo, and behold, a short while later, Erasmus was presented with such a manuscript. It is called the Codex Montfortianus, and is Miniscule #61. True to his word, Erasmus added the phrase in his next edition, though he did include a lengthy footnote explaining the curious situation around the verse, and voicing his suspicions that 61 was tailor made for the sole purpose of forcing him to include this phrase into the Textus Receptus.
Bruce Metzger’s textbook describes 61 thus: “This manuscript of the Entire New Testament, dating from the early 16th century, now at Trinity College, Dublin, has more importance historically than intrinsically. It is the first Greek manuscript discovered that contains the passage relating to the Three Heavenly Witnesses (1 Jn 5:7-8). It was on the basis of this single, late witness that Erasmus was induced to insert this certainly spurious passage into the text of 1 John. The manuscript, which is remarkably fresh and clean throughout (except for the two pages containing 1 John 5, which are soiled from repeated examination), gives every appearance of having been produced expressly for the purpose of confuting Erasmus.” (The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration, 4th ed., page 88, emphasis mine.)
Later in the book, Metzger writes: “As it now appears, the Greek manuscript had probably been written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus included the passage in his Third Edition (1522) but in a lengthy footnote that was included in his volume of annotations, he intimated his suspicion that the manuscript had been prepared expressly in order to confute him.” (p. 147)
Since Erasmus, we have discovered more manuscripts that do indeed contain the Comma Johanneum. Eight, to be exact. Of the 8, only 4 (one of which is 61) contain the phrase in the text of the Bible, while the other 4 have it as a marginal note. The earliest of the 8 dated a full millennium after the New Testament was written. This 10th century manuscript contains the Comma Johanneum as a variant reading (i.e., NOT in the text of the Bible, but rather, in the margin). The next oldest comes about 400 years later. Of the 5800 or so Greek manuscripts we have discovered of the New Testament, only 8 late witnesses record this phrase. This is hardly the majority text.
However, to the Latin-speaking church, the Phrase goes back to the 4th century work, Liber apologeticus, written by either Priscillian or his follower, Bishop Instantius of Spain (Priscillian goes down as the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy). It was a piece of allegorical exegesis (for the record, Priscillian respected most of the Old Testament, but rejected the Creation story). The phrase never appeared in the Vulgate (despite its presence in the Old Latin bible) until about A.D. 800.
MOREOVER, we have the testimony (or rather, the lack thereof) from the Greek fathers. The early church was filled with controversy surrounding the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Several heresies (including the Sabellian and Arian heresies) popped up denying the Trinity and it was the work of the church fathers to refute them, preserving the orthodox teaching of the Church (and for that matter, the Bible, though at this point in history, the two were regarded as one and the same). It speaks volumes that none of the Greek fathers ever quoted this verse. Not a single one. However, this is the most obvious verse to quote in the entire New Testament to prove the Trinity. How could they have possibly missed it?
More than that, the translators of the ancient versions must have missed it also. This verse appears only in Old Latin Bibles from the 5th cent. on, and the Latin Vulgate after A.D. 800. No other ancient translations contain this phrase.
So I ask: Which is more likely? Did a beautiful verse explaining the Holy Trinity simply vanish from Scripture, without cause or explanation very early on, only to be recovered by (to the best of our knowledge) a Spanish heretic who denied the first chapters of Genesis , after which it caught on only in the Western (i.e. Roman Catholic) Church? Or, was this phrase added to the Scriptures centuries after 1 John was written as an attempt to more easily prove a doctrine from Scripture.
No, this isn’t a doctrinal issue. The Greek speaking church has defended the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity for centuries without this phrase. Its absence doesn’t make room for Mary. Yes, people get saved from the King James Version, and yes, people that use modern translations can still believe in a young earth and salvation by Christ alone. This isn’t about doctrine, but about textual purity. The evidence stands as it does.
(In all of this, I mean no hostility at all to my KJV-only brothers; I just love text criticism. In many ways I respect them more than people who tend to newer versions, for if someone is using a KJV, you can bank on him believing it. You’ll be hard pressed to find a liberal who believes KJV-only, and for that among many other issues, I thank God for my KJV-only brothers. It is my prayer that all evangelical churches would be characterized by the same zeal for God’s word and it’s primacy in life for all situations that characterizes churches who preach from God’s word in the King James Version.)
Grace and peace be with you through our Lord Jesus Christ,
-Elijah
(note: while my links are to Wikipedia, none of my research was done there. I used Metzger's The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed., Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd. ed., and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th ed.)
12 comments:
Good defense of your position on the Johannine Comma. Before I show the undisputable evidence for the comma consider this.
If as Elijah has noted that there is at least one error in the ESV as a direct result of bias, then one cannot stand in the pulpit and hold up his ESV and say he has the inerrant Word of God.
If the Johannine comma has been added by a scribe ect… and is not God’s Word than one cannot stand in the pulpit and hold his KJB up and say he has the inerrant Word of God.
Something else to think about- As scribes copied the manuscripts throughout the centuries we are told that scribes had a propensity to add bits and pieces to the text. But that would obviously be a deliberate act. It has been demonstrated that accidental loss of place (a parablepsis) results in omission far more than addition. So any time a reading is shorter it could be the result of parablepsis, and should be read with suspicion.
It takes a lot of imagination to create new material to add than to delete what is already there. So if a scribe saw something that he maybe did not agree with he would be more apt to delete it. It has also been demonstrated that most scribes were careful to avoid unintentional mistakes. But some have flagrantly made changes such as in Aleph in the book of Revelation.
All this being said, none of it really matters if we will only believe God’s promise to preserve His word. He either did preserve His word through all generations or He did not. If He did, then we do not need sinful man trying to figure out what words are His inspired Word. That cannot be!
1 John 5:7-8, KJB
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
“Father, Word and Holy Spirit” is unique to John and all the NT writers. The usual formula we find in scripture is “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”, which assuredly would have been used by a forger. God made this verse unique for a reason.
(Elijah, you missed a few witnesses for the Comma)The Comma also has strong manuscript evidence. Found in MSS 61, 88mg, 629, 634mg, 636mg, omega 110, 429mg, 221, and 2318. Also in two lectionaries (60, 173) and four fathers (Tertullian, Cyprian, Augustine, and Jerome). Although, Dr D.A. Waite says the Comma is found in over 20 MSS but I cannot find my exact quote.
I will attempt the grammatical argument. If the Comma is removed it will cause an irregularity in the Greek. The words “Spirit”, “Water”, and “Blood” are all neuters, but in verse 8 they are treated as masculine. In my understanding this is odd in the Greek and not typical. If the Comma is retained this can be accounted for. The masculine nouns “Father” and “word” in verse 7 regulate the gender in verse 8 due to the power of attraction principle. Elijah I know you will check to see if I am on target here since you will know more about this than I.
Of course as many of you probably already know most modern versions omit 1 John 5:7 but as it reads in the King James Bible, 1 John 5:7 stood unchallenged in the English Bible for over 600 years. If fact 1 John 5:7 is in the most widely used Bibles in history: John Wycliffe in 1380, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1525, the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Matthew’s Bible of 1537, the Taverner Bible of 1539, the Great Bible of 1539, the Geneva New Testament of 1557, the Bishop’s Bible of 1568, and of course the Authorized Version of 1611. It was not omitted from a standard English Bible until the English Revised of 1881. Now I realize that long tradition is not proof that something is true but it can be. Not only that but what about all the preachers, theologians, translators etc… could they have been fooled all those years. I think not. We should not remove the ancient landmarks. Prov 22:28.
The first influential Bible to omit 1 John 5:7 was the ASV, and it did so by the influence of a Unitarian, Dr Ezra Abbot. There is a direct connection between Unitarianism and modern textual criticism. The evidence for this can be found in the book: Modern Versions Founded upon Apostasy.
Possibly the best book on defense of 1 John 5:7-8 is, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 by Michael Maynard and When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version by Jack Moorman. Elijah I am giving you these resources since you said you had never really studied the other side. Being that most modern textual criticism is liberal, the books you will read in seminary will most likely not be any that support the TR and give the whole story as I have found out.
Here I will insert an expert on the Greek to show more of the internal evidence:
HOTI TREIS EISIN HOI MARTUROUNTES (EN TO OURANO, HO PATER, HO LOGOS, KAI TO HAGION PNEUMA; KAI HOUTOI HOI TREIS HEN EISI. KAI TREIS EISIN HOI MARTUROUTES EN TE GE) TO PNEUMA, KAI TO HUDOR, KAI TO HAIMA; KAI HOI TREIS EIS TO HEN EISIN.
The internal evidence against the omission is as follows:
1. The masculine article, numeral and participle HOI TREIS MARTUROUNTES, are made to agree directly with three neuters, an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. If the disputed words are allowed to remain, they agree with two masculines and one neuter noun HO PATER, HO LOGOS, KAI TO HAGION PNEUMA and, according to the rule of syntax, the masculines among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them. Then the occurrence of the masculines TREIS MARTUROUNTES in verse 8 agreeing with the neuters PNEUMA, HUDOR and HAIMA may be accounted for by the power of attraction, well known in Greek syntax.
2. If the disputed words are omitted, the 8th verse coming next to the 6th gives a very bald and awkward, and apparently meaningless repetition of the Spirit's witness twice in immediate succession.
3. If the words are omitted, the concluding words at the end of verse 8 contain an unintelligible reference. The Greek words KAI HOI TREIS EIS TO HEN EISIN mean precisely--"and these three agree to that (aforesaid) One." This rendering preserves the force of the definite article in this verse. Then what is "that One" to which "these three" are said to agree? If the 7th verse is omitted "that One" does not appear, and "that One" in verse 8, which designates One to whom the reader has already been introduced, has not antecedent presence in the passage. Let verse 7 stand, and all is clear, and the three earthly witnesses testify to that aforementioned unity which the Father, Word and Spirit constitute.
4. John has asserted in the previous 6 verses that faith is the bond of our spiritual life and victory over the world. This faith must have a solid warrant, and the truth of which faith must be assured is the Sonship and Divinity of Christ. See verses 5,11, 12, 20. The only faith that quickens the soul and overcomes the world is (verse 5) the belief that Jesus is God's Son, that God has appointed Him our Life, and that this Life is true God. God's warrant for this faith comes: FIRST in verse 6, in the words of the Holy Ghost speaking by inspired men; SECOND in verse 7, in the words of the Father, the Word and the Spirit, asserting and confirming by miracles the Sonship and unity of Christ with the Father.; THIRD in verse 8, in the work of the Holy Ghost applying the blood and water from Christ's pierced side for our cleansing. FOURTH in verse 10, in the spiritual consciousness of the believer himself, certifying to him that he feels within a divine change.
How harmonious is all this if we accept the 7th verse as genuine, but if we omit it the very keystone of the arch is wanting, and the crowning proof that the warrant of our faith is divine (verse 9) is struck out.
We must also consider the time and circumstances in which the passage was written. John tells his spiritual children that his object is to warn them against seducers (2.26), whose heresy was a denial of the proper Sonship and incarnation (4.2) of Jesus Christ. We know that these heretics were Corinthians and Nicolaitanes. Irenaeus and other early writers tell us that they all vitiated the doctrine of the Trinity. Cerinthus taught that Jesus was not miraculously born of a virgin, and that the Word, Christ, was not truly and eternally divine, but a sort of angelic "Aion" associated with the natural man Jesus up to his crucifixion. The Nicolaitanes denied that the "Aion" Christ had a real body, and ascribed to him only a phantasmal body and blood. It is against these errors that John is fortifying his "children" and this is the very point of the disputed 7th verse. If it stands, then the whole passage is framed to exclude both heresies. In verse 7 he refutes the Corinthian by declaring the unity of Father, Word and Spirit, and with the strictest accuracy employing the neuter HEN EISIN to fix the point which Cerinthus denied--the unity of the Three Persons in One common substance. He then refutes the Nicolaitanes by declaring the proper humanity of Jesus, and the actual shedding, and application by the Spirit, of that water and blood of which he testifies as on eyewitness in the Gospel--19.34,35.
We must also consider the time and circumstances in which the passage was written. John tells his spiritual "children" against "seducers" who taught error regarding the true divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ and regarding His incarnation and true humanity, and when we further see John precisely expose these errors in verses 7 and 8 of Chapter 5, we are constrained to acknowledge that there is a coherency in the whole passage which presents strong internal evidence for the genuineness of the "Received Text".
By Robert Lewis Dabney
I hope this has helped. There is just so much evidence for 1 John 5:7-8 I cannot adequately put it all here. Hopefully you will find the time to study it further and see the authenticity of the Comma.
Kent
I'm gonna break up my responses so that I can have one posted while working on others. I'm trying to respond by type of argument. Also, i started with your second post, so a response to the first will be at the end. I apologize for the lack of fluidity of this method, but my responses will be quicker this way
1st part, Manuscripts.
Concerning manuscripts.
I apologize. When I mentioned the 8, the only one i referenced by number was 61. The numbers for the others of the 8 are (vr stands for “variant reading” which means it is in the margin of the New Testament and not within the body of the text. I assume my “vr” is the same as your “mg.”) 88vr, 221vr, 429vr, 629, 636vr, 918, and 2318.
I’m not schooled in paleography, but from what I’ve read they can date this stuff by the type of ink used (chemical testing) and the style of writing mainly. I think there are some other minor factors but like I said, I don’t know much about it.
Here’s the rundown of those:
88vr-variant reading is dated 16th century, but was added to a manuscript written in the 12th century (Codex Regius).
221vr-non-dated variant reading added to a manuscript dating to the 10th century. So I’m guessing the variant reading is original (i.e. 10th century)
429vr-15th century manuscript with a variant reading.
629-Codex Ottobonianus. Its current house is the Vatican. 14th century, Greek/Latin parallel. The opinion seems to be that the Greek has been revised according to the Latin Vulgate.
636vr-15th century. Comma is a variant.
918-16th century. It’s at Escorial, Spain.
2318-18th century (wow, that’s young). Seems to be influenced by the Clementine Vulgate (official Catholic Bible, as sanctioned by Pope Clement VIII in 1592. To this day it is the official Catholic Bible)
Of the above, 61, and 629 omit the part about the 3 being 1.
Moreover, the witnesses marked by a vr (or in your case, mg), should also be taken with a grain of salt. Remember that this means that the Comma Johanneum is not part of the text of the Bible in these, but is rather, a note in the margins. These scribes understood it not to be a part of Scripture, but also knew that it was present in other (in their eyes, inferior) manuscripts (note-it was indeed in a lot of Latin manuscripts, so in all likelihood, the scribes are just referencing these and back-translating into Greek). Proving that the Comma belongs in using these is just like saying that the Holman Christian Standard (HCSB) references the Comma. In the HCSB, the Comma is in the footnotes, not in the text of the Bible. If you simply look up 1 John 5:7-8 in the HCSB, you will not find the Comma Johanneum. (According to John Stott, the NIV is like this as well. You wouldn’t quote the NIV for this verse, but it’s in the margin. I don’t personally own an NIV and couldn’t find a friend with one while I wrote this so I couldn’t check that.)
I intentionally left out the fathers. I noted that no Greek father quoted the Comma. I guess that means I left the door open for the Latin ones. Interestingly though, I have Augustine down as quoting a modified shorted version (the Spirit, the water, and the baptism), but not the longer. Also, Grudem (in Systematic Theology, p. 231) cites Tertullian as testifying to the shorter reading (i.e., Tertullian quotes the verses without quoting the Comma). I actually have Cyprian, Pseudo-Cyprian, and Priscillian (and a couple others of whom i've never heard) for Latin fathers mentioning it. I did not include them because they are not Greek.
Moreover, Grudem cites Clement of Alexandria and Athanasius as not citing the Comma. Athanasius is a very heavy piece of evidence because he was so deeply involved in the early church Trinitarian controversies.
I’m not finding the lectionaries (but I did find 884 in defense of the shorter reading) or 634vr or Omega 110. I switched over to the United Bible Societies’ 4th edition text for this. (the other one I had been using gives a good broad picture for every textual variant, while the UBS4 gives an exhaustive listing for the major points, such as this one.) I am confused about Omega 110. That sounds like an uncial, which would be major bonus points indeed, for they quit making those around the 8th or 9th century (ballpark range, of course). However, I’m reading that Omega (known as Codex Athous Dionysiou) contains only the 4 Gospels, except it is missing part of Luke. So I’m a bit confused here as to what we’re referring to by Omega 110.
All in all, the manuscript evidence against inclusion of the Comma Johanneum is as follows: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph), Codex Vaticanus (B) [Aleph and B are a good and powerful combo.], A, Psi, and 048 for the uncials; 1844, 1852, 33, 81, 322, 323, 436, 945, 1067, 1175, 1241, 1243, 1292, 1409, 1505, 1611 (I seriously did not just make that number up. I just had to stop and laugh at the irony for a few minutes.), 1735, 1739, 1846, 1881, 2138, 2298, 2344 and 2464.
In my opinion (which should probably be taken with a grain of salt), an internal argument will have to be the deciding factor if the Comma Johanneum is to be included in the pages of Scripture. The external evidence (Greek manuscripts, lectionaries and Church father quotes) seems to just be set against it.
(admittedly, I don’t have a book exhaustively describing every manuscript, just a “best of” section in a Metzger book.)
after the Uncials, that whole line of numbers (including 1611) are the miniscules
As for the grammatical argument, that was very impressive, complicated, and difficult to research, but I think I found a few things which may be helpful. For the record, I have a Textus Receptus, and I reference it/KJV for these two verses, noting only where the NA27 and ESV differ from them in the first.
1 Corinthians 12:2 Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led. (KJV)
[NA27/ESV says “when you were” rather than “you were,” but that difference is irrelevant to my point.] In 1 Cor. 12:2, “carried away” is a masculine participle. “Gentiles” is a neuter noun.
Revelation 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. (KJV)
“Armies” is a neuter noun (complete with a neuter article), whole “clothed,” which describes the armies, is a masculine participle.
These two examples stand to say that grammatical rules are not perfect, but merely made by men. Every glorious word of God’s truth is inspired, but as it seems, God sometimes inspires what we call “incorrect grammar.” This came up in Romans a couple times this semester (I think it had to do with Paul using a singular verb with a plural subject.). Dr. Schreiner asked “so did Paul mess up right there?” He answered, “Of course not! That bit of uncommon grammar is exactly what God wanted to get his point across.”
Yes, it is odd in Greek for genders to not match up, and no, it doesn’t happen very often, but the fact is that it does happen occasionally—specifically in at least two verses which we both agree to be the perfect word of God.
Moreover, scribes were prone to “correcting” odd grammar. The Alexandrian text type (Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, among others) is particularly prone to this type of error. Alexandria was somewhat of an intellectual center, and Alexandrian scribes, for whatever reason, felt compelled to “polish up” the grammar to meet a more formal style. I’m not really sure what high grammar and style mean, but from what I understand, it means “more complicated and harder to read” (according to my TTU philosophy professor/VERY conservative and Bible-believing Greek Orthodox scholar Clark Carlton, during class one day.)
Kent, you actually mentioned this in one of your earlier posts, about how the Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) “flagrantly made changes” in the book of Revelation. The reason is that Revelation uses so many “Semitisms” that it freaked out a bunch of scribes. Example: “Apo” is the word for “from” and it’s pretty much ALWAYS used with the Genitive case. However, in Revelation, it is sometimes used with the Nominative case (Nominative is pretty much NEVER used with a preposition-just so you know—in fact, until I read that little bit just now researching this, I’d never even heard of either case-apo with a non-Genitive or a nominative used as anything other than a subject/predicate nominative.) SO, in Sinaiticus, scribes added “God” or “Lord” after “from” to ease the grammar. They messed around with the text in other ways also in Revelation.
So, awkward grammar is usually the more probable reading than clean, polished grammar.
I’ll comment on the ancient landmark verse.
The word for “landmark” is “gbul” and it means “border, boundary,” or “territory.” The Brown-Driver-Briggs lexicon actually lists Proverbs 22:28 in a list of verses in which gbul has the specific meaning “Boundary of territory belonging to an individual-of field, piece of ground, etc.”
The verse is about stealing. To remove an ancient landmark is to remove a property marker from (most likely) your neighbor. Usually these property markers would be ancient, having been set up by forefathers, generations ago. By removing it, you are stealing land from your neighbor, lying about your own possession, and dishonoring your neighbor and his forefathers. I’m not so sure the verse’s meaning extends to theological and ecclesiastical traditions guiding how we do things now, though it’s very possible that the Catholics have quoted it at some point to argue for that.
Moreover, remember that the Comma’s presence in translations is a somewhat recent thing, since it was absent from all the early translations (Old Syriac, Peshitta, Harclean Syriac, Palestinian Syriac, Coptic, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic, Old Slavonic, Arabic, Nubian, Sogdian, Anglo-Saxon, and the Latin Vulgate pre-A.D. 800. It is present in some Armenian (NOTE: this is not the same as “Arminian.”) manuscripts, but only as a note in the margin.
Well, I guess that was response to point 1. (grammar)
Point 2. (absence makes it awkward that the testimony of the Spirit is there twice.) If twice is awkward, then how is three times better? The verse seems to me to be far more awkward if it retains the Comma Johanneum. In verse 6, John references Jesus, who came by water and by blood, and that the Spirit bears witness because the Spirit is truth. John then moved immediately into the argument that three (Spirit, water, and blood-all mentioned in verse 6) are bearing witness. So, how does it make it less awkward to stick a full-blown reference to the Trinity right there in the middle and break up the comparison, while adding at the same time a third reference to the Spirit bearing witness.
Try this (all who read): Read 1 John 5:6-8 a few times in the KJV. Maybe fast at first, but then read it again very slowly. Take in every word. Now go read 1 John 5:6-8 in the ESV (at least slowly, fast at first if you want). Which one is less awkward?
Furthermore, theologian John Stott offers a theological note. According to Stott, the Comma confuses the Biblical teaching of “testimony.” Throughout the New Testament, the pattern given is that the Father bears witness to the Son, by the Spirit (John 15:26, Acts 5:30-32). However, with the addition of the Comma, the teaching is that the Father, Son, and Spirit, all bear witness to the Son. This confuses also the nature of bearing witness. (Matthew 18:16, Deut. 17:6)
Point 3. I disagree with Dr. Dabney’s rendering of “eisin.” To all my knowledge, which granted is not as extensive as his, “eisin” means “are,” not “agree.” Literally, “the three are to the one.” Not that it affects interpretation much, since it’s obviously a reference to them all bearing witness to the same object. Theologically, the object of their agreement in testimony is Jesus Christ. However, “the one” is neuter, while Jesus Christ is masculine. BUT, as you mentioned before, all three (Spirit, water, and blood) are neuter. With three neuters being “to the one,” I’d expect a neuter. Grammatically, the “One” just isn’t a reference to Jesus, because “eis to…” is quite common, and you don’t usually translate the “to” as a reference to something. Greek does indeed have a word for “that” (ekeinos) and it is not used here. “Eis to…” is used a lot by Paul with an infinitive to mean “resulting in….” In the words of (once again, Dr. Schreiner) “It’s usually not a good idea to make an argument on the basis of the presence or the absence of the article. You’re probably not going to get very far with it.”
Now, in your first post you referenced my reference to Romans 1:4, in which the ESV translated “horidzo” as declare, rather than determine, set, or appoint. I readily admit that this is a mistranslation as a result of a theological bias. It is a true statement, because God is sovereign and anything he declares is set, designated, and appointed, but “declare” is not the precise meaning of the word—which is what I want to see in a translation. For, what happens if something is “theologically true” but not “linguistically precise” in an instance in which the translators’ theology is wrong? Give me precision over interpretation any day. That’s why I prefer the ESV and NASB over the NIV and NLT. (noting that one error, there are far fewer in the ESV and NAS than the others. In fact, if the three, only the NLT [and probably because Schreiner translated Romans for the NLT] did not repeat the error of translating “horidzo” and “declare” in Romans 1:4)
On top of that, if you look up Romans 1:4 in the KJV, you will find the word rendered “declare” there also. If it is an error in the ESV, it is an error in the KJV as well (though, admittedly, we have no way of knowing if the KJV was a result of theological bias or simply a bad lexicon).
Yes, it would have been a deliberate act to add stuff in. That’s what’s so terrible about it. However, bear in mind that some things were so outlandish or sinful-sounding (I.e. being angry, without case left out) that some scribes felt burdened that this couldn’t possibly be the original. So, they wrote down what they thought to be original. Now losses of space can and did happen, but it was usually because one word had the same ending as another word a few words down, or possibly that two lines ended with the same Greek word. The scribe would copy the first, look down, look back up at the second, mistakenly thinking it was the first, and keep going. These are usually pretty easy to spot, since just reading the text would usually clue you in to a major awkwardness or incompleteness in the flow of the thought. (I mean, if you carefully a sentence without a verb, you that something up.) (What SHOULD have been there is “If you carefully READ a sentence without a verb, you KNOW that something IS up.) Moreover, there is (what I take to be) an example in the King James of this.
1 John 3:1 (KJV) Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.
1 John 3:1 (ESV) See what kind of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God; AND SO WE ARE. The reason why the world does not know us is that it did not know him.
In this verse, the KJV leaves out the phrase “kai esmen” [and we are]. Now, the word directly before “kai” is the word for “called,” “klethomen.” (The e is an eta and the o is an omega, but I can’t differentiate that here. It’s pronounced “clay-[th-oh]-men,” with the accented syllable being the “tho.”) Notice that both “klethomen” and “esmen” end in “-men.” (It’s a very common ending, as it is the ending for “we” in verbs.) It is very easy to see how a scribe would have copied klethomen, and looked up simply at –men, and copied the next word, mistakenly being “dia” and not “kai.”
Now, I don’t know the statistics of how much stuff gets left out, vs. how much stuff gets added in, but I do know that all textual variants must be treated individually. That’s what makes text criticism so difficult. There are rules, but there are always exceptions, so there’s no “across-the-board” way of doing it. You have to treat every variant as its own entity, rather than classify it as “just another one like these over here.”
And, in all honesty, it doesn’t take a lot of imagination to add new stuff in. For instance, Matthew 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God (KJV). Now, the word for camel is “kamelos” and the word for rope is “kamilos.” Notwithstanding that the e and the i were pronounced exactly the same early on, some scribe probably knew that, figured Jesus wouldn’t be so over the top as to say camel, since his point is proven even by rope, and made the appropriate change. That doesn’t take imagination. Scribes were apt to alter the text to line up with what they agree with. That includes both deletion and replacement.
I completely agree that God has preserved his Word (though it may not sound like that). In all, we agree on 99% of Scripture, which is embarrassing compared to any other ancient document. Moreover, not one bit of that 1% or so affects matters of salvation. Wayne Grudem has an excellent section of his Systematic Theology dealing with trusting God in preserving his word. (It’s in one of the first few chapters). I’m just saying that the original manuscripts (the autographs) were the only thing inspired. There is no perfect translation, into any language of these, and yes, they have been corrupted over time, but God, in creating us in his image, has given us reason and as Christians, his Holy Spirit for discernment. Reason itself is not fallen, but as fallen creatures, we have the ability to misuse it. I’m just arguing that by God-given reason and the Holy Spirit, God has enabled us to recover his perfect, inspired, infallible, inerrant Word.
As to the last bit.
Kent, will you please restate your final argument (the one about the Nicolaitans and the circumstances around which 1 John was written)? I have tried and tried to get through it and understand it but I’m seriously struggling. Maybe it’s just always too late in the day and my brain is fried whenever I try.
Thanks,
-Elijah.
oh! one more thing. I just found a paragraph I wrote that I forgot to post.
(this was supposed to be the very beginning of the first thing i posted on this thread.)
I definitely agree that John is the most likely of New Testament writers to use the word “Word” to refer to Jesus, but the references to the Trinity are varied throughout the New Testament. Jesus (as recorded in Matthew) uses Father, Son and Holy Spirit while giving the Great Commission (to which I guess a case could be made FOR the Comma since pious Scribes would be more apt to imitate Jesus than others), however, I don’t see this as indisputable. In 1 Cor. 12 (and I admit that this isn’t universally agreed as a Trinitarian reference) we see “Spirit…Lord…God.” In 2 Cor. 13, we see “Lord Jesus Christ…God…Holy Spirit.” In Eph. 4, we see “one Spirit…one Lord…one God and Father.” Also in 1 Peter 1, “God the Father…Spirit…Jesus Christ.” My point in all of this is that there isn’t a set formula in the New Testament for referring to the Trinity, so the Comma’s use of the word “Word” to refer to Christ is far more impactful than its deviation from the “Father, Son, Spirit” formula. I will admit-props for using Logos to refer to Jesus. I just don’t think that’s enough by itself.
Elijah, You have made some excellent points. However my opinion is that you have not made a concrete 100% case for the omission of the Comma.
As everyone can see we will never be able to debate every single deletion in the modern versions, since there are thousands and the equivalent of First and Second Peter.
Further, you mentioned the NASB, in which S. Franklin Logsdon was part.
He participated in the founding of the NASV and wrote the Forward. After seeing what was being done to God’s word he disassociated himself from the NASV and later all the modern versions. His letter is critical of those involved and insightful into what is being done to God’s inerrant Word. If anyone would like a copy of his letter I can email it to you.
“Some people wonder how seemingly great, godly, spiritual men can be wrong concerning all of these modern versions. Ask yourself how so many intelligent people with earned doctorates are trying to find out how we evolved from apes and when the ‘big bang’ took place. Without regeneration there is no illumination. Without a faithful belief in God’s promise of supernatural preservation, there is no light.”
Douglas D. Stauffer, PH.D.
Still the glaring fact remains that per your testimony we do not have God’s 100% inerrant Word. In my opinion that makes God a liar. God said he would preserve His Word through all generations. If, as you say we have to figure out which is God’s inerrant Word, you know that will never happen as modern textual criticism goes. It will never be agreed upon which one word in a particular verse is God’s inerrant Word. I go beyond that and claim and stand that we already do have God’s 100% inerrant, inspired, infallible Word in the King James Bible.
The translation process of the KJB was God’s process of preserving His Word and giving it to us in English.
There is no one person, much less a group of scholars, theologians, etc… today that can hold a light to any of the KJ translators. Not only that but our language continues to change and as it does it is being water downed and getting worse not better, as all of Creation does. We are not any smarter today than those in the past we just have an accumulation of knowledge. There is no way someone today can know the Greek better than someone 400 years ago.
When we go to the Greek etc… and start changing God’s word and changing the whole meaning of a verse etc… we then become as god. Not only that but we get back to Catholicism when only the priests knew what God’s word said.
I am in no way saying that we cannot look a word up in the Greek etc…to get a better understanding of a word but changing, adding to, or taking away is another matter.
One conclusion I came to when comparing many different versions was:
“THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME!”
In which we all would have to agree.
If it is God’s Word then it should be in every Bible, if not God’s Word then it should not be there at all. One main reason is that verses and words that are missing affect major Doctrine.
So that there is not any confusion, I need to state my position more clearly by way of a little explanation of the so called debate.
I believe in the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture. “Plenary” is “Full”, (that is from Genesis to Revelation). ‘Verbal’ means the very words are God-breathed’.
There are 3 positions for King James “Only”:
1. Those who believe the King James Bible was given by VERBAL INSPIRATION by the Holy Spirit including the italics, which in effect, makes it a new revelation rather than merely an accurate translation. (in which I totally disagree)
2. The King James Bible should be the only Bible in any Language of the World. And that there should not be any translations into other languages. (in which I totally disagree)
3. The King James Bible should be the only English Bible used in the English speaking churches or homes for ministry. (my view)
I will further explain:
I believe that the Word of God is inerrant in its original inspiration and that God has providentially preserved an infallible transmission of it to this very hour. (Matt 5:18)
The King James translation is not inspired it is the Word of God that is inspired.
I hold this position because I believe the King James Bible is based on a superior New Testament text. I believe this for two reasons:
1. The first is that the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible was accepted by the churches. (Thus the name “Received Text”)
In which the church is the “…pillar and ground of the truth.” 1 Tim 3:15
2. Secondly, the Textus Receptus that underlies the King James Bible is attested by the evidence.
We must first “…realize that there are really only two types of Bibles. There accordingly are two distinct Greek texts from which the New Testament is translated. The one used since antiquity is commonly called the “Received Text” and is the source from which the King James Version of the Bible has been translated. The other Greek text is relatively modern in its creation and is commonly referred to as the “critical text”-sometimes called the “eclectic text.” From this modern textual base, almost all modern Bible translations have been made including the NIV, NASB, and other less used versions.” David H. Sorenson, D. Min
One thing that both sides agree on is that there were only 2 schools that gave us the Bible text. Alexandria and Antioch.
The Critical Text coming from Alexandria.
Just that alone would give you some doubt as the text used for the other versions. In the Bible Egypt is always portrayed as a picture of the flesh, the world, and of sin.
We know that we were first called Christians in Antioch.
We know that those who ran the school at Alexandria were Gnostics. (Oriegin, … One belief of Gnosticism is that it denies the Deity of God.
(This is documented.)
There are four kinds of Greek manuscripts that we have in our possession today:
1. papyri- These are small pieces of papyrus. Of which there are only about 88. 85% of these go along with the Received Text.
2. Uncial Manuscripts- These are Greek manuscripts written in capital letters which run together. There are about 267 uncials. 97% of these go along with the Received Text.
3. Cursive Manuscripts- Cursives (or minuscules) are Greek manuscripts written in longhand, or cursive. There are 2,764 of them. 99% or 2,741 go along with the Received Text.
4. Lectionary Manuscripts- Lectionaries were portions of Scripture in the Greek and Latin Bibles that were read in the churches. All 100% of them go along with the Received Text which underlies the King James Bible.
Simply put, we have a little over 5500 (Elijah said over 5800) Greek New Testament texts. Of which 99% agree with each other and that is what the King James Bible was translated from. (A side note here is that if we are still searching for God’s inerrant word we will never get through 5800 or so manuscripts).
Of the 1% left, they do not agree with each other and that is the text that all the other versions come from. They all came from Alexandria.
In case you are wondering about the Dead Sea scrolls. They all agree with the Received Text. That totally astonished the scholars.
It was kind of like God was saying: ‘ok you mess with my Word and I will show you I can preserve it’. (just my opinion)
The Doctrine of Inspiration and Preservation:
God promises to preserve His Word through the centuries: (Ps 33:11; 100:5; 111:7-8; 117:2; 119:89; 152,160; Isa 40:8; 59:21; Matt 5:18; 24:35; 1 Pet 1:23,25; Rev 22:18,19)
Ps 12:6-7
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
It is God’s job to preserve His infallible Word.
Scripture claims to be the perfect, inspired Word of God: (2 Tim 3:15-17; 2 Pet 1:19-21)
“But if the providential preservation of the Scriptures is not important, why is the doctrine of the infallible inspiration of the original Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first place? And if it is not important that the Scriptures be regarded as infallibly inspired, why is it important to insist that the Gospel is completely true? And if this is not important, why is it important to believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God? In short, unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing concerning the Bible and its text.”
Edward F. Hills (conservative Presbyterian, trained in the classics at Yale with a doctorate in N.T. textual criticism from Harvard.)
If you were Satan where would you put your most subtle attack?
Surely if you were Satan would you not add, subtract and change as much of God’s Word as you could.
Same today, he will not come right out and say Jesus never arose on the third day…etc… He will attack Genesis as true history, Job as a myth, Jonah as a fairy tale. You get the picture and I believe you realize that is what he is doing today if you have looked at any of the writings of the liberals of today and in the past.
We have Scriptural evidence that Satan has done just that from the very beginning.
First in the Garden of Eden. Where we find the first lie recorded in the Bible.
“Yea, Hath God Said?”
He got Eve to add to God’s word.
Then in Matthew when Satan was tempting Jesus he quoted scripture to Jesus but left out some of it.
Thus taking away from God’s Word.
In which both are clearly warned against in scripture.
Rev 22:18-19
18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Prov 30:6
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Point is there are some Satan corrupted manuscripts in existence today. And I say those are the ones the church did not receive or are the majority.
Sorry this is so long, I am not trying to compete with Elijah or Hayes for longevity. I will close with a quote from the man.
“If the book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture be doubted and be criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy…and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture of criticism, ‘These be thy gods, O Israel.’”
Charles Haddon Spurgeon- From the Sermon “The Greatest Fight in the World” (Inaugural address delivered at the Pastor’s College Conference in April 1891)
Kent
I apologize for the length of time it’s taken me to reply.
There are simply too many loose ends I need answered before I can stop.
I did, in fact, check out the “History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8” by Michael Maynard. I’m a bit disappointed in the book however. As far as readability goes, this is quite possibly the worst book I’ve ever read. The whole book (nearly 300 pages, excepting the appendices) is laid out by date. There is no progression of thought, just progression of date. Each new year is a new entry. This makes it extremely un-user-friendly.
MOREOVER, I found very early on (I did not read the whole book), that the author is guilty of a few philosophical sleight-of-hand tricks on to which many would not catch. For example, on page 39 Maynard gives the account of Priscillian’s mention of the Comma Johanneum in his work, “Liber Apologeticus.” (I mentioned this.) However, Maynard is quite sly as to how he records this.
His entry-
As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, and the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Jesus Christ.”
The original Latin is given below:
Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis: et haec tria in unum sunt. et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, uerbum, et spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.
Now, did anybody notice what just happened? You’ve probably been tricked by the author. Now I’m no Latin expert, but I did have two years of it, and I can make out most of the Latin here.
First off, THERE ARE NO QUOTATION MARKS.
In ancient times, there was no way to set off an exact quotation like we have in modern times (quotation marks). This is why New Testament writers often paraphrase Old Testament Scriptures, and yet they say “it is written…,” etc. That was acceptable in that culture. Maynard (and from the look of it, A. E. Brooke before him) ADDED quotation marks which SHOULD NOT be there. Most likely, they deliberately twisted the meaning of the quote in order to bend it to fit their preconceived notion of the text. The test could very easily (and I will argue, vastly more probably) read this way:
As John says “and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh, and the blood, and these three are in one,” and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Jesus Christ.
Notice the difference here? Does not the passage flow most naturally if the second part were simply commentary on the first? Moreover, The author substituted “Spirit” for “flesh” (surely anybody who has read the New Testament through even once would remember that these two words have pretty much the opposite meaning in Scripture). Not only that, but Priscillian adds that the second three are one in Jesus Christ, a leap the Comma Johanneum itself (as it is agreed upon by all) does not make. In my opinion, this is easily a commentary upon Scripture rather than an extended quote of Scripture.
If I am correct, that would make this instance a DELIBERATE ERROR AS A RESULT OF A THEOLOGICAL BIAS. Now, if you are quick to dismiss the entire ESV because of one deliberate theological error, then the same type of error places Maynard’s whole book into question.
I have also been reading the websites for arguments against the position to which I hold. Many are even worse than this. One website cites Tertullian as attesting to the Comma. (The book does this too.) In actuality, they quote him referring to the Trinity, and evidently, somehow that counts. Tertullian’s quotes in no way resemble the text of 1 John 5:7-8, but are a very clear attestation to the Trinity. I think that even considering this as evidence is deceitful to a great degree.
In all honesty, many of the arguments I’ve read against my position are just like the arguments evolutionists use against unsuspecting people, to turn them to their side. They twist the data so that it appears to support their cause, and those who see beyond their trickery are shunned. How many would know Latin enough to be able to read from Liber Apologeticus and know that any quotation marks were added in later by an editor? My guess is not many. How many would take the time to research the grammatical argument to see if there were any other instances in the Bible in which word genders (by the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit) do not line up? How many would simply think critically about a quote from an early church father and realize that he is not quoting that verse, and yet he is being counted as doing so? I mean, I believe in the Trinity-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit-one God, three persons. Did I just quote 1 John 5:7-8? According to Michael Maynard I did.
Speaking as a deliberate error as a result of a theological bias, another loose end is Romans 1:4. Kent, you did at least seem to admit that this is an error on behalf of the ESV translators, and yet the KJV translators rendered the same word with the same word.
Why is it good translating for them to do that in the KJV, but in the ESV it casts doubt on the entire translation?
FURTHERMORE, what about the unsuspecting house wife with her NIV? She got saved, and is doing her best to live for the Lord. Now, she doesn’t have access to all your arguments for the KJV as the only proper translation, but she’s not too smart and, having tried and failed to get through it before, finds that through the NIV she learns about Jesus, while the KJV hinders her. Now, if you were to confront her, she would simply be forced to take your word on it that the KJV is better. She would be forced to give up her copy of the Scriptures in favor of a translation that is cold and foreign to her.
Now, for me to do this to someone with a KJV, I would be making myself above the pope, telling someone what Scriptures they should and should not use. But is it ok to do this from the KJV perspective? Remember, she doesn’t have access to the information so it comes across to her the same way-somebody telling her she can’t trust that copy of the Scriptures through which she was saved and has been sanctified these many years. How does that make a KJV-only textual critic not like the pope?
Lastly (though I have more objections) I must reply to the Spurgeon quote.
I understand that everybody wants to be Spurgeon’s friend. A customer overheard me saying that at work and laughed at me. But really, think about it. The Calvinists quote him because he was a Calvinist. The Arminians quote him because he was a soul-winner. The Baptists quote him for rejecting infant baptism; the reformed quote him for his all-encompassing view of God’s sovereignty. I’ve seen him labeled as a Premillennialist by some and a Postmillennialist by others. Everybody wants to be Spurgeon’s friend.
However, context must be key.
Spurgeon was a soul-winner because of the influence of his Calvinism. It is usually, therefore, inappropriate for Arminians to quote him on that matter. Likewise with text criticism. Kent, you dated the quote at 1891. Remember where Spurgeon was at this point in his life. This was his last year alive, and he had just withdrawn his church’s membership in the local ‘baptist convention’ as a result of the downgrade controversy (surge of liberalism.)
There was indeed a degree of criticism going around-and it was HIGHER criticism, not lower criticism.
NOW, as proof that Spurgeon was talking about higher criticism and not lower criticism, I will conclude with my own “quote from the man.” This is the introduction to a sermon Spurgeon preached in 1885, about 6 years before the date you gave for your quote. (Spurgeon is remarkably known for never having changed his mind about matters of doctrine, so I assume his opinion stuck on this matter.) (I apologize that I do not have the volume this was published in originally, and spurgeongems.org frequently modernizes his language-which is why they are a regrettable last resort. Nonetheless, his content remains unchanged.)
The title: “AND WE ARE—A JEWEL FROM THE REVISED VERSION”
July 19, 1885
DEAR friends, the most of my text will be found in our Old Version, but for once I shall ask you to look elsewhere for a part of it. A genuine fragment of Inspired Scripture has been dropped by our older translators and it is too precious to be lost. Did not our Lord say, “Gather up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost”? The half lost portion of our text is restored to us in the Revised Version. Never did a translation of the New Testament fail more completely than this Revised Version has done as a book for general reading, but as an assistant to the student, it deserves honorable mention, despite its faults! It exhibits, here and there, special beauties and has, no doubt, in certain places, brought into notice words of sacred Scripture which had fallen out. We have a notable instance in my present text. Turn to the First Epistle of John, the third chapter, at the first verse—
“Behold, what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God.”
So far we keep to our Authorized Version. Now read the Revised Version, and note the words added—
“Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God: and such we are.”
The word “such” is not in the original. We therefore leave it out and then we get the words—AND WE ARE. There are only two words in the Greek—“and we are.” That the addition is correct I have not the slightest doubt. Those authorities upon which we depend—those manuscripts which are best worthy of notice—have these words and they are to be found in the Vulgate, the Alexandrian and several other versions. They ought never to have dropped out. In the judgment of the most learned and those best to be relied on, these are veritable words of Inspiration.
--In Christ,
-elijah
I will probably just jump around in my answer to your post as I am reading it.
We are trying to swallow camels here. It is just quotation marks.
As you stated the verse reads better without the Comma I totally disagree.
“…it is observable, that in the ninth verse of the chapter, the witness of God, the highest evidence that can be given to the truth of any declaration, is supposed to have been adduced in the preceding context. "If we receive," says the Apostle, "the witness of men, the witness of God is greater." But, if the seventh verse be rejected the witness of God is nowhere mentioned in the passage, and where, in that case, are the premises from which the Apostle draws his conclusion? He must be accounted, as some have termed the Apostle Paul, an inconclusive reasoner, the chain of his reasoning will be broken, and the meaning and design of the whole passage will become lame, perplexed, yea unintelligible.” By ROBERT JACK, D.D.
In the 16th and 17th centuries the Catholic and the Reformation editors were convinced of the authenticity of 1 John 5:7 based on the Greek manuscript evidence that they had. And in all probability some of that has probably been lost.
“Erasmus, in his Notes on the place, owns that the Spanish Edition took it from a Vatican MS, and Father Amelote, in his Notes on his own Version of the Greek Testament, affirms , that he had seen this verse in the most ancient copy of the Vatican Library. The learned Author of the Enquiry into the Authority of the Complutensian Edition of the New Testament [Richard Smalbroke], in a letter to Dr. Bentley, from these and many other arguments, proves it to be little less than certain, that the controverted passage 1 Joh. v.7 was found in the ancient Vatican MS, so particularly recommended by Pope Leo to the Editors at Complutum” (Leonard Twells, A Critical Examination of the Late New Text and Version of the New Testament, 1731, II, p. 128)
Since you made the statement on several points of your posts that it is only your opinion; neither you or I have the scholarship to fully question the past or present authorities on this issue anyway.
I did not say I agreed that there was an error in the KJB. I was just using that as an example to show if there were an error in the KJ as you suggested like there is in the ESV then we do not have God’s complete inerrant Word.
And yes to your statement that if there is one error in the ESV I would trash it. And I do not understand your statement that one error would trash Maynard’s book. Surely you do not hold Maynard’s or anyone’s book along side Holy Scripture. I am talking about God’s Word. That has nothing to do with a human written book in which we know all err. But God said He would preserve His inerrant word through all generations. That is a big difference.
I agree with you that Maynard’s book has problems and you are totally obligated and in your right to point them out. But if we go that route I can give quotes on most of the textual critics and translators to show most are liberal, deny inerrancy, deny inspiration, are not saved and are even homosexual…etc… And these are the line we should follow and trust to give us God’s inerrant, preserved, inspired Word? Just if you are a liberal, that bias will carry over into ones decision of which word is actually the one that should be translated and is God’s Word. I only told about 1/3 of what I have on Metzger which is very damaging, but I did not want to side track our discussion to that slant.
Hopefully most of you can see that evangelical scholarship today cannot be fully trusted as Mohler, along with many others, points out.
“…evangelicalism in the 1990’s is an amalgam of diverse and often theologically ill-defined groups, institutions, and traditions. …The theological unity that once marked the movement has given way to a theological pluralism that was precisely what many of the founders of modern evangelicalism had rejected in mainline Protestantism. …Evangelicalism is not healthy in conviction or spiritual discipline. Our theological defenses have been let down, and the infusion of revisionist theologies has affected large segments of evangelicalism. Much damage has already been done, but a great crisis yet threatens” (R. Albert Mohler, Jr., “Evangelical What’s in a Name?”)
As to your mention of Tertullian- obviously we see different meanings in his quotes. Yes, he did not directly quote the verse but-
“…Tertullian, who wrote a treatise against the heretic Praxeas, in which he has been considered as plainly referring to this verse. "The connexion," he says, "of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Comforter, makes an unity of these three, one with another, which three are one --- not one person; in like manner as it is said, I and my Father are one, to denote the unity of substance, and not the singularity of number." Here Tertullian plainly expresses his opinion and belief, that the Father and Son are one, and in the very same sense. He speaks of the unity of the persons in the Godhead, as a doctrine as well known, as generally believed, as little questioned, and as fully supported by Scripture, as the unity of the Father and Son, of which the passage he quotes, is as decisive a proof as any to be found in the New Testament. This testimony is the more valuable, not only from its proximity to the age of the Apostles; but because he assures us, that in those times, their authentic Epistles were actually read to the churches. [8] By this he understood to mean the autographs, the very originals of the Apostolical Epistles, which the churches to whom they were addressed had carefully preserved. That this is his meaning, is plain; for to these originals, he directly appeals in the eleventh chapter of his Monogamia, when speaking of some erroneous opinions, which were then attempted to be proved by Scripture, "We know assuredly," says he, "that it is not so in the original Greek." [9] --- We find, therefore, that about A.D. 200, not much more than an hundred years after this Epistle was written, Tertullian refers to the verse in question, to prove that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one in essence; a satisfactory evidence, that this doctrine, though asserted by some in our time, to be a dangerous novelty, was really the acknowledged faith of Christians in those early times.” .” By ROBERT JACK, D.D.
1 John 5:7 was in the Apostolos (Collection of Lessons) which is 5th century, and also contained in many of the Greek Lectionaries and Greek Bibles since the 16th century. It is my understanding that surely the Greek Orthodox Church would not ‘correct’ its own text from Latin in removing the Comma. And, found in lectionary Ordo Romanus (A.D. 730).
We also touched on the fact that for the past 900 years 1 John 5:7 is found in the majority of the Latin New Testament manuscripts.
“It is not true, that the most ancient Latin MSS. Of the New Testament want the celebrated passage of 1 John 5:7. For the Bible of Charlemagne revised and corrected by the learned Alcuin, has that text by the confession of our adversaries, and they have not been able to produce an older MS. where it is missing. The only pretended one of this sort, is Mabillon’s Lectionary, which after all is in not strictly a MS. of the New Testament , nor written in Latin but in a mixed language, called Teutonick-French, or Gallo-Teutonick” Twells, II, p. 153
Now back to the ancient church leaders. These did not directly quote 1 John 5:7 but refer to it in their writings. For space constraints I will not quote each.
Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.)
Cypian of Carthage (c. 250 A.D.) “The Lord says ‘I and the Father are one’ and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’”. He obviously quotes John 10:30 and 1 John 5:7. Nowhere else in scripture do we find the words “and these three are one”.
Athanasius (c. 350 A.D.)
Priscillian (380 A.D.)
Idacius Clarus (380 A.D.)
Jerome (382 A.D.)
Theodorus (4th century)
Gregory of Nazanzius (4th century)
Eucherius of Lyons (434 A.D.)
Vigilius Tapsensis (484 A.D.)
Victor Vitensis (484 A.D.)
Eugenius at the Council of Carthage (484 A.D.)
Fulgentues Ruspensis (507 A.D.)
Cassiodourius (550 A.D.)
Maximus, a Greek writer (645 A.D.)
Isiodore Mercator (785 A.D.)
Ambrosius Authpertus (8th century)
Walafrid Strabo (9th century)
“Lastly, we find no one Latin writer complaining of this passage as an interpolation, which is a very good negative evidence, that no just objection could be make to its genuineness. The Preface of Jerome blames some translators for omitting it, but till the days of Erasmus, the insertion of it was never deemed a fault.” (Twells, II, p. 138)
We also have the evidence from the Council of Carthage. I believe you may have mentioned this. (So many long posts from both of us I have not the time to go back and reread.)
Eugenius was the spokesman for the African bishops at the Council. He quoted 1 John 5:7 as part of their defense of Christ’s deity against the Arians. The bishops would not have done so if they thought the Arians would use it against them. The Arians did not and most certainly would have if they knew it was not in any Greek copy or few Latin copies. Thus the bishops had ample evidence to back up their use of the verse. In my unschooled opinion this is almost an irrefutable argument in favor of its apostolic authenticity.
And as I believe I have stated before that 1 John 5:7 has stood uncontested in English Bibles for over 500 years.
It was not until the 17th - 19th centuries that the call for the removal of 1 John 5:7 was made; and made by unbelievers, the modernists and Unitarians. This in itself ought to tell us something.
Now to the popular MYTH that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if Greek manuscripts were produced.
“Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or made to order” Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1st and 2nd editions).
This is a bold statement. But let us see if it will stand.
H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit, has refuted this myth. He is a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies. He stated that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise “has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.”
“Yale professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jonge, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus’ inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called ‘promise’ but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome’” (Jeffery Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages, 2001, p. 88).
Then Edward Hills who had a doctorate in textual criticism form Harvard said: “…it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church”
Then the bomb shell drops when Metzger in his 3rd edition corrected his false assertion about Erasmus as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in light of the research of H.J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2).
The problem is this myth continues to circulate today and Elijah and many of the modern version defenders have been duped into passing it along. Elijah this falls in with what you said about evolutionists, twisting the data and thinking we, the King James crowd, will not think anyone will check the evidence etc… This works both ways.
Now I will say this, that I myself have been guilty of not checking the evidence as thoroughly as I should before using it.
Here again Metzger’s bias led him to assume something he could not back up.
Well enough for now. This has become rather long. I will finish the rest on a later post in answer to Elijah’s ‘Furthermore’.
Most respectively,
Kent
To your analogy of the lady using the NIV- It is true that many find reading other versions easier to understand. In which I would somewhat agree. That does not negate the fact that they would not be reading all of God’s inerrant word, but just a part, and then how would we or they ever figure out which is and which isn’t. Then you have all the verses completely left out. If anything the modern versions cast doubt and confusion on the reader. I believe that is one of the reasons today we have so many lukewarm Christians on God’s word and saying ‘what is right for you may not be right for me’ and ‘truth changes depending on circumstances’ attitude. Just because you are not reading the KJB does not mean you cannot be saved, because salvation is through the gospel (Rom 1:16) and they contain the gospel. They may still be spiritual swords but weak swords as opposed to sharp swords. However, after the truth being brought to her attention, concerning the corruptness of the other versions, the truth is now in her hands and she has a decision to make. Just as we continue to study and find out that we may be a Calvinist, we now have the truth revealed to us and now have a decision to make. It does not matter if she understands all the evidence presented or not. I do not understand it all myself, but the difference is I saw the problems in words added and subtracted and know that all these different versions are causing confusion. (1 Cor 14:33) Not only that but because they have weakened the Word of God they are hindering ones spiritual growth.
Yes you should tell someone what scriptures to use if all the others are corrupt. I am the pope because I tell someone there is only one way to heaven and all these other ways are Satan energized? There can only be one God’s preserved word. There is no way you can have all these other versions be the complete, inerrant word of God. They are all different and things that are different are not the same. (That is really profound, but true.) I believe we have already seen this. And the normal reply is we have to find out which Greek words are actually His true words. How in the world is that possible today with over 5800 manuscripts and none have ever been in the same place at the same time. We will never be able to figure out which is the correct inerrant word. Especially in today’s liberal, apathetic world.
One main reason she will have in not understanding the KJB is that she does not read it enough. Once you become familiar with something it is easier to understand and read. Would this not be true of reading Greek and Hebrew, albeit they are foreign languages and the KJB being foreign to her as you suggested. Especially since the KJB is on an average 10th grade reading level.
As far as Spurgeon’s quote-
I used it because it was his last year. Initially he did not criticize the new text. However after having about 10 years to digest it all he did, and that was the quote I posted. I got that information from Les Garrett “Westcott & Hort: The Occult Connection and New Greek Text. (Queensland, Australia: Voice of Thanksgiving, 1997), 1-3.
“At the root of the whole mischief of these last days lies disbelief in the Bible as the Word of God. This is the fundamental error.”
John W. Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation 1861
Kent
Post a Comment