1 John 2:23 (KJV)

Ironically, you have hit on a place where the KJV follows the shorter reading, thereby taking away from God's inspired words.

This is low hanging fruit that I will refuse to pick.

 

1 John 2:23 (New American Standard Bible)

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

1 John 2:23 (New International Version)

No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.


The "but" in question may have just been added for translational purposes. The italics meaning its not in the Greek but added for English grammar or understanding.

Nothing controversial to me.

 

The italics meaning its not in the Greek.

Hodges' view from "The Gospel page 55 is below:

“The principle source of confusion in much contemporary study of 1 John is to be found in the failure to recognize the real danger against which the writer is warning. The eternal salvation of the readership is not imperilled. It is not even in doubt as far as the author is concerned. But seduction by the world and its antichristian representatives is a genuine threat which must be faced.”​

I've felt it was telling us, that anyone who denies the Son does not have the Father abiding in him.
A person who denies the Son does not have an abiding relationship with the Father. These folks are all unbelievers and those believers who are not abiding in God ​

In school I was taught:​

That this tells us that it is impossible for a true Christian, one who “has the Father,” ever to deny the Son. This seems inconsistent with other Scripture, such as 2 Tim. 2:12-13, as well as human experience. Christians have denied Christ, to avoid being killed yesterday and today in some parts of the world, for example. ​

 

No, it's actually a textual variant. The Byzantine text form has the shorter reading that omits the last part.

Italics in the KJV or NASB usually indicate words supplied to make sense in English what is apparent in Greek. In this case, it seems to be similar to the brackets used in NASB, to indicate that something has textual support, but is controversial.

It will be interesting to see Askjo and some other weigh in on why the KJV omits the words of God here.

 

I John 2:23 as found in some versions and texts:

"Low hanging fruit?" That's a slam, IMO, and one that neither Olivencia or any others deserve, at least here, thus far. (However, the thread is young yet, so I'm fairly sure this may be well-deserved a bit later.)

How about "honesty which is a better word, IMO, instead, by the translators, in acknowledging the doubtful MSS "authenticity" for these words, when given in the translation?

FTR, the BIS shows this with the use of the brackets. The normal usage of the KJV is the usage of italics, as has been noted.

I suggest that any "low hanging fruit" here, would include both include the 'crack' and twin implied assumptions that (1.) Any "shorter reading" is some attempt to somehow take away from God's written Word. and (2.) If it's found in the KJV, it must be what God intended, 'cause otherwise, it would not be found in the KJV.

No one on this thread, including Pastor Larry, deserves this either, but as I said, the thread is still young, so just hold on to the remark until it's actually needed. :laugh: :laugh:

Ed

 

I took the phrase "low hanging fruit" to mean an 'easy target', not a slur. Am I wrong about that?

 

So where did the addition (or omission) of "he who confesses the Son also has the Father" come from? The most important versions (Latin, Syriac, Coptic) have the addition, but the majority of later manuscripts, i.e., the Byzantine text, does not. I think I remember reading that even Maurice Robinson, who normally defends the Byzantine reading, actually argues against it here, since it appears that the shorter text contains an error of omission known as homoeoteleuton (accidental skipping of text due to similar endings, i.e., from "has the Father" in 1 John 2:23a to "has the Father" in 1 John 2:23b), and that no early manuscripts, versions, or fathers have the shorter reading. I think the earliest manuscript that has the shorter reading is from the 9th century. Why did so many of the later manuscripts propagate the shorter reading, then? Isn't that against their natural proclivity? Interesting test case!

 

This verse has been discussed on the BB before. I could not locate the previous threads with the newly designed search interface (which doesn't work as well as the previous, IMO); perhaps others will fare better.

 

It wasn't IMO, and I am the authority on that since I wrote it. I mean that this is an easy target for pointing out the inconsistency of the KJVO crowd. I am not going to take the bait.

It wasn't pointed at Olivencia.

I explained that in my post.

that's my point. The KJVO has to argue for a shorter reading (which they despise in TC), and they have to face the charges that the KJV is calling into question the authenticity of words, and in fact, if they followed the manuscripts they claim to followk, they have deleted words ... words that testify to the deity of Christ. So these people are calling into question the deity of Christ.

But that's low hanging fruit that I won't address.

 

I did not take your words of "low hanging fruit" as particularly meaning an "easy target" in the initial post, and was not able to follow up on any other post until now.

I suppose that 'dangling the bait' might be another matter, however.

Again,

Ed

 

I just learned from Dr. Robinson that, contrary to my previous comments in this thread, he indeed supports the dominant Byzantine reading, i.e., the shorter reading (without "he who confesses the Son also has the Father.") This is an interesting case where the *shorter* reading is rejected by most critics (usually it is the longer reading that is rejected) simply because the preferred MSS do not have the shorter reading this time.