Featured The Johannine Comma & Biblical Inspiration

I would have to say not inspired. Doesn't meet the criteria. Just imagine what our charismatic brothers would do with this kind of license?

 

Perhaps. Aquinas thought the variants were inspired too. So, perhaps.

This isn't that viewpoint. Being open to discussing the Comma just means you're interested in getting to know biblical criticism better.

Well, the UBS4/5 and NA28 are better texts than the TR and MT. They, the UBS and NA are based on the best scholarship and most critically assembled texts. Since the TR has sections where Erasmus, not having the Greek documents, back translated Greek from Latin, it is an inferior text. We have far more data now than he did then. It doesn't make him a bad person, just a limited scholar.

I honestly don't have a view of the Johannine Comma worth discussing. It simply isn't my field and I haven't done enough research to have a decent opinion. GreekTim should have a fine opinion if he ventures around these parts. He is well informed. Likewise, John of Japan will have something worthwhile to say here too. And if we're lucky Jonathan.Borland will drop in for a spell.

Those are the folks who will likely have a good view. I don't have an informed view, but, because of my method, I default to the best scholarship.

 

The two manuscripts that the modern critical texts like Nestle Aland
and the UBS texts are based on are Vaticanus and Sinaiticus:

These two manuscripts differ from each other in over 3,000 places in the Gospels alone,

Just because they are older does not mean they are better, yet this is how many scholars think. this is absurd, For example:

I have the NWT in my library, I NEVER use it, so it does not wear out, my King James however I use every day, The NWT is going to last longer, some scholar finds it 1000 years from now, and then everyone accepts the readings it has because it is older and therefore "better".

Many people think older means better when it comes to manuscripts but this is not always the case.

There are numerous places where the critical texts have readings or omissions that are based one a handful of manuscripts that are all VERY CONTRADICTORY to each other in many other places.

It's very hypocritical for people to bash on 1 John 5:7 in the KJV because it is based on a small handful of manuscripts when text behind their modern translations have NUMEROUS places where they do the same thing with a Reading found in 5 or less Greek manuscripts.

Here's an old post I made in an older thread:

Here's one more:
Matthew 18:11(NIV): Non Existent
Footnote reads: Some manuscripts include here the words of Luke 19:10.

Matthew 18:11 For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Revision Revised pg 92
"The blessed declaration, “The Son of Man is come to save that which was lost,”—has in like manner been expunged by our Revisionists from S. Matth. xviii. 11; although it is attested by every known uncial except b א l, and every known cursive except three: by the old Latin and the Vulgate: by the Peschito, Cureton's and the Philoxenian Syriac: by the Coptic, Armenian, Æthiopic, Georgian and Slavonic versions:329—by Origen,330—Theodoras Heracl.,331—Chrysostom332—and Jovius333 the monk;—by Tertullian,334—Ambrose,335—Hilary,336—Jerome,337—p ope Damasus338—and Augustine:339—above all, by the Universal Eastern Church,—for it has been read in all assemblies of the faithful on the morrow of Pentecost, from the beginning. Why then (the reader will again ask) have the Revisionists expunged this verse?"

Since when does some mean all except 6? this is an outright lie.


Here is another post I made concerning the longer ending of Mark:

As To MANUSCRIPTS, there are none older than the fourth century, and the oldest two uncial MSS. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are without those twelve verses. Of all the others (consisting of some eighteen uncials and some six hundred cursive MSS. which contain the Gospel of Mark) contain these twelve verses.

There are also some very curious irregularities with both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. As Dean Burgon testifies, the Vatican manuscript has only one blank space in the entire manuscript and it is here at the ending of Mark 16:8. He says "it is amply sufficient to contain the verses, the column in question being the only vacant one in the whole manuscript." The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels, Volume 1, page 298.

As for Sinaticus, according to Dean Burgon pages 298-299, even Tischendorf (who discovered this codex) believed this whole section was originally canceled out and written over by a different scribe than the one who wrote most of the manuscript. Suddenly the letters in the columns become much larger than at any other place in the codex, either before or after. Dean Burgon points out that if the letters had been written in the normal size, there would be ample room for these missing 12 verses.

The oldest is the Syriac in its various forms : the "Peshitto" (cent. 2), and the "Curetonian Syriac" (cent. 3). Both are older than any Greek MS. in existence, and both contain these twelve verses. So with the "Philoxenian" (cent. 5) and the "Jerusalem" (cent. 5).

THE LATIN VERSIONS. JEROME (A.D. 382), who had access to Greek MSS. older than any now extant, includes these twelve verses; but this Version (known as the Vulgate) was only a revision of the VETUS ITALA, which is believed to belong to cent. 2, and contains these verses.

THE GOTHIC VERSION (A.D. 350) contains them.

THE EGYPTIAN VERSIONS: the Memphitic (or Lower Egyptian, less properly called "COPTIC"), belonging to cent. 4 or 5, contains them; as does the "THEBAIC" (or Upper Egyptian, less properly called the "SAHIDIC"), belonging to cent. 3.

THE ARMENIAN (cent. 5), the ETHIOPIC (cent. 4-7), and the GEORGIAN (cent. 6) also bear witness to the genuineness of these verses.

THE FATHERS. Whatever may be their value as to doctrine and interpretation yet, in determining actual word or their form, or sequence their evidence, even by an allusion, as to whether a verse or verses existed or not in their day, is more valuable than even manuscripts or Versions. There are nearly a hundred ecclesiastical writers older than the oldest of our Greek codices; while between A.D. 300 and A.D. 600 there are about two hundred more, and they all refer to these twelve verses.

1. PAPIAS (about A.D. 100) refers to v. 18 (as stated by Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. iii. 39).

2. JUSTIN MARTYR (A.D. 151) quotes v. 20 (Apol. I. c. 45).

3. IRENAEUS (A.D. 180) quotes and remarks on v. 19 (Adv. Hoer. lib. iii. c. x.).

4. HIPPOLYTUS (A.D. 190-227) quotes vv. 17-19 (Lagarde's ed., 1858, p. 74).

5. VINCENTIUS (A.D. 256) quoted two verses at the seventh Council of Carthage, held under CYPRIAN.

6. The ACTA PILATI (cent. 2) quotes vv. 15, 16, 17, 18 (Tischendorf's ed., 1852, pp. 243, 351).

7. The APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS (cent. 3 or 4) quotes vv. 16, 17, 18.

8. EUSEBIUS (A.D. 325) discusses these verses, as quoted by MARINUS from a lost part of his History.

9. APHRAARTES (A.D. 337), a Syrian bishop, quoted vv. 16-18 in his first Homily (Dr. Wright's ed., 1869, i. p. 21).

10. AMBROSE (A.D. 374-97), Archbishop of Milan, freely quotes vv. 15 (four times), 16, 17, 18 (three times), and v. 20 (once).

11. CHRYSOSTOM (A.D. 400) refers to v. 9; and states that vv. 19, 20 are "the end of the Gospel".

12. JEROME (b. 331, d. 420) includes these twelve verses in his Latin translation, besides quoting vv. 9 and 14 in his other writings.

13. AUGUSTINE (fl. A.D. 395-430) more than quotes them. He discusses them as being the work of the Evangelist MARK, and says that they were publicly read in the churches.

14. NESTORIUS (cent. 5) quotes v. 20 and

15. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA (A.D. 430) accepts the quotation.

16. VICTOR OF ANTIOCH (A.D. 425) confutes the opinion of Eusebius, by referring to very many MSS. which he had seen, and so had satisfied himself that the last twelve verses were recorded in them.

Mark 13:3
3New International Version (NIV)33 Be on guard! Be alert[a]! You do not know when that time will come.Footnotes:Mark 13:33 Some manuscripts alert and pray
English Standard Version (ESV)33 Be on guard, keep awake.[a] For you do not know when the time will come.Footnotes:Mark 13:33 Some manuscripts add and pray

A.V.-Mark 13:33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

The word and pray according to this book is found in Aleph,A,C,E,F,G,H,K,L,M,S,U,V,W,X,Y,Gamma,Delta,Th eta,Pi,Sigma,Psi,Omega,0104, 0116, in the Cursives is found in the majority of families 1 and 13, In the Old Latin:aur,f,ff2,g1,2,i,l,q,rl, and the Vulgate, in the Syriac: Peshitta, Sinaitic, Harclean, ,in the Coptic:Sahidic, Bohairic, also extant in Phi 047, 055, 0211.

Some manuscripts really?

the omissions of such that the NIV and ESV hold to are only supported by: B,D, the cursives p and C, The old latin a,c,k, and the Coptic Fayyumic. (Early MSS, Church Fathers, and the A.V., Moorman pg 166)

 

The KJV is more based upon Beza's TR and Stephanus' TR, than Erasmus' TR.

So this whole him back translating from Latin argument doesn't have much weight, Beza, Stephanus, and Elziever chose to retain it, I wonder why?

 

Though I agree with the basic tenet of your post, we don't KNOW any such thing since no on as seen the originals.

 

The originals don't exist!

[off topic comments deleted - this thread is not about preservation in one translation]

 

Admin note: Apologies to mods I thought this was in the translation forum.

 

Jordan... I have taken you to task on this, you admitted your flaws, and yet you still persist. If you are going to argue for a quotation, then you need to provide it. It may be alluded to or echoed, but it is not quoted as often as you claim.

 

No, not a chance.

You ever play that game where your youth group sat in a circle and the youth pastor whispered a paragraph-long story into the ear of the first peson in the circle, and he/she was expected to pass it on to the next, who passed it on to the next, and etc., etc., etc.? What happened to the story?

Same principle applies to early vs. late manuscripts. The inspired texts were only in the original languages and manuscripts. Inspiration did not apply to the duplication of the manuscripts, nor did it apply to later translation. The older the manuscript, the closer it is to the lost originals, and therefore the fewer copying and transcription errors occurred. When you start going back and forth between Greek and Latin, it gets even worse, because, just like going from Greek to English, there are many words for which there are no equivalents in either language.

But we can agree that it is highly unlikely if not impossible for the words to "disappear" from the earliest manuscripts and then make a reappearance 900 years later, can we not?

 

No problem. Just that we can't categorically state that we KNOW.

 

Textual criticism should be stated in terms of probability. However, there are some that might say that the comma is so unlikely to be original that it borders on the absurd. Thus you have the categorical statements.

 

Unless he is Will Kinney, he stole the article:

http://brandplucked.webs.com/mark16920.htm

 

Ugh.. I read that and I thought Will Kinney sounded familiar. Then I remembered this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H1dWcTGnUQ

The guy called into James White's radio show a couple years back apparently. I just watched this recently. The dude simply can't understand logic or reason and he slanders White.

Provided this is the same Will Kinney of course.

 

Wow, I had forgotten how good that was.

 

Agreed. Dr. White got really frustrated with him. Probably a little too sharp.

But I really can't blame him. I would have said and acted way worse probably.

 

How do we know that the manuscripts that omit the phrase are the best and most reliable?!

 

Among other things, they were the oldest yet found and hence closer to the original autographs.