1 John 2:23 ... for Thomas ... or anyone with actual knowledge about it

Hi Pastor Larry,

I read a piece by Dr. Peter Ruckman (EEK?) concerning this passage. I am unable to cite the work, I'll try to find it, but he said that the manuscript sources that were available to the KJV translators did not have these words at the end. Many of the translators knew of the ending and were sure it was authentic so they used the italics as a compromise.
Later, after publication, it was found to be genuine.

Maybe a KJVO person knows where Dr. Ruckman's piece concerning this passage is located (I read it on the WWW).
I'll get back to you if/when I find it.

HankD

 

but he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also This clause is missing from many texts, including the 1551/1598 GNT edition which were the primary texts of the translation committees, but is in the Alexandrian texts, in four of Beza’s manuscripts, and in some Byzantine MSS; and in the Vulgate, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions.

It stands as strong attestation to not only the scholarship, but the honesty of the KJV translators. Even though it was not in the Greek texts they were using, they were convinced it was canonical, so they included it, but in italics, indicating they had no MSS support for the reading. Later those MSS containing the reading were made public, and the excellent work of the translation committees was vindicated.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
1. Did Erasmus have access to this reading and reject it or did he simply not have access to it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I don't know. You will have to ask him! <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Is the Byzantine family split on this reading? Do you know approximately what the percentages of inclusion/exclusion are?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The MSS evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the reading. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. Do you consider this as a strong point against those who claim perfection (as opposed to superiority) for the TR?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No. To me it is a non issue. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. Since it is clearly canonical, why was not the TR corrected to reflect this as it was corrected on other issues throughout its revisions? Related to this, why have not the italics been removed since it has been vindicated as a part of the original?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Both the TR and KJV have been corrected. The TR to include the reading and the KJV to read in normal type. My current copy of the TR contains the reading 'ο'ομολογων τον υιον ουδε τον πατερα εχει. Also, my current copy of the KJV contains the reading in normal type.

[ November 04, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Pastor Larry,

If you don't mind me jumping into your nice conversation with Thomas, I would like to throw in my 2 cents regarding your follow-up questions.

1. It is unlikely that Erasmus had access to the disputed reading. I suggest this for two reasons. 1) if Erasmus did have access to it, he would have likely included it, and 2) Erasmus of course only produced five editions before others took on the work. His first edition was based on seven mss., and the following four editions introduced textual critical changes from only a handful of mss. plus the Complutensian Polyglot. Erasmus had many fish to fry other than maintaining the printed GNT. Nowhere is there evidence that he spent tremendous effort to make monumental textual critical upgrades to his GNT. Your question would be more probing had there been such an effort, and yet he left out the reading in question.

2. The Byzantines are split, as Thomas said, but the variant is clearly canonical

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. Do you consider this as a strong point against those who claim perfection (as opposed to superiority) for the TR? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

On this one, if I was tempted to press this as an argument against the TR perfection folks, they likely would reply by saying that the TR was in the process of being perfected by Estienne and Beza (and others)so that now it is perfect because it includes it. However, Those that claim a perfect TR should at least have to choose which edition is perfect.

4. Your question for Thomas and his answer is yet another illustration that there was some effort by editors of the TR bring it into line with the byzantine majority, however there are of course ample examples where the TR supports a minority reading. Hence the existance of the Hodges/Farstad text.

I do agree with Thomas on the point that this isn't an issue with me--I will continue to stick with my trusty UBS4

Chick

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Chick Daniels ]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
If it should be included (which it should), then we must say that the edition of the TR from which the KJV was translated was not perfect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And which TR edition was that? The KJV is as eclectic a translation as you will ever find. The contributors to the KJV would include, but are not limited to, <UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI>Erasmus' 3rd edition of 1522<LI>Latin Vulgate<LI>Complutensian Polyglot of 1522<LI>The Tyndale Bible of 1525/1534<LI>Luther's Version of 1522<LI>The Zurich Bible of 1529<LI>The Coverdale Bible of 1535/37/50/53<LI>LeFevre's Bible of 1534<LI>The Matthew's Bible of 1537/49/51<LI>The Olivetan Bible of 1535<LI>The Great Bible (Cranmer's) of 1539/40<LI>The Bishop's Bible of 1568/1606<LI>The Geneva Bible of 1557/60<LI>Diodati's Bible of 1607<LI>Stephanus' edition of 1550<LI>The Old Latin (various of both the African and European editions)<LI>Tepl's German edition<LI>Waldensian Bibles[/list]And that's just the New Testament! The truth is that the KJV is not based on any single edition of Erasmus, or Stephens, nor of any TR. All available evidence, manuscript, textual, and versional, was taken into consideration by the Westminister group, the Cambridge group, the Oxford group, the Stationers' Hall Committee, and the final Publication Committee prior to submitting the finished product to Robert Barker, the Royal Printer.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Thomas Cassidy:
The truth is that the KJV is not based on any single edition of Erasmus, or Stephens, nor of any TR. All available evidence, manuscript, textual, and versional, was taken into consideration by the Westminister group, the Cambridge group, the Oxford group, the Stationers' Hall Committee, and the final Publication Committee prior to submitting the finished product to Robert Barker, the Royal Printer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pretty impressive, Dr. C. Have you done extensive study on this topic - or were you an observer of the proceedings?

 

I took my Th.D. in textual criticism and teach both Textual Criticism and Manuscript Evidence at the Seminary. My Manuscript Evidence class includes an entire semester on English Bible translation including the historical setting, translation, textual base, translators, and language of the KJV.