Textual Criticism

EdSutton · Jan 14, 2009

Keith M said:

Who would ever think you're making fun of the KJVs, Ed? BTW, if I were you I'd get that BP cheked out if you haven't already. My BP goes the other way, but as long as I'm on my meds it remains in an acceptable range. I've never had if go as low as yours - at least not that I know of.
Click to expand...

It was not my BP. It was pretty normal at for me 108/62 at the time, considering I rnage form about 105-118 on the top, and anywhere from 55-72 or so on the bottom. Only the heart rate was slow, that day.

Incidentally, my bride is a very highly trained cardiac nurse (who has turned down the chance to be the head of the cardiac unit, where she works at the KY hospital that does the most cardiac procedures in the state, three different times), and she keeps pretty close tabs on me, as do my doctors, as well.

Ed

Keith M · Jan 15, 2009

EdSutton said:

It was not my BP. It was pretty normal at for me 108/62 at the time, considering I rnage form about 105-118 on the top, and anywhere from 55-72 or so on the bottom. Only the heart rate was slow, that day.

Incidentally, my bride is a very highly trained cardiac nurse (who has turned down the chance to be the head of the cardiac unit, where she works at the KY hospital that does the most cardiac procedures in the state, three different times), and she keeps pretty close tabs on me, as do my doctors, as well.

Ed
Click to expand...

Sorry, Ed, my bad. But that's still awfully low for a pulse rate, too. And it's good your wife and your doctors keep an eye on you.

Know why the elder years of a person's life are called the golden years, Ed? It's because we line the doctors' pockets with gold.

Salamander · Jan 15, 2009

Tell your wife if the toothbrush had been invented anywhere else other than Kentucky it would now be called the "teethbrush", then DUCK!:tongue3:

EdSutton · Jan 15, 2009

Salamander said:

Tell your wife if the toothbrush had been invented anywhere else other than Kentucky it would now be called the "teethbrush", then DUCK!:tongue3:
Click to expand...

Sorry, you're way behind, on this one. She and/or her best friend, who is also my sister-in-law, told that one to me, several years ago, including the actual town, at which it was invented.

Ed

Salamander · Jan 16, 2009

Mexdeaf said:

If you are so 'settled' then- great, we have nothing further to discuss with you and you can just ignore this forum from now on.
Click to expand...

You wish, my little mexican jumping bean!:laugh:

Salamander · Jan 16, 2009

Keith M said:

Do certain verses "remove" a word that probably wasn't in the original texts, Sal, or do they preach "another gospel" altogether?
Click to expand...

Let me ask you all, what Gospel is there without repentence?

I know! I know! the one that sends people straight to hell!:tear:

Salamander · Jan 16, 2009

Keith M said:

As always, you're wrong, Sal. The church was doing just fine with God's word in its various translations until the schismatic and divisive KJVO teaching appeared. The error is yours, not Dr. Bob's.
Click to expand...

Confirmation of the Bible's clear teaching concerning all doctrines by its wordings to present a clarity which could not be denied, except where certain words have been omitted, and although the thought is implied by the text, is to have a perfect Bible.

Like I said, show me a gospel devoid of repentence and I'll show you a teaching that sends people to hell!

Keith M · Jan 17, 2009

Salamander said:

Confirmation of the Bible's clear teaching concerning all doctrines by its wordings to present a clarity which could not be denied, except where certain words have been omitted, and although the thought is implied by the text, is to have a perfect Bible.

Like I said, show me a gospel devoid of repentence and I'll show you a teaching that sends people to hell!
Click to expand...

Sal, you keep going back to "omitted" words. This probably isn't the case at all. In general, the older and therefore more reliable texts don't have many words found in the newer texts. It's much more likely the newer texts used in the translation of the KJVs actually added words to what was originally written. Your assumption the words are omitted is nothing more than your opinion based on the fact the words appear in the KJVs.

Can you show us a single Bible translation that teaches something other than repantance? I'm not talking about a translation that doesn't have the word in a particular verse. That only means the text the translation is based on didn't have the word there originally. I'm talking about a translation that actually teaches something else.

:tonofbricks:

Askjo · Jan 17, 2009

Keith M said:

Sal, you keep going back to "omitted" words. This probably isn't the case at all. In general, the older and therefore more reliable texts don't have many words found in the newer texts. It's much more likely the newer texts used in the translation of the KJVs actually added words to what was originally written. Your assumption the words are omitted is nothing more than your opinion based on the fact the words appear in the KJVs.
Click to expand...

Not true. This shows your inclination of conspiracy to defend modern versions over the KJV. The apographs from which the KJV and Modern Versions were derived are where many words were found. The MODERN VERSIONS OMITTED words from the older apographs, but the KJV retained them. The Modern Versions [hateful slander removed] omit the words from the older apographs. The KJV follows the providential preservation of the Scriptures in the apographs because the apographs were derived from the autographs where God inspired His Words. [more removed].

Salamander · Jan 17, 2009

A-MEN! PREACH-IT!

annsni · Jan 17, 2009

OK - Statement made. Evidence is quite lacking historically. Sorry - doesn't work. What about the fact that 1 John 5:7 is not found in ANY of the manuscripts from any earlier than the 10th century. When Erasmus translated from the Greek to English for his translation, he did not include it and noted: "In the Greek codex, I find only this about the threefold testimony: 'because there are three witnesses, spirit, water, and blood' " He did not include it and said that he would NOT include it until someone showed him a manuscript that had it. The one manuscript that was given to him was a very late manuscript but true to his word, he added it, but added in the Annotations, "I have restored the text...so as not to give anyone occasion for slander." It was not added because he felt it was supposed to be there but to keep his word. Adding it was not adding something dangerous so it went in.

However, today we only have 8 manuscripts that include it. Want to talk about adding?? Only 8 manuscripts out of thousands have it and we say it should be there? What kind of evidence is that??

sag38 · Jan 17, 2009

Ann, the manuscripts don't matter. You don't need them. You don't need the Greek or anything else for that matter. The KJV is the Word of God period. The cannon is closed with this version.

Of course I don't believe that but it all comes down to that statement. Right or wrong that's the KJVO bottom line stance. Don't confuse them with any facts. Don't expect logic, sound Biblical research or exegisis, or just pure common sense to matter. They don't!

annsni · Jan 17, 2009

sag38 said:

Ann, the manuscripts don't matter. You don't need them. You don't need the Greek or anything else for that matter. The KJV is the Word of God period. The cannon is closed with this version.

Of course I don't believe that but it all comes down to that statement. Right or wrong that's the KJVO bottom line stance. Don't confuse them with any facts. Don't expect logic, sound Biblical research or exegisis, or just pure common sense to matter. They don't!
Click to expand...

Yep - that's the exact argument. I agree.

Salamander · Jan 17, 2009

I think his arguement was rather that Father Son and Holy Ghost was better fit than "spirt,water, and blood"

Your statement about it not being until the 10th century is false!

[SIZE=-1]200 AD[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas [/SIZE]

Now since he QUOTED it, it most certainly came WAY before the tenth century!

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.

The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.

1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

Click to expand...

annsni · Jan 17, 2009

Salamander said:

I think his arguement was rather that Father Son and Holy Ghost was better fit than "spirt,water, and blood"

Your statement about it not being until the 10th century is false!

[/LIST]
Click to expand...

It was not quoted as Scripture. Here's from Bible.org

The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

Also available in: Download Word Document

A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”) The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum. Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):

(2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.

Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.” The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.

Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).
Click to expand...

Askjo · Jan 17, 2009

Salamander said:

I think his arguement was rather that Father Son and Holy Ghost was better fit than "spirt,water, and blood"

Your statement about it not being until the 10th century is false!

200 AD[SIZE=-1]Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas [/SIZE]

Now since he QUOTED it, it most certainly came WAY before the tenth century!

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.

The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.

1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

Click to expand...

[/list]
Click to expand...

Another one is Cyrian (200-258 AD). He witnessed this verse and quoted it.

annsni · Jan 17, 2009

Askjo said:

Another one is Cyrian (200-258 AD). He witnessed this verse and quoted it.
Click to expand...

This is not true. While I don't like Wiki to be a source, the information tests true in my experience and is well summarized:

Several early sources which one might expect to include the Comma Johanneum in fact omit it. For example, although Clement of Alexandria (c. 200) places a strong emphasis on the Trinity, his quotation of 1 John 5:8 does not include the Comma.[2] Tertullian, in his Against Praxeas (c. 210), supports a Trinitarian view by quoting John 10:30, even though the Comma would have provided stronger support. Likewise, St. Jerome's writings of the fourth century give no evidence that he was aware of the Comma's existence.[3] (The Codex Fuldensis, a copy of the Vulgate made around 546, contains a copy of Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Gospels which seems to reference the Comma, but the Codex's version of 1 John omits it, which has led many to believe that the Prologue's reference is spurious.)[4]

The earliest reference to what might be the Comma appears with the 3rd-century Church father Cyprian (died 258), who quoted John 10:30 against heretics who denied the Trinity and added: "Again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one.'"[5][3] Daniel Wallace notes that although Cyprian uses 1 John to argue for the Trinity, he appeals to this as an allusion via the three witnesses—"written of"—rather than by quoting a proof-text. Cyprian did not say written that. In noting this, Wallace is following the current standard critical editions of the New Testament (NA27 and UBS4) which consider Cyprian a witness against the Comma. They would not do this were they to think him to have quoted it.

The first work to quote the Comma Johanneum as an actual part of the Epistle's text appears to be the 4th century Latin homily Liber Apologeticus, probably written by Priscillian of Ávila (died 385), or his close follower Bishop Instantius. "Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text."[5]
Click to expand...

Salamander · Jan 17, 2009

annsni said:

It was not quoted as Scripture. Here's from Bible.org
Click to expand...

You'd better check his wording as how he denies the facts, Ann, he is using a play on words. several had quoted the verse as found in the KJB to include the Trinity.

Askjo · Jan 17, 2009

annsni said:

It was not quoted as Scripture. Here's from Bible.

orgThe Comma Johanneum and Cyprian

By: Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Bio)

Also available in: Download Word Document

A friend recently wrote to me about the KJV reading of 1 John 5:7-8. He noted that I had not mentioned Cyprian in my essay on this text and that some KJV only folks claimed that Cyprian actually quoted the form that appears in the KJV (“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”) The question is, Did Cyprian quote a version of 1 John that had the Trinitarian formula of 1 John 5:7 in it? This would, of course, be significant, for Cyprian lived in the third century; he would effectively be the earliest known writer to quote the Comma Johanneum. Before we look at Cyprian per se, a little background is needed. The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):

(2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome ... or (c) as revised by Alcuin...

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.

Thus, a careful distinction needs to be made between the actual text used by Cyprian and his theological interpretations. As Metzger says, the Old Latin text used by Cyprian shows no evidence of this gloss. On the other side of the ledger, however, Cyprian does show evidence of putting a theological spin on 1 John 5:7. In his De catholicae ecclesiae unitate 6, he says, “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’” What is evident is that Cyprian’s interpretation of 1 John 5:7 is that the three witnesses refer to the Trinity. Apparently, he was prompted to read such into the text here because of the heresies he was fighting (a common indulgence of the early patristic writers). Since John 10:30 triggered the ‘oneness’ motif, and involved Father and Son, it was a natural step for Cyprian to find another text that spoke of the Spirit, using the same kind of language. It is quite significant, however, that (a) he does not quote ‘of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Spirit’ as part of the text; this is obviously his interpretation of ‘the Spirit, the water, and the blood.’ (b) Further, since the statement about the Trinity in the Comma is quite clear (“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit”), and since Cyprian does not quote that part of the text, this in the least does not afford proof that he knew of such wording. One would expect him to quote the exact wording of the text, if its meaning were plain. That he does not do so indicates that a Trinitarian interpretation was superimposed on the text by Cyprian, but he did not changed the words. It is interesting that Michael Maynard, a TR advocate who has written a fairly thick volume defending the Comma (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 [Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995] 38), not only quotes from this passage but also speaks of the significance of Cyprian’s comment, quoting Kenyon’s Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Macmillan, 1912), 212: “Cyprian is regarded as one ‘who quotes copiously and textually’.” The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.

Thus, that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes).
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I learned that Daniel B. Wallace is no friend of the KJV/TR. I also learned that Metzger is an unbeliever according to a source.

annsni · Jan 17, 2009

Salamander said:

You'd better check his wording as how he denies the facts, Ann, he is using a play on words. several had quoted the verse as found in the KJB to include the Trinity.
Click to expand...

From the quote I have above from Bible.org, Cyprian says "“The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one’; and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one.’”" That is not 1 John 5:7. Can you show me the exact quote that quotes the verse? Maybe I've missed it.

Textual Criticism

EdSutton New Member

Keith M New Member

Salamander New Member

EdSutton New Member

Salamander New Member

Salamander New Member

Salamander New Member

Keith M New Member

Askjo New Member

Salamander New Member

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

sag38 Active Member

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Salamander New Member

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Askjo New Member

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Salamander New Member

Askjo New Member

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Textual Criticism

EdSutton New Member

Keith M New Member

Salamander New Member

EdSutton New Member

Salamander New Member

Salamander New Member

Salamander New Member

Keith M New Member

Askjo New Member

Salamander New Member

annsni Well-Known Member Site Supporter

sag38 Active Member

annsni Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Salamander New Member

annsni Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Askjo New Member

annsni Well-Known Member Site Supporter

Salamander New Member

Askjo New Member

annsni Well-Known Member Site Supporter

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

annsni Well-Known Member
Site Supporter