Wrong Numbers in the Modern Versions

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

robycop quoted:
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, I suggest you quit believing the baloney those KJVO authors such as Riplinger or Ruckman write until you check out the VERACITY of their statements. You may be in for a pleasant(or UNpleasant) surprise! I think you MEAN well, but you've read too much hooey from those KJVO authors, as your statements reflect a lot of their stuff. Please take time to see WHO'S telling the TRUTH!!
--------------------------------------------------

I don't believe the way I do because of Riplinger, or anyone else for that matter. I have Riplingers book, but have not read it in a while, and have not read even the most of it. As for Ruckman, I have never read anything by him, and have only heard of him from people here, and from others who have warned about his extremist view. I believe the way I do based upon the evidence that has been shown, and by the conviction of my heart by the Lord Himself, concerning this issue.

I am listening to "Who's telling the truth", and that is the Lord God Almighty himself to me. Do I demand that you, or anyone else for that matter, must believe the same way I do just because the Lord has shown this to me? NO, absolutely not. If it be in his will, and your desire, he will show you also. I am only explaining this to you regarding my conviction, because you all greatly enjoy assuming things of a person that are not true. Some even riducule and insuate that because those of us that claim our conviction regarding this is from God, we are or must be apostates and false prophets, which I expect again after posting this, but: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

May the Lord continue to richly bless you all.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Ever heard the saying, "The Holy Spirit's no substitute for preparation"?

The Scripture says we are to study.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


gb,

I believe the way I do based upon the evidence that has been shown, and by the conviction of my heart by the Lord Himself, concerning this issue.
Does studying the evidence shown count as study in this issue? If not, then none of us here are qualified to make any comment on it whatsoever.

Does the Lord speak to you with his word? Does he convict your heart of his truth reading/hearing his word? Does the Holy Spirit convict your heart that every word you are reading/hearing, are his very words to you personally? What scriptures has the Lord convicted you of for your support and/or use of versions that have omitted his word of truth, and weakenend His doctrine?

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Historically your position is without merit. People had the scriptures long before King James was even born.

If you will read any good book on the transmission and copying of the manuscripts you will quickly find out that words were added in the margins to help explain the text and then later made their way into the text. The job of the textual critic is to try and determine which is text and which is not.

I am sure you do know that earliest manuscript used to translate the KJV in the NT was 12 century. Today they have some from the second century for the NT. We also know that the earliest manuscript for 1 John 5:7,8 is 16th century. It was added in at that time. Today since they have discovered earlier manuscripts they have noticed that none have those verses. So what would you concluded from just that alone?

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
JohnV quoted:

The only way to be consistent in that thought is to believe then that the source texts of the KJV have been altered from the earlier manuscripts, since the KJV source texts don't appear on the scene for hundreds of years AFTER the earlier texts
--------------------------------------------------

I totally disagree with this. Just because the manuscripts are older, does not make them more accurate. Apostacy had infiltrated the churches even during the days of the apostles. God's preserved words were NEVER lost, and the saints of God have ALWAYS HAD THE WORDS OF GOD, for they are what we are to live by. And because of this, it makes more sense that the more recent manuscripts would contain the more accurate. Knowing this, and seeing that long standing and long understood verses of God that had been used, believed and carried on by the churches to be taken out, because the earliest manuscripts found in modern days, do not include them, should cause one to question them, and make one consider the fallacy of this. Erasmus, and many other scholars of those days, knew of those manuscripts, and had access to them, but yet chose not to use them. Now all of a sudden, in these modern days, God is now doing a new thing, and giving God's people a new Bible with weakened doctrine, and many ommissions.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle;

The majority text method is much like one saying that because the majority of people in America use coins that say, "In God We Trust" therefore the majortiy of people in America trust God. It is the majority that rules. If one were to watch TV you would think that the majority of Americans live in a war zone because the majority of the news is bad. Therefore America is bad.

If you use that method of determining the text of the Bible then that would leave the original manuscripts wrong. There was only one of them and the majority disagree with them. The greater the number of manuscripts the greater the number of scribal errors.

 

My study has shown exactly the opposite of what you ahve shown. The scribes added material in the margins to try and explain the text. Later it came from the margin into the text. It is the work of the textual critic to try and determine what the original text was.

If you noticed that every manuscript that preceded the sixteenth century did not have 1 John 5:7,8 in it what would you conclude about those two verses? I would conclude that they have been added. I am confident that in what I have readand studied that the evidence shows just that. Sometime takes a look at some photostat copies orf some of the manuscripts. It is quite an education to see what is actually there. You can go online and take a look at a few if I remember right.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

If you use that method of determining the text of the Bible then that would leave the original manuscripts wrong. There was only one of them and the majority disagree with them. The greater the number of manuscripts the greater the number of scribal errors
--------------------------------------------------

You are believing the modern scholars lies. The Recieved Text are the majority texts that agree one with the other, and the modern day scholars have claimed that because the majority of the texts in the Recieved texts all agree one with the other, they view them as being "one" text. You are believing lies of liberal scholars, who do not believe in the preservation of the scriptures, and who approach tranlsation of the very words of God as they would any other book.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

The majority text method is much like one saying that because the majority of people in America use coins that say, "In God We Trust" therefore the majortiy of people in America trust God. It is the majority that rules. If one were to watch TV you would think that the majority of Americans live in a war zone because the majority of the news is bad. Therefore America is bad.
--------------------------------------------------

gb,

your analogy of this is flawed, and shows your lack of faith in the preservation of the scriptures, that God has promised. We are talking about the scriptures, and God's pure and holy words of truth to those whom he loves. WE are talking about God Almighty and what he has said, and promised, who cannot and does not lie. You have kept yourself stuck in the myth that older must be better and more accurate. Think with the wisdom God gives you, and the promises he has made, rather than looking at this with carnal and secular eyes, as the world does.

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!


--------------------------------------------------
gb quoted:

If you noticed that every manuscript that preceded the sixteenth century did not have 1 John 5:7,8 in it what would you conclude about those two verses? I would conclude that they have been added. I am confident that in what I have readand studied that the evidence shows just that. Sometime takes a look at some photostat copies orf some of the manuscripts. It is quite an education to see what is actually there. You can go online and take a look at a few if I remember right.
--------------------------------------------------

gb,

You are speaking of "what if's" which is not based upon "faith" (I am not speaking of your faith in Jesus Christ, nor your salvation, but faith in God's promises of preservation) but "doubt". My KJV has these verses, and I know that the trinity is the truth. Therefore my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and the truth of the trinity, and the evidence that my Bible has this included as the scriptures, and has been long accepted, taught, believed, preached for centuries mandates that this is the truth. You, I fear are believing lies of the modern scholars of today. The KJV translators translated from the received text, which was the preserved words of God used by the churches since the very beginning of the churches. The same cannot be said of the critical greek text which underlines the modern versions.

love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Michelle:I don't believe the way I do because of Riplinger, or anyone else for that matter. I have Riplingers book, but have not read it in a while, and have not read even the most of it. As for Ruckman, I have never read anything by him, and have only heard of him from people here, and from others who have warned about his extremist view.[/i]

If you wish to know more about the versions issue, I might suggest you read Riplingers book, then check out for yourself the veracity of her assertions for yourself while disregarding any statements made by myself or others, either in her favor or against it.


I believe the way I do based upon the evidence that has been shown,

**WHAT** EVIDENCE ? ? ?


and by the conviction of my heart by the Lord Himself, concerning this issue.

Scripture, please?

I am listening to "Who's telling the truth", and that is the Lord God Almighty himself to me.

Once again, SCRIPTURE, PLEASE?


Do I demand that you, or anyone else for that matter, must believe the same way I do just because the Lord has shown this to me? NO, absolutely not. If it be in his will, and your desire, he will show you also. I am only explaining this to you regarding my conviction, because you all greatly enjoy assuming things of a person that are not true. Some even riducule and insuate that because those of us that claim our conviction regarding this is from God, we are or must be apostates and false prophets, which I expect again after posting this, but: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

Sorry, Michelle, but we've seen many who claim they have a conviction from God, when it turns out that what they have is something they only ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY by claiming it's from God, & they've told themselves that thing so many times that they actually begin to BELIEVE it, despite all the contrary evidence. An extreme case is that of Colin Ferguson, the NYC subway shooter who claimed a conviction from God to shoot every non-Carribean person he saw. While I don't think you're anywhere that extreme, of course, I believe you're desperately trying to convince yourself that KJVO is from God, despite the MOUNTAIN of evidence AGAINST that doctrine, including a complete lack of Scriptural support, and including the CLEAR, MAN-MADE ORIGINS of the modern KJVO myth.

You repeatedly mention the differences between "families" of mss, but you cannot even begin to prove one is right & the other is wrong. You say that the older mss have OMITTED material, but your ONLY "proof" is that there's more material found within the newer mss. THIS IS REVERSE LOGIC and CIRCULAR REASONING! There's a MUCH-BETTER CASE to be made that the NEWER mss have ADDED material. Why? If the OLDER mss did NOT contain some material found in the NEWER ones, then WHERE DID THAT MATERIAL COME FROM, in the time gap between the older & newer mss?

You speak of FAITH. Well, WE have faith also. We have faith that God has preserved, presented, & provided His word in the various languages as He chose, and that He still does so-AS HE CHOOSES. We have faith that God has presented clear evidence in how He's chosen to provide His word in English to the various generations, by the various English BVs He'a allowed to be made over the last 600 years, not one being like any other. The fact that He's caused His word to be translated into over 2400 languages, none of which is like any other, should speak volumes to all Christians, but that fact's apparently over the heads of the KJVO Christians.

Please take time to do a REALITY CHECK, Michelle. Reality IS of GOD, you know. It's FALSEHOOD that's of the devil. Please review the EVIDENCE for yourself, and see exactly WHERE we who are anti-KJVOism are coming from. We have COLD,HARD, FACTS right in front of us while KJVOism has only guesswork, opinions, fables, innuendo, double standards, and rhetoric with no proof behind it, and, most telling, NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT WHATSOEVER!

 

You got it!!!!

John 16:13,Proverbs 22:17-21,and 1st Corinthians 2:9-14....

Boo Ya!!!

 

I stated a fact not a "what if". What I mentioned about 1 John 5:7,8 is factual not my opinion. The trinmity exists in many places. But I am talking about the actual text only.

 

You got it!!!!

John 16:13,Proverbs 22:17-21,and 1st Corinthians 2:9-14....

Boo Ya!!! </font>[/QUOTE]John 16:13But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

The Holy Spirit has indeed opened my eyes to evidence that KJVO is a false doctrine. He's caused me to see its man-made origins & caused me to search the Scriptures closely enough to see there's absolutely NO Scriptural support for such an idea.

Proverbs 22:17 Pay attention and listen to the sayings of the wise;
apply your heart to what I teach,
18 for it is pleasing when you keep them in your heart
and have all of them ready on your lips.
19 So that your trust may be in the LORD ,
I teach you today, even you.
20 Have I not written thirty sayings for you,
sayings of counsel and knowledge,
21 teaching you true and reliable words,
so that you can give sound answers
to him who sent you?

One facet of wisdom is actually finding evidence for something you're trying to prove, and presenting that evidence to those who disagree with your view. Now, while not claiming to be wise, I AM reasonable enough to know proof and evidence when I see it, and to reject a view that's presented with nothing to verify it. Thanx for providing more Scripture against KJVO.

1 Corinthians 2:9However, as it is written:
"No eye has seen,
no ear has heard,
no mind has conceived
what God has prepared for those who love him" -- 10but God has revealed it to us by his Spirit.
11The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words. 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Nice Scriptures(as are ALL Scriptures) but I see no proof that He showed Michelle or anyone else here anything positive about a PROVEN FALSE DOCTRINE.

I know you're saying that here's Scriptural proof that God reveals things to us by the Holy Spirit. But I don't believe He supports any false doctrines at all.

 

Bruce Metzger A Textual Commentary On The Greek New testament, Second Edition, pages 647-649


1 John 5:7,8
After marturountes the Textus Receptus adds the following: en tw ouranw Pathr, ho logos kai houtoi oi treis hen eisi (8)kai treis eisin oi marturountes en th gh. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.

(A) EXTERNAL EVIDENCE. (1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation 'from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. T'he eight manuscripts are as follows:
61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
88v,r : a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
221v,r : a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
429v,r : a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbiittel.636v,r : a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
918 : a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
2318 : an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.
(2) The passage is quoted by 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 (codex Fuldensis [copied A.D. 541-46] and codex'Amiatinus [copied before A.D. 7161) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).
The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle 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. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of I John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
(B) INTERNAL PROBABILITIES. (1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the Passage makes an awkward break in the sense.

For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on I John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, "1. John v. 7 and Luther's German Bible "' in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1988), pp.458-463.

 

Someone it appears is wrong or slanted.

You even wrote on your website, " The Greek texts include 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century). Just look at what Metzger writes and what you have on your website. That is close to what he writes. I find it interesting that both you and he claim almost the same thing about the manuscript evidence. It doesn't mean that a saying or writing didn't occur as we know those things did. But I don't see any manuscript evidence from the Greek texts to indicate this. So I am interested in taking a look at the other sources you post.

I took a look at other parts of your website and noticed several quotes from the Early Chruch Fathers. I have a search ability on the documents and could not find one single quote of any I searched.

So to start with could you reference the quote by Tertullian, " 200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

Could you also give me the reference to 250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "it is written, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he get it?


I would like to take a look at the quotes first hand. So if you could give me the references would be great. Thanks

 

Found at http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/1john5-7.htm
Then click on "download word document" at the bottom of the page.

The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8
by
Daniel B. Wallace, Th.M., Ph.D.
Associate Professor of New Testament Studies
Dallas Theological Seminary
[email protected]

“5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.” --NET Bible
Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.
This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manu-script until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally writ-ten in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity. The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church.
The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus’ Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text, as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold.
Modern advocates of the Textus Receptus and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johan-neum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be origi-nal. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Prot-estant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).
In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a bibli-cal faith is one that is rooted in history.
Significantly, the German translation done by Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battle-ground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.
Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition. If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they’d be writhing in their graves.

 

From http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/sub/1jn5_7f.htm

1 John 5:7-8

A Review of

A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8 by Michael Maynard. Tempe, Ariz.: Comma Publications, 1995. $31.50

Reviewed by Doug Kutilek &lt;[email protected]&gt;

Reprinted by permission from: As I See It, v. 3.10, October 2000



No doubt this book cost its author a great deal of labor, but it proved to be a sadly misguided and poorly-directed effort. The book is one vast presupposition in search of evidence (the author admits as much). He starts with the conclusion, that I John 5:7 is a genuine part of John's epistle, and then seeks support for this a priori conclusion wherever and by whatever means he can. Defects in evidence, evaluation of evidence, evaluation of sources, uses of sources, selective use and misuse of evidence, and even logic, reason and deduction crowd virtually every page.

There indeed was a famous and centuries-long debate, beginning in the 16th century, about whether I John 5:7 (and a bit of v. 8) was a genuine part of I John. That debate was over in the mid-19th century, by which time the great bulk of the evidence had been gathered and evaluated. F. H. A. Scrivener, a defender of the Byzantine/majority text-type asserted that no one whose opinion was worth considering accepted this passage as a genuine part of I John. The evidence is simply overwhelming. Only 4, all very late, of nearly 500 manuscripts of I John have the disputed words in the text, none of them agreeing exactly with the printed form found in the so-called "received text." Four more manuscripts have the disputed words in the margin, in some cases at least having been copied there from printed editions. To this is added their absence from all the ancient versions of the NT except the Latin versions, and even there it is absent from the original form of the Vulgate, and with considerable variations among the manuscripts which do have it--a regular sign of a spurious text (the few Armenian manuscripts that reportedly contain the passage are apparently back-translations from printed Greek texts, and therefore of NO independent value as witnesses. Ditto for the Slavonic).

No Greek-speaking church father, even during the great Trinitarian controversies of the 2nd-4th centuries shows any knowledge whatsoever of the existence in Greek of the disputed words, which is simply inexplicable if they are genuine, seeing how the Greek fathers ransacked the Bible from Genesis to Revelation for every possible proof text--real or imagined--for the doctrine of the Trinity (Maynard slides over this glaring fact with scarcely any notice at all, yet it is a crucial consideration). Those who have carefully weighed this mountain of evidence have uniformly come down on the side rejecting the passage as non-original. If all the evidence against the insertion of these words can be set aside on the basis of the meagerest of evidence, as Maynard would have us do, then we would be left with not even the least amount of certainty of the genuineness of a single word in the NT.

The flaws of the book are manifold and serious. First, Maynard has more or less regurgitated in print every single bibliographical reference that he unearthed that had even the most remote relevance to the purported design of the book as indicated in the title (and in many cases, these bear no relevance at all). Sources are listed one after another after another in chronological order, most with no discussion or analysis as sources. No doubt, in most cases, Maynard had never seen the items he lists. Nevertheless, he throws them at the reader in rapid succession, supposing that he will be heard for his much speaking (the book could be shortened by half if all this extraneous material were edited out).

Maynard badly misrepresents many of his sources. Typical is his appeal to Gregory Nazianzen (pp. 40,41) as though he were a supporter (at least indirectly) of the disputed words. Rather than pointing out a grammatical irregularity in I John 5:8, Gregory is defending the passage as it stands (without verse 7) against a criticism raised against it by a critic. A reading of the whole passage in the original source demonstrates this.

Maynard supposes that merely noting a critic of some aspect of his view, and then dismissing him, is adequate rebuttal. He twice refers to me, and in neither case responds to the contents of my writings. He notes that I affirmed in print that Erasmus was a lifelong Catholic (a view Maynard and his fellow-travelers find distasteful since they are all but surgically-attached to Erasmus' Greek text). Maynard fails to mention that in the paper he refers to, I give quote after quote after quote from Erasmus' own mouth affirming his loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church, its pope and its doctrine. His own mouth hath betrayed him. Yet Maynard with a straight face affirms that there is no real evidence that Erasmus was a lifelong Catholic.

In another place, Maynard notes my declaration that with the exception of one very careless Adventist writer (who sparked the modern KJVO movement) all written sources known to me declare that the Waldensian Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate (and not the Old Latin). Rather than interact with my sources, Maynard merely quotes from a writer in his camp who asserts the contrary, without a single shred of supporting proof. He also repeatedly affirms or quotes affirmations that the Old Latin is virtually the same as the "received text," but never offers any examples of readings which support the assertion. Indeed, numerous readings showing large differences from the received text can and have been compiled to disprove the assertion, but Maynard shows no knowledge of it. Such methodology is not convincing.

Maynard slices the evidence as thin as possible, and then boasts of the pile of proof he has. For example, he notes that the disputed passage is found in Wycliffe's English version, all the pre-Luther printed German Bibles, and a German manuscript perhaps of Waldensian origin, but fails to mention the fact that all of these were based on the Latin Vulgate version as it existed in the late Middle ages, and in effect do nothing more than testify that the passage is found in the Medieval Vulgate, something not in dispute. All these Bibles have no authority beyond that of the Vulgate on which they were based, and therefore do not constitute twenty or so separate authorities, but only one--that of the already-known Medieval Vulgate version.

Maynard also appeals to faulty evidence. He expressly notes that the presence of the disputed verse in some printed editions (not manuscripts) of the Syriac Peshitta is known to be due to an editor inserting his own Syriac translation of the Greek words into the text against all known Syriac manuscript authority. Maynard then turns around and cites four such deliberately altered printed texts as though they had authority in deciding the issue!!!!

Documentation is often sorely lacking, or grievously incomplete. Secondary sources are cited in a number of places where primary sources could and should have been quoted.

Sometimes Maynard translates Latin and German quotations into English for the reader and sometimes he doesn't (in at least two cases, untranslated quotes are unfavorable to his thesis, and may have been deliberately left in an "unknown tongue").

One of the most amazing things in the book is what isn't there. No place does Maynard assemble the few Greek witnesses supporting the insertion, and show exactly how they read. One would suppose that he would present in detail the evidence which actually may be appealed to in support of his presupposition, but it will be sought for in vain here.

Among Maynard's favorite tactics is "poisoning the wells," that is, he supposes that simply by hanging some distasteful epithet on some man he has completely discredited that man's views and opinions on a subject. In one place, he assembles a list of theologically-tainted men--chiefly unitarian or arian in theology--and by showing that they uniformly rejected I John 5:7, this is somehow supposed to discredit the opinion they held regarding I John 5:7's genuineness. Of course, Maynard has selectively left off the list a long list of Trinitarian writers who likewise deemed the evidence against the genuineness of the passage as overwhelming, men like Burgon, Scrivener, Luther, Tregelles, Tyndale, Horne, Scofield, etc. etc.

Maynard can minimize unfavorable evidence with the best of them. When he wishes to downplay the differences between the received text and the majority text, he quotes an estimate of some 1,000 differences, while the actual figure is much closer to 2,000 differences. He is either ignorant of this fact, or has chosen to ignore it. In either case, he is culpable, in the one of suppression of evidence, in the other of inadequate research. Maynard will have to greatly improve the quality of his research, writing and judgment if he ever hopes to be taken seriously as an author.

I have scarcely touched the serious and pervasive flaws present. Only the poor quality of the binding and the worse quality of most of the illustrations can match the contents for badness. On the whole, I am left with a mental image of Jeremiah's basket of inedible figs.

For an honest and concise presentation of the evidence regarding the passage, I suggest the reader consult the passage in the commentaries of Adam Clark, Henry Alford, and B. F. Westcott, or Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (I could expand this list sizably, but these are generally accessible sources). While none gives all the known evidence, each gives an adequate picture of the evidence and its evaluation, in contrast to Maynard's monstrosity.

---Doug Kutilek

 

I found the debate about this to be quite interesting found at http://www.revneal.org/latmandebate.html