Dean John Burgon demolishes Westcott-Hort textual theories

[micah719]

The urgency of the project of preservation of Scripture is indeed vital. I just don't see it as a binary all-or-nothing sort of thing. The variances between the most popular consensus Bible texts do not affect any doctrines of significance, as best I can tell.

The UBS/NA texts are shorter and there are many changes, and yes, they do affect doctrine. Couple that flawed base text and combine it with Nida's poisonous methods and you get a very different "Bible". There may be enough in it for The HS to convict and save a sinner, but that same sinner is handicapped from the start and will be stunted in growth. The devil knows he cannot simply destroy the Bible in one go, that would be too obvious, so he twists it and corrupts it.

I cannot describe KJV as "good plain English." English was not a better language 500 years ago than it is now. It's a different language. Vocabulary has changed. The meanings of tenses have changed. Pronouns have changed. The ways that we structure our sentences have changed. A Koine reader of the first century would not have read the NT and thought, "This book communicates to me that it is old." But that's exactly what KJV does to a modern English reader. It's unavoidable, since its use of English is antiquated, exotic, and extravagant. The fact that you don't find it so speaks to the practice you've put in to become familiar with it, not to a supposed inherent plainness of the text.

The English we use today is inferior to what we used 50 and 100 years ago, and 400 years ago was at its height. It is not much of a stretch to become familiar with the AV, and the diligent student will find the riches preserved in it.

Promotion of KJV today has exactly the effect you detest. It generates a class system within English speakers as to those who can readily translate from 16th Century English into 21st Century English, and those who cannot. It's a de facto idolatry of late medieval grammar. If Bible translators are automatically Nicolaitans, then so were the KJV's translators.

Lol, I'm not very good at either 16th C English or 21st C English. My English is Aussie circa mid 1970's plus all the books I've read since and all the other influences. I'm becoming an old fogey compared to the kids who come from school with little to show for 10 to 12 years of socialist brainwashing. It isn't hard to decipher the AV, it has a very small vocab compared to Shakespeare. What the modern versions do is to strip the complexity of the originals and preserved to a great extent in the translation to English in the AV, and dumb it down for modern readers. The modern readers that are the targets for the modern versions are by intention of the scribes the "unchurched", the "seekers"...as though the Bible could be de-mystified and brought down to the level of the modern-schooled, worldly, unregenerate sinner. Why, when the sinners in the past learned to read from the AV, as well as understand it very well. The modern version scam goes hand in hand with the widespread arminianism, easy-believism, false professions, lukewarm believers, entertainment in stead of expository preaching and diligent private study. The modern versions are sinners Bibles in the sense that they can find far more ambiguity and wiggle room for heresies and private interpretations, just as modern churchianity is the sinners religion because they are not focussed on repentance and holiness, because at the root of it is that vile idol freewill.

OK. I had never heard of them and do not use those sorts of tactics to discredit views other than my own.

Look a little further in the thread, you'll see what I am getting at. The accusations against Riplinger and Ruckman are for the most part justified. Gail has told bald public lies and look at what it does to her testimony and the testimony of anyone daring to stand for the AV. Ruckman can be very nasty and his position tends toward cultism. I'm not about to toss them both on the trashheap of condemnation, but I will caution anyone that stands for the AV to defend those persons when the defence is indefensible. We could take the same tactic and attack the anti-AVites with ad-hominems and character assasination, the material is there in abundance, but it is better to simply stick to defending the AV on its merits and show the modern ver$ion$ for what they are; corrupted Bibles that are unnecessary and inferior.

We'll see! Could be tomorrow, or might not. I'm not as sanguine as you are about the utility of KJV for the typical modern reader, though. This isn't a knock on KJV in particular; all documents over 250 years old present similar issues of impenetrability to the modern mind. It's not a matter of trusting the Holy Spirit to get us over those bumps. God works through means, such as the ability of wise Christians to produce Bible translations in the common tongue of a particular time and place.

The modern reader will have trouble with the AV, but not to the point of the effort being impossible or wasted time. It is good for them to lift their minds out of the debased thought and language of today and educate themselves up to the AV. Once they are familiar with the basics of the AV they can feast on the riches of Scripture, as it should be. They will never get that from the infantile CEV, they'll certainly go wrong with the inconsistent NASB and the NIV is ever-changing, half-paraphrase and dodgy yet very craftily done. If you look at the modern translators they are not wise Christians, they are wordly-wise and often not Christians at all! We are much safer sticking to the AV and the AV translators. The 400 year old English Bible is not impenetrable, it is the modern-school stupidity that is too dull to know a good thing when it has it.

I too am concerned for believers, and all the believers I know would misunderstand what "bishoprick" means in Acts 1:20, because there's only one way in which "bishop" is used in English these days, and it's not the sense intended by Acts 1:20 or the psalm which it's citing. A dictionary may contain, as its third or fourth definition, the meaning relevant to the context of Acts, but as I said earlier, a Bible translation which is only intelligible with the aid of a dictionary has already failed the test of what a translation is supposed to accomplish. You might as well just use the original Greek NT and keep a Greek-English lexicon handy.

So? Modern-day cool seeker PP's like potty mouth Furtick or Driscoll disgrace the pulpit, and are bishops by definition of the position. It is easy to grab a Strong's and a Vine's and you will see that the meaning is quite clear. Since when is Holy Scripture supposed to divulge everything to anyone all the time? The Lord spoke in parables so that the unbelievers would not understand. A lot of believers have trouble, but if they are diligent, humble and trusting in The Lord and His word they will make progress, with or without dictionaries and lexicons. Once a person can ride the AV bike they don't need the training wheels and will find that the bike still fits them and challenges them no matter how big they grow. The modern versions have the trainers permanently bolted on and they are limited by the filters the translators put on them when they Nida-ise them and insert their own theological opinions instead of simply translating.

Thanks for the AiG article. That was interesting! Like "bishop," we're talking about a word whose meaning has changed since the days of Marco Polo and Queen Elizabeth. At dictionary.com, the first and second definitions of "unicorn" have to do with the mythical horselike animal. That makes "unicorn" a bad translation for modern readers.

With a little faith they can get over that seeming obstacle. It is not a serious problem. A more serious problem is why do modern versions omit 1 John 5:7 when to do so leaves a masculine gender in the next verse for no reason at all. And it is the clearest statement of Trinity in the whole Bible!

There are problems with modern translations as well. The work of translation is never done. I'm totally comfortable with debate as to which translation best conveys the sense of the original languages to the modern reader. I'm not OK with Amos' unsubstantiated claims that KJV is directly inspired, nor do I find VPP to be something God promises in texts like "The Word of the Lord endures forever."

I'm happiest with the AV and disturbed by the men and methods behind the modern versions. We have to make a stand somewhere or they will rob us of the Bible. If The Lord had not preserved His word, then His veneration of it is unjustified and His command to us to study it and live from it, every word, is meaningless.

Apart from your assumption of VPP, what makes you think that TR is a better text?

It is the Bible of the church from the Apostles since, it is in the itala and waldensian Bibles, it is in 90% or more of the manuscripts, it is internally consistent, and the RCC and the moderns hate it.

I am glad that you have patience for Amos.

He's a good soldier, he stands his ground. He at least defends a BIble instead of fighting against all Bibles. None of the moderns are willing to stand to the death for their shifting sand NIV or NASB or infantile CEV. We stand with our backs to a 400 year old fortress with a keep thousands of years old and a Lord that said it would stand forever. I'll be burned with my AV....not sure if the moderns would dare with their versions of the month. I'll stand with Amos rather than MacArthur or White, on the Bible issue.

[RBerman]

The UBS/NA texts are shorter and there are many changes, and yes, they do affect doctrine. Couple that flawed base text and combine it with Nida's poisonous methods and you get a very different "Bible". There may be enough in it for The HS to convict and save a sinner, but that same sinner is handicapped from the start and will be stunted in growth. The devil knows he cannot simply destroy the Bible in one go, that would be too obvious, so he twists it and corrupts it.

As before, your argumentum ad diablos cuts both ways, e.g. "The devil knows he cannot simply destroy the Bible in one go; that would be too obvious. So he saddles the people with an antiquated translation that makes them feel like they have the Bible, and yet fails to communicate to them in their own language." Let's talk specifics, though. What doctrines are missing from the UBS/NA text? The encouragement of Christians to handle snakes at the end of Mark, I suppose? Talk about something that pleases Satan...

The English we use today is inferior to what we used 50 and 100 years ago, and 400 years ago was at its height. It is not much of a stretch to become familiar with the AV, and the diligent student will find the riches preserved in it.

On what basis do you say this? It smells more like personal preference than something that can be objectively measured.

Lol, I'm not very good at either 16th C English or 21st C English. My English is Aussie circa mid 1970's plus all the books I've read since and all the other influences. I'm becoming an old fogey compared to the kids who come from school with little to show for 10 to 12 years of socialist brainwashing. It isn't hard to decipher the AV, it has a very small vocab compared to Shakespeare. What the modern versions do is to strip the complexity of the originals and preserved to a great extent in the translation to English in the AV, and dumb it down for modern readers. The modern readers that are the targets for the modern versions are by intention of the scribes the "unchurched", the "seekers"...as though the Bible could be de-mystified and brought down to the level of the modern-schooled, worldly, unregenerate sinner. Why, when the sinners in the past learned to read from the AV, as well as understand it very well. The modern version scam goes hand in hand with the widespread arminianism, easy-believism, false professions, lukewarm believers, entertainment in stead of expository preaching and diligent private study. The modern versions are sinners Bibles in the sense that they can find far more ambiguity and wiggle room for heresies and private interpretations, just as modern churchianity is the sinners religion because they are not focussed on repentance and holiness, because at the root of it is that vile idol freewill.

Wow. That's a pretty impressive list of evils. I agree that modern translations are less complex than KJV. We speak in a less complex way than our forefathers, which is not the same thing as an inferior way. Much of the complexity of English stems from its crazy quilt origins as a mishmash of Germanic grammar saddled with Latinate vocabulary. Even today the spelling and pronunciation rules of English are daunting to non-natives and natives alike. Just yesterday I had to correct my third grade son, who has been pledging allegiance to the "U-nine-ted States" at school! Can you give me an example of a place where the simplification of English grammar in the last 400 years has resulted in decreased intelligibility of the original Greek and Hebrew underlying the Bible? (I can think of one, but I'm curious what's on your mind.)

Look a little further in the thread, you'll see what I am getting at. The accusations against Riplinger and Ruckman are for the most part justified. Gail has told bald public lies and look at what it does to her testimony and the testimony of anyone daring to stand for the AV. Ruckman can be very nasty and his position tends toward cultism. I'm not about to toss them both on the trashheap of condemnation, but I will caution anyone that stands for the AV to defend those persons when the defence is indefensible. We could take the same tactic and attack the anti-AVites with ad-hominems and character assasination, the material is there in abundance, but it is better to simply stick to defending the AV on its merits and show the modern ver$ion$ for what they are; corrupted Bibles that are unnecessary and inferior.

I agree that character assassination will not resolve this debate. My assessment of KJV has nothing to do with Riplinger, Ruckman, or any other particular scholar.

The modern reader will have trouble with the AV, but not to the point of the effort being impossible or wasted time. It is good for them to lift their minds out of the debased thought and language of today and educate themselves up to the AV. Once they are familiar with the basics of the AV they can feast on the riches of Scripture, as it should be. They will never get that from the infantile CEV, they'll certainly go wrong with the inconsistent NASB and the NIV is ever-changing, half-paraphrase and dodgy yet very craftily done. If you look at the modern translators they are not wise Christians, they are wordly-wise and often not Christians at all! We are much safer sticking to the AV and the AV translators. The 400 year old English Bible is not impenetrable, it is the modern-school stupidity that is too dull to know a good thing when it has it.

You're trotting out some hefty insults again. Stupidity, infantile, debased, etc. That kind of rhetoric plays well with those already convinced of your position, but if you want to convince those who don't already agree with you, you'll do better to skip the imprecations and just make your case with specific examples of why KJV is better than the modern translations.

So? Modern-day cool seeker PP's like potty mouth Furtick or Driscoll disgrace the pulpit, and are bishops by definition of the position. It is easy to grab a Strong's and a Vine's and you will see that the meaning is quite clear. Since when is Holy Scripture supposed to divulge everything to anyone all the time? The Lord spoke in parables so that the unbelievers would not understand. A lot of believers have trouble, but if they are diligent, humble and trusting in The Lord and His word they will make progress, with or without dictionaries and lexicons. Once a person can ride the AV bike they don't need the training wheels and will find that the bike still fits them and challenges them no matter how big they grow. The modern versions have the trainers permanently bolted on and they are limited by the filters the translators put on them when they Nida-ise them and insert their own theological opinions instead of simply translating.

Again I'll note that the purpose of a translation is to put the Bible in the language of the people. If you have to "grab a Strong's and a Vine's" to read the Bible, then something is wrong with your Bible. The real way to "get rid of the training wheels" is not to become more fluent in early 16th Century English, but rather to become fluent in Greek and Hebrew. Can you give me an example of a place where modern translations "insert their own theological opinions instead of simply translating"?

With a little faith they can get over that seeming obstacle. It is not a serious problem. A more serious problem is why do modern versions omit 1 John 5:7 when to do so leaves a masculine gender in the next verse for no reason at all. And it is the clearest statement of Trinity in the whole Bible!

OK, now we have a specific text to discuss.

(1) The Comma Johanneum, as it's called, is indeed present in the final version of Erasmus' Greek NT (which a subsequent publisher advertised under the banner Textus Receptus) and Vulgate but not in older Greek texts of 1 John. Erasmus deliberately omitted it from his original because he knew the textual evidence didn't back it up.

(2) As for the significance of that verse: It does mention "Father, Word, and Holy Spirit." I don't see that's a clearer declaration of the Trinity than Matthew 28:19, which says that the "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" share a single name.

(3) As for the grammatical issue you raise: The link above has extensive discussion of the history of that debate, and why you are incorrect that the gender of the words is a problem. I'm not enough of a Greek scholar to analyze the issue directly, and I suspect you aren't either, so we're both at the mercy of our respective champion experts and are unlikely to resolve the issue through further debate.

I'm happiest with the AV and disturbed by the men and methods behind the modern versions. We have to make a stand somewhere or they will rob us of the Bible. If The Lord had not preserved His word, then His veneration of it is unjustified and His command to us to study it and live from it, every word, is meaningless.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Certainly KJV's translators didn't see their work as perfect, and yet didn't see it as meaningless either.

He's a good soldier, he stands his ground. He at least defends a BIble instead of fighting against all Bibles. None of the moderns are willing to stand to the death for their shifting sand NIV or NASB or infantile CEV. We stand with our backs to a 400 year old fortress with a keep thousands of years old and a Lord that said it would stand forever. I'll be burned with my AV....not sure if the moderns would dare with their versions of the month. I'll stand with Amos rather than MacArthur or White, on the Bible issue.

I admire the strength of his conviction (and yours), but his frothing and content-free harangues actually harm your side by making KJVers seem like raving nutjobs. In his dozen posts in this thread, all he's done is howl at his opponents without raising a single argument to challenge their thinking. You're right that I wouldn't be burned to protect NIV or NASB, or KJV. They're all imperfect works of God's people, not talismans beyond critique or improvement.

[OmniSkeptical]

How does the belief that I John 5:7 is trinitarian and crept into well-copied manuscripts square with "excellent scholarship"? It's in most Syrian manuscripts, and the Old Latin implies it was in the Greek. If it was to be omitted, why is it side-noted in greek copies to be copied?

[John Reece]

How does the belief that I John 5:7 is trinitarian and crept into well-copied manuscripts square with "excellent scholarship"? It's in most Syrian manuscripts, and the Old Latin implies it was in the Greek. If it was to be omitted, why is it side-noted in greek copies to be copied?

From A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger:

5.7–8 μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα {A}

After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἄγιον Πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. 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. The 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 Wolfenbüttel.
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. 716]) 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 1John, 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 1John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, “I. John v. 7 and Luther’s German Bible,” in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458–463.

[OmniSkeptical]

John Reece;

"From A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger:

5.7–8 μαρτυροῦντες, 8 τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα {A}

After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἄγιον Πνεῦμα. καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. (8) καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. 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. [Metzger ignores the fact that it is included in all latin manuscripts which have the letter] The 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 Wolfenbüttel.
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. [Let us not forget mistakes are why we still have copies of these manuscripts. They failed to be copied correctly]

(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.[It is quoted by one who said and "these three are one." And one disects it saying three "neuters" follow. A neuter is a male article connected to a feminine word. This is the greek neuter, and τα and το are not neuters. Τα is feminine plural probably specificly nominative, and το is singular and specificly masculine accusative singular without the ending νυ. They are mistaken by present scholarship as neuters.]

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac [he lied here], 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. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).[Do all these ancient versions have copies still existent? How about producing photos and proving where it would be missing.]

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 1John, 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.[Most old Greek manuscripts have copying mistakes, and alot collections don't have 1 John as an epistle.]
(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.
[An opinion at best, since most have not mastered greek way beyond the modern greek usage. It is modern forms of Greek, not Koine that have produced the english new testament. Tyndale didn't translated into english directly form the original classical "Koine."]
For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101f.; cf. also Ezra Abbot, “I. John v. 7 and Luther’s German Bible,” in The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel and Other Critical Essays (Boston, 1888), pp. 458–463.[Where Erasmus was "threatened" into copying the Complutensian Polyglot verse? It's in there too. Or how someone would be stupid enough to use a wet copy when print was becoming cheap?]

[John Reece]

In response to assertions (in italic print within brackets) by OmniSkeptical:

From Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace (page 332, note regarding 1 John 5:7-8):

The masculine participle in τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [verse 7] refers to τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (verse 8), all neuter nouns. Some see this as an oblique reference to the Spirit's personality (...), but the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender [of the participle in verse 7]. This interpretation also has in its behalf the allusion to Deut 19:15 (the necessity of "two or three witnesses"), for in the OT the testimony only of males is acceptable. Thus, the elder may be subtly indicating (via the masculine participle) that the Spirit, water, and blood are all valid witnesses.

[OmniSkeptical]

τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (verse 8), all neuter nouns

Yep, the greek articles το are neutered by feminine Greek nouns; and I disagree with Wallace about what a neuter is. And the metaphors are a spirit, a blood of christ, and a water of life. God uses them to testify on the earth. Secondly, the obvious unitarian nature of 1 John 5:7 made copying it a struggle for a scribe reading and copying it. 1 John 5:8 isn't even consistently copied. I have adressed all your arguments.

A stitched pericope of the adultress is proof that if a copyist forgot to copy something, he had to write in the margin as correction, not a lame footnote. And if a chunk of manuscript had to be stitched to correct another manuscript, then maybe the copy mistake is not the addition but the omission in that case. I find it highy unlikely that 1 John 5:7 is a megatypo.

[kiwimac]

And on what do you base this belief that such a thing is unlikely?

[John Reece]

Yep, the greek articles το are neutered by feminine Greek nouns; and I disagree with Wallace about what a neuter is. And the metaphors are a spirit, a blood of christ, and a water of life. God uses them to testify on the earth. Secondly, the obvious unitarian nature of 1 John 5:7 made copying it a struggle for a scribe reading and copying it. 1 John 5:8 isn't even consistently copied. I have adressed all your arguments.

A stitched pericope of the adultress is proof that if a copyist forgot to copy something, he had to write in the margin as correction, not a lame footnote. And if a chunk of manuscript had to be stitched to correct another manuscript, then maybe the copy mistake is not the addition but the omission in that case. I find it highy unlikely that 1 John 5:7 is a megatypo.

Nonsense.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

From A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger: (A) External Evidence.

Question :

How can we take seriously this list of external evidences ? A list that does not even mention that hundreds of bishops with a statement of faith in the Council of Carthage of 484 AD, contra the Arians under Huneric. In circumstances where they would be very circumspect (ie. careful to use only accepted scripture). And the heavenly witnesses verse was even given special note as an argument that was "clearer than light".

Such an evidentiary list, even if repeated 1000 places, is clearly meant to obscure rather than inform.

(Yes there are many other problems, I am simply taking one that shows that the list was not designed for real scholarship by Bruce Metzger, but rather as an agitprop piece.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[One Bad Pig]

Hi Folks,

Question :

How can we take seriously this list of external evidences ? A list that does not even mention that hundreds of bishops with a statement of faith in the Council of Carthage of 484 AD, contra the Arians under Huneric. In circumstances where they would be very circumspect (ie. careful to use only accepted scripture). And the heavenly witnesses verse was even given special note as an argument that was "clearer than light".

Such an evidentiary list, even if repeated 1000 places, is clearly meant to obscure rather than inform.

(Yes there are many other problems, I am simply taking one that shows that the list was not designed for real scholarship by Bruce Metzger, but rather as an agitprop piece.)

Shalom,
Steven Avery

How can we take this alleged objection seriously when you don't provide a source for your information? Even if we assume your allegation is accurate, a council at Carthage in the 5th century would be held in Latin, not Greek.

*re-reads John's post*

In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle

This sounds suspiciously like the Council you're talking about. Perhaps it was discussed after all. Oops.

[Steven Avery]

Hi ,

How can we take this alleged objection seriously when you don't provide a source for your information?

When requested, no problem. The Council is one of the super-evidences that anybody who studies even a little bit will know about.

Even if we assume your allegation is accurate, a council at Carthage in the 5th century would be held in Latin, not Greek.

Definitely. A whole region of Christian believers having the verse in the Bible corroborates other evidences like Cyprian. At the very least it demonstrates early Ante-Nicene antiquity, which unravels most of the claims about how the heavenly witnesses was supposed to arise.

*re-reads John's post* This sounds suspiciously like the Council you're talking about. Perhaps it was discussed after all. Oops.

Since that statement includes other evidences like De Trinitate and Contra Varimidum, it is typical Metztger word-parsing to avoid referencing the Council of Council with hundreds of bishops affirming the verse "clearer than light".

[TC-Alternate-list] Council of Carthage, 484 AD, heavenly witnesses in the confession of faith by 100s of bishops
Steven Avery - Feb 6, 2011
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alt...t/message/3917

If you are interested, I can point you to many other evidences not referenced. The last few posts on the TC-Alternate forum are about an Origen scholion on Psalm 123. There is an earlier series that discusses many evidences, Greek and Latin, which are not properly referenced in Metzger agitprop. The theme was trying to correct the apparatus.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Metzger is nothing if not a master of word-parsing.
Let me give a simple example.

"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."

There are a number of important Greek evidences that are hidden by the typical Metzger word-parsing "quoted by none of the Greek Fathers". e.g. The verse is referenced by Athanasius in the "Disputation with Arius in the Council of Nice", written in Greek. This is placed in the apparatus as Ps-Athanasius with lots of authorship discussion. (For more information, an excellent source is A new plea for the authenticity of the text of the three heavenly witnesses, (1867) Charles Forster p. 59-64). However, since this a work that cannot be demonstrated to be directly by Athanasius, the Metzger word-parsing allows him to deceive his readers into thinking there were no Greek evidences till the Lateran Council.

Notice that the text is directly referencing the Arian Trinitarian controversies, as is the case with numerous Latin evidences of the era as well. Another tricky omission above, Metzger strains to tell you that the heavenly witnesses were not used in extant Greek in the controversies, but totally omits the large-scale Latin evidences. The goal is to create a false sense of a late Latin addition by hand-wavings combined with word-parsings combined with omissions. To really understand the evidences, you really have to go back to the amazing verse debate, especially in the 1700s and 1800s, and discard modern Metzger-style tainted pablum.

Granted, the Art of Metzgerian Word-Parsing to hide evidences is not at all limited to the heavenly witnesses, and could be the base of a course on Deceptive Writing 101. Plus, to be fair, there are times where he may be taking the tricky writing from others. And you will see his technique copied continuously, either in direct quotes, or in rephrasings as in the NETBible. Once you know the game, you can play "how many things wrong do you see in this picture".

Incidentally, another example of an evidence about Greek mss and the doctrinal battles is the Vulgate Prologue, a fascinating study. However, since that is written in Latin, referencing Greek mss, it is simply word-parsed out of commission by Metzger.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

[One Bad Pig]

A whole region of Christian believers having the verse in the Bible corroborates other evidences like Cyprian. At the very least it demonstrates early Ante-Nicene antiquity, which unravels most of the claims about how the heavenly witnesses was supposed to arise.

If you have evidence from Cyprian, that would be Ante-Nicene - but he would be in the same region as the post-Nicene evidence (Latin North Africa). As far as I know, the earliest reference is to a post-Nicene Latin commentary that got incorporated into the text. Per John's post above, it's not even incorporated consistently; there are a number of variants. That is evidence that it's not original.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Another shading and mishandling of evidences by Bruce Metzger:

"The passage... is not found .. in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine)"

First, this manages to skirt around the actual Old Latin ms evidence, which is heavily for the verse, in the approximately 10 mss involved. How did it get into the Old Latin mss if not in the "early form" 2nd-3rd century ?

Second, Cyprian is properly given as a positive citation in parenthesis even in the skewed UBS-4 apparatus, yet the actual text (there is also a second corroborative allusion) is even more powerful evidence than indicated:

The Treatises of Cyprian
Cyprian 250 AD Treatise I On The Unity of the church - Roberts, Donaldson edition
http://books.google.com/books?id=8fUYJKWWe80C&pg=PA868

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.”

For a short summary of the Cyprian issues in recent writings, you do read the Daniel Wallace hand-wave paper, the Martin Shue response, and the summary given in the Tim Dunkin paper. Again, it is good to study the earlier debate carefully.

Somebody reading the Metzger deception section would not even know about this evidence, which is one of a class of super-evidences for (1) the antiquity, and (2) the Johannine authorship, of the heavenly witnesses.

Incidentally, Tertullian has an allusion as well, similar in style to the second corroborating Cyprian reference in the Epistle to Jubaianus.

And there are lots of complexities on the Augustine material, with even Bruce Metzger writing:

"The silence of Augustine, contrary to prevailing opinion, cannot be cited as evidence against the genuineness of the Comma. He may indeed have known it" Annotated bibliography of the textual criticism of the New Testament p. 113 Bruce Manning Metzger, 1955.

So you now have Metzger vs. Metzger !

And every element of the Metzger assertion on the Old Latin crumbles. This is extremely significant, in terms of competing theories of of inclusion and omission of the heavenly witnesses.

==================================

If you have evidence from Cyprian, that would be Ante-Nicene - but he would be in the same region as the post-Nicene evidence (Latin North Africa). As far as I know, the earliest reference is to a post-Nicene Latin commentary that got incorporated into the text.

This is far too vague to really comment upon. Whose commentary was incorporated where ? And how could the earliest reference be post-Nicene when we have ante-Nicene evidences ?

Per John's post above, it's not even incorporated consistently; there are a number of variants. That is evidence that it's not original.

Marginal evidence at best. In any inclusion/omission verse there is a symmetry of textual reality. Generally the corruption is very early (likely 2nd century). And then you have a split manuscript line. The creation of slightly different variants then is (other than simple copyist changes) the moving up from the omission group to restore the text. It does not matter how you reach that point, original inclusion or omission, the dynamic is essentially identical.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Bayside, NY