Johannine Comma question

C

Citadel of Truth

New member
Elect
Joined
Jun 4, 2013
Messages
740
Reaction score
3
Points
0
Location
South Carolina
It is an undisputed fact that Erasmus included the comma in the 3rd edition of his Greek text (1522 A.D.) in spite of the fact that it was not found in the most ancient of manuscripts or the majority of Greek manuscripts, period.

My question is this: Does this fact take away the key weighting argument from the extreme faction of KJVO that the TR is a representation of the majority readings of extant manuscript evidence? Or, is this simply an exception to the rule and not deemed as significant?
 
What Pre-1500s Greek manuscripts contain the comma?

Codex Montfortianus of course does not count as it is very suspicious in origin.

Many feel it was specially produced to prod Erasmus to include the comma in his 1521 Greek text.

In any case it would hardly be a text that would carry much weight.

It is a fact that the Majority text does not contain the comma either HF or RP.
 
The TR has more issues with the "majority" reading than just the "Johannine Comma".

If you really study the issue at length, you'll find the KJV contains many minority readings. I don't think anyone has ever took the "majority" reading beliefs in the KJV very seriously...> Wellll except for the KJVOist and some KJVPs....
 
bgwilkinson said:
Many feel it was specially produced to prod Erasmus to include the comma in his 1521 Greek text.
Click to expand...

Granted, these are secondary sources, but I read where the following men made reference to this passages well before Erasmus.
[list type=decimal]
[*]It was cited by Tertillian (160-230 A.D.).
[*]It was cited by Cyprian (200-258 A.D.).
[*]It was quoted by Priscilliam (d.385 A.D.).
[*]It was quoted by Cassiodorus (480-570 A.D.).
[/list]

All that aside, my question is basically if this was a double standard by the KJVO since their key argument is that the TR represents the majority readings.
 
7 Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in cælo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt.

Biblia Sacra juxta Vulgatam Clementinam. (2005). (Ed. electronica., 1 Jn 5:7). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.

7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and of the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


The Latin Vulgate had it almost verbatim as we find it in our KJVs now.

Since the Vulgate was the go-to reference Bible of all religious professionals it is only natural they would follow it's readings over and against the Greek Bibles. They deemed it more authentic than the Hebrew or Greek so that it could be used to correct the originals, double inspiration, just like KJVOs of our day.

Erasmus would have been considered a heretic for not matching the Vulgate. He might have gotten himself killed like Tyndale.

Of course it's a double standard on the part of KJVOs, they must be willing to accept double standards in order to justify their belief in KJVO.
 
Citadel of Truth said:
Does this fact take away the key weighting argument from the extreme faction of KJVO that the TR is a representation of the majority readings of extant manuscript evidence? Or, is this simply an exception to the rule and not deemed as significant?
Click to expand...
It shows that the proper representation of the TR-AV position should include the complementary usages of the Greek fountainhead and Latin historical lines to provide a two-way correction.  Augmented by the ECW and faith-consistent textual analysis.

A TR-AV defender who only emphasizes "Majority" as in Greek Antiochan Byzantine majority makes the error of not understanding the Reformation Bible dynamic.  While it is generally true that the TR and the Byz text are the pure Bible contra the Alexandrian corruptions, it is a mistake to limit the AV dynamic to a one-dimensional Greek nose-counting.  (A related mistake was to try to make the Old Latin and Vulgate into good guys and bad guys within the Latin tradition.)  You can see the difference on all this even in the early-mid 1900s comparing Edward Freer Hlils to Benjamin Wilkinson.

Hope that helps with your question.

Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
Citadel of Truth said:
Does this fact take away the key weighting argument from the extreme faction of KJVO that the TR is a representation of the majority readings of extant manuscript evidence? Or, is this simply an exception to the rule and not deemed as significant?
Click to expand...
It shows that the proper representation of the TR-AV position should include the complementary usages of the Greek fountainhead and Latin historical lines to provide a two-way correction.  Augmented by the ECW and faith-consistent textual analysis.

A TR-AV defender who only emphasizes "Majority" as in Greek Antiochan Byzantine majority makes the error of not understanding the Reformation Bible dynamic.  While it is generally true that the TR and the Byz text are the pure Bible contra the Alexandrian corruptions, it is a mistake to limit the AV dynamic to a one-dimensional Greek nose-counting.  (A related mistake was to try to make the Old Latin and Vulgate into good guys and bad guys within the Latin tradition.)  You can see the difference on all this even in the early-mid 1900s comparing Edward Freer Hlils to Benjamin Wilkinson.

Hope that helps with your question.

Steven Avery
Click to expand...

Yeah. That is about as clear as MUD!!!!

God help you Avery.
 
Not really difficult.  Are you coming out of the public school systems in recent years?

If there is a spot that you found difficult, I can try again for you.

Maybe you are surprised that I am criticizing many of the AV defenders?

Steven
 
BJ, Erasmus frequently corrected the Vulgate from the Greek.  The Complutensian did likewise.  This scholarship was decades before the Trent Vulgate declaration.  And that counter-Reformation declaration was specifically because of the link between Received Text editions and the Reformation.

The corrections of the Vulgate led to the Battle of the Bible, the pure Reformation Bible versus the Vulgate.  The years around 1580-1625 saw lots of writing on both sides.

Steven
 
Steven Avery said:
BJ, Erasmus frequently corrected the Vulgate from the Greek.  The Complutensian did likewise.  This scholarship was decades before the Trent Vulgate declaration.  And that counter-Reformation declaration was specifically because of the link between Received Text editions and the Vulgate.

The corrections of the Vulgate led to the Battle of the Bible, the pure Reformation Bible versus the Vulgate.  The years around 1580-1625 saw lots of writing on both sides.

Steven
Click to expand...

If you mean BG instead of BJ I will respond. Steve you do not have a clue in regard to what you say about translation issues.

You have bought into the most ridiculous conspiracy theories advanced by the KJVOs leading luminaries such as Ellen G White and my moniker Benjamin George Wilkinson and latter copied almost verbatim by the current crop of KJVO writers.

I think it is humerus that they do not attributed their fairy tails to Seventh Day Adventists. Otis Fuller, Mrs. Riplinger and Bill Grady good examples of the parroting of Seventh Day Adventist conspiracy theories.

I wonder if they have even read Mrs. Whites' "The Great Controversy Between Christ and Satan"?

I think you are a good guy, just deceived.

 
  BG, you really do not follow the discussions.  I point out there are some areas where  Wilkinson was mistaken, and this effected some other later defenders. 

  I am just curious at times to see if there are any contras able to really understand the issues and have an intelligent discussion.  And I write for those who are searching out the issues.  Also I like to help correct any errors among TR-AV defenders, and make a stronger presentation. Understanding the Reformation Bible dynamic is central. Discarding the Old Latin good - Vulgate bad error is another.

  Thus I explained some specific errors, and contrasted Hills and Wilkinson.  And Wilkinson was very weak on the Reformation Bible dynamic.  (He also was milquetoast in other areas,  like not defending the heavenly witnesses.)

Steven

 
Reformation Bible dynamic.

Okay.
 
Right.  Wilkinson claimed the Reformation Bible dynamic involved embracing the Old Latin against the Vulgate tradition from Jerome, in his 384 AD update of the Old Latin.

Wilkinson was simply wrong and many AV defenders followed in line with this error, from the Fuller book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top