Comma Johanneum/Changing of the Bible.

[By Grace]

Re: Comma Johanneum - clearing out the fog

Hi,

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

Since these gentlemen are silent or mistaken about all the incredibly strong evidences for the verse, why would anyone take their position over Eugenius Bulgaris, Frederick Nolan, Thomas Burgess, Arthur-Marie Le Hir, Charles Forster, Nathaniel Ellsworth Cornwall, Charles Vincent Dolman, Henry Thomas Armfield, and many others who wrote in far greater depth, and with far more insight, about the heavenly witnesses and the evidences ? Unless the anyone never really studied and understood the evidences themselves.

To give one simple example, what did you learn about the Council of Carthage of 484 AD in the limited, deficient quotes you gave ? Any attempted exposition on the heavenly witnesses that does not discuss hundreds of bishops in the Arian controversies contra Hunneric and the Vandals in the fifth century, with the bishops affirming the verse directly in a statement of their faith as luce claris, clearer than the light (even under the threat of persecution, making scripture quoting accuracy that much more imperative) is clearly being used as worthless agitprop. Even if written by commentators who are generally at a better level, like Albert Barnes and JFB.

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

<SNIP>

Before I discuss this, I want to make sure from the outset that the doctrine of the Trinity does NOT hinge on this verse. There are other verses in Scripture that attest to the doctrine of the Trinity. So I do not plan to derail this discussion with the Trinity discussion, nor to proceed as I have seen on other sites where some posters here may post.

In the same manner, I also want to state that the the most important thing in my mind is that the insertion does NOT contradict other Scriptures. As a result, the origin of that comma does not impugn the doctrine of Scriptural inerrancy, nor of the Trinity.

Johannine Comma, also known as the ‘Three Witnesses’. An interpolation in the text of 1 Jn. 5:7 f., that is, the words in italics in the following passage from the AV: ‘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.’ They occur in Latin MSS from about AD 800 onwards and so became established in the official Latin text of the Bible, but they are found in no Greek MS before the 12th cent., are certainly not part of the original Epistle, and are omitted from the RV and other scholarly modern translations. The origin of the interpolation is obscure. Traces of a mystical interpretation of the phrase about the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, applying it to the Trinity, are to be found in *Cyprian and *Augustine; but the earliest evidence for the insertion of a gloss in the text of the Epistle comes from a MS of *Priscillianist provenance discovered by G. Schepss at Würzburg in 1885. Later the insertion is found in quotations in African authors. It would thus seem to have originated in N. Africa or Spain and to have found its way into the Latin Bibles used in those districts (both *Old Latin and *Vulgate), possibly under the stress of *Arian persecution.
​

Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.) (885). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

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. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647–49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late MSS, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these MSS (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition.

The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other MSS in several places. The next oldest MSS on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining MSS are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516.

Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until A.D. 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written 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 4th 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, 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 MSS that included it.
​

Biblical Studies Press. (2006). The NET Bible First Edition Notes (1 Jn 5:7). Biblical Studies Press.

7. three—Two or three witnesses were required by law to constitute adequate testimony. The only Greek manuscripts in any form which support the words, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one; and there are three that bear witness in earth," are the Montfortianus of Dublin, copied evidently from the modern Latin Vulgate; the Ravianus, copied from the Complutensian Polyglot; a manuscript at Naples, with the words added in the Margin by a recent hand; Ottobonianus, 298, of the fifteenth century, the Greek of which is a mere translation of the accompanying Latin. All the old versions omit the words. The oldest manuscripts of the Vulgate omit them: the earliest Vulgate manuscript which has them being Wizanburgensis, 99, of the eighth century. A scholium quoted in Matth橬 shows that the words did not arise from fraud; for in the words, in all Greek manuscripts "there are three that bear record," as the Scholiast notices, the word "three" is masculine, because the three things (the Spirit, the water, and the blood) are SYMBOLS OF THE TRINITY. To this CYPRIAN, 196, also refers, "Of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, it is written, 'And these three are one' (a unity)." There must be some mystical truth implied in using "three" (Greek) in the masculine, though the antecedents, "Spirit, water, and blood," are neuter. That THE TRINITY was the truth meant is a natural inference: the triad specified pointing to a still Higher Trinity; as is plain also from 1Jo 5:9, "the witness of GOD," referring to the Trinity alluded to in the Spirit, water, and blood. It was therefore first written as a marginal comment to complete the sense of the text, and then, as early at least as the eighth century, was introduced into the text of the Latin Vulgate. The testimony, however, could only be borne on earth to men, not in heaven. The marginal comment, therefore, that inserted "in heaven," was inappropriate. It is on earth that the context evidently requires the witness of the three, the Spirit, the water, and the blood, to be borne: mystically setting forth the divine triune witnesses, the Father, the Spirit, and the Son. LUECKE notices as internal evidence against the words, John never uses "the Father" and "the Word" as correlates, but, like other New Testament writers, associates "the Son" with "the Father," and always refers "the Word" to "God" as its correlate, not "the Father." Vigilius, at the end of the fifth century, is the first who quotes the disputed words as in the text; but no Greek manuscript earlier than the fifteenth is extant with them. The term "Trinity" occurs first in the third century in TERTULLIAN [Against Praxeas, 3].
​

Jamison, Fausett and Brown Commentary

So we can see here through the quotations from modern scholars that the comma was found ONLY in later and Latin manuscripts, and that the secular scholar Erasmus, true to the best academic scholarship stated clearly that since he could NOT find it in any Greek manuscripts, which were copied, as opposed to the Latin manuscripts that were translations of the Greek, by definition concluded that it was a gloss.

From what I highlighted in bold blue, the statements of Barnes, JFB, Adam Clark, et all are in agreement with these sources, so they were not mistaken. To impugn their academic skills because of a disagreement of the conclusions they reach, is to also call into question the scholarship of Erasmus.

Not only is that important, but the Critical Apparatus to the Third edition to the UBS Greek New Testament gives a rating of [A] to the words, "that there are three witnesses". What that means is that of a possible rating of [A] which is the highest, to [D] which is the least probable likelihood of being accurate. But the words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one " are the problematic words in the text.

So my point is that this verse IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK is a firm basis for the doctrine of the Trinity, despite the insertion in Latin Bibles of the rest of the verse in the KJV

As a corollary, if anyone wants to be of a different mind, that it is fine with me. Just as we all have noses we mall have opinions. However while we are all entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. Therefore I request that any opposing the late insertion of "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one " needs to provide an example using the Greek manuscripts where they are inserted prior to the Latin insertion. To do that requires scholarship greater than that of Erasmus, as well as lots of luck. :D

I am not trying to be snarky. or to cause a "shuffle" in the post, but instead, I am trying to post a reasoned, and scholarly support to my thesis,stated in the beginning.

 

[Steven Avery]

Re: Comma Johanneum - clearing out the fog

Hi Folks,

I am not trying to be snarky. or to cause a "shuffle" in the post, but instead, I am trying to post a reasoned, and scholarly support to my thesis,stated in the beginning.

The first point you highlighted :

They occur in Latin MSS from about AD 800 onwards

Was already shown to be false earlier in the thread.

Unless you want to study and explain the extant Latin manuscripts from earlier than 800.

As well as explaining what type of manuscripts were being read and used by the hundreds of bishops and the Council of Carthage, as well as Priscillian, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Tapsensis, and various other evidences.

Other major problems with these types of parrot quotes have already been shown as well, and Adam Clarke and JFB have been specifically discussed. Oops.

For starters, there is the crafty and deceptive omissions of the most important evidences as from the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and the Vulgate Prologue. As well as not telling the reader that thousands of Latin manuscripts have the verse, estimated at 95%. And the simple fact that the Old Latin manuscripts, as well as ECW, clearly support the heavenly witnesses. And the gross distortion of the actual Cyprian evidences.

If you have not studied evidences like that yourself directly, it is easy to get flummoxed by the one-dimensional agitprop against the heavenly witnesses verse.

First, why not at least read the thread carefully before posting repetitive 3rd-party cut-and-paste ?

Then, after you get the basic facts down, explain in your own words, from direct studies, what you think about the evidences and transmission, homoeoteleuton, the dozens of commentators, the ease of omission versus addition, etc.

=====

And note, the earliest solid evidence on either side is the Cyprian reference, way before any Greek manuscript omissions. This negates your attempted challenge, by reversing the onus on to you to explain how and where Cyprian, bilingual in Latin and Greek, read the verse. Note earlier in the thread how Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper related to this evidence.

btw, nobody who has read the Reformation era calls Erasmus a secular scholar. Some call him a humanist scholar, but that is not the word the way it is used today for non-believers.

=====

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[By Grace]

Re: Comma Johanneum

Hi Folks, The first point you highlighted : They occur in Latin MSS from about AD 800 onwards Was already shown to be false earlier in the thread. Unless you want to study and explain the extant Latin manuscripts from earlier than 800.

I did not make that point. Please note the footnote: Cross, F. L., & Livingstone, E. A. (2005). The Oxford dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed. rev.) (885). Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.

Therefore your argument is with them, not me. And further, you need to provide EVIDENCE other than your "Nuh uh", of your curt dismissal because you believe I did not read the entire thread.

Second, since this book is a major publication by a world-renown University, the scholarship behind the book are impeccable. Therefore, I invite you to demonstrate exactly where their scholarship fails.

As well as explaining what type of manuscripts were being read and used by the hundreds of bishops and the Council of Carthage, as well as Priscillian, Fulgentius, Cassiodorus, Tapsensis, and various other evidences.
Other major problems with these types of parrot quotes have already been shown as well, and Adam Clarke and JFB have been specifically discussed. Oops.

No OOPS here! I cited JFB and Clarke because they agreed with the findings of the other sources of authorities I cited. As to those documents you cite, you will need to demonstrate what you are saying from those sources, and of course include the dates.

For starters, there is the crafty and deceptive omissions of the most important evidences as from the Council of Carthage of 484 AD and the Vulgate Prologue. As well as not telling the reader that thousands of Latin manuscripts have the verse, estimated at 95%. And the simple fact that the Old Latin manuscripts, as well as ECW, clearly support the heavenly witnesses. And the gross distortion of the actual Cyprian evidences.

Please provide evidences for this, also. From what I understand about this, what you cite is a DECREE from that Ecumenical Council (397) that defines what we call the Apocrypha and also names what we call the 66 books comprising the Bible. Since it was a decree of the universal church, it was written in Latin, and of course translated into Greek. But to suggest that it constitutes evidence of a diglot Bible in Latin and Greek is to make a statement that is far beyond the purpose of an Ecumenical Council.

As to the Vulgate Prologue, I an very surprised that you bring that up.
The Vulgate prologue is NOT Scripture
The Vulgate prologue is simply a prologue (or introduction) to the book by the author, Jerome.
The Vulgate prologue is all about how Jerome went about translating the OLD TESTAMENT into Latin, and how he used the LXX
The Vulgate has no nothing from the New Testament,
The Vulgate does not contain the Johannine Comma, which is in the New Testament, your bringing it up is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[ edit by BG]

=====

And note, the earliest solid evidence on either side is the A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents by Charles Joseph Hefele,reference, way before any Greek manuscript omissions. This negates your attempted challenge, by reversing the onus on to you to explain how and where Cyprian, bilingual in Latin and Greek, read the verse. Note earlier in the thread how Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper related to this evidence.

Cyprian was an archbishop and martyr. He DID NOT copy Scripture, which is a part of the topic of this thread, nor did he write about the Johnanine Comma, the topic of the thread. So I am wondering why you believe that supports your contention? Really, it is extraneous to the issue at hand.

btw, nobody who has read the Reformation era calls Erasmus a secular scholar. Some call him a humanist scholar, but that is not the word the way it is used today for non-believers.

Does it REALLY matter that I used another and similar term than the one you chose to scold me about? TSK!

 

[farouk]

Re: Gregroy Martin - example of post-Trent RCC position

Hi,

Again, your chronology is wrong. Gregory Martin (1542?-1592) is long after Erasmus, and Trent. Thus he only shows the reactionary post-Trent RCC position.

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

Did you miss my question ?

In what Bible texts do you see this preservation by divine sovereignty and general providence ?
OT and NT.

Note: I am not asking you what texts you reject for various reasons, but what you affirm as come to us by divine sovereignty and general providence

If you do not know, you can simply say 'dunno'.

At that time, the emphasis was not on particular editions. e.g. Stephanus 1550 and Beza 1598 and the Elzevir editions could all be used in translation to Reformation Bibles, the small differences were not considered that significant to the general question of the purity of the Bible

These gentlemen were well aware that the Greek Received Text editions had been a synthesis of the best of all the underlying evidences, Greek, Latin, ECW, internal. What you mean by "the Greek text that underlay it" is quite unclear. They knew the strengths and weaknesses of the earlier Greek manuscript tradition, including the fact that verses had dropped out. You can see this easily when reading men like Symon Patrick or Matthew Poole or Francis Turretin or John Gill or dozens of other writers on the heavenly witnesses.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

Steven:

Happy new year, by the way.

Actually I did reply to your previous question:

What I do not do is draw up somewhat arbitrary paradigms in textual evidence and say that these exclusively are the supposed bearers of divine preservation sovereignty and general providence.

As opposed to the almost invariant Hebrew consonantal text of the Old Testament, the New Testament's text is dispersed into thousands of items of textual evidence: preserved within the whole.

(My later emphasis added.)

You yourself refer to a synthesis of extant textual evidence, of which 16th and 17th century editors were aware. This does beg the question of the methodology they used. Were they trying to produce editions which attempted to reflect what the underlying Greek text has, as more and more of it became available? were they really trying to re-assert church authority which the Vulgate supposedly represented? (as you may infer, about the second of these questions I have doubts.)

Martin was skeptical of both the King James, and of challenges to the supposed prior authority of the Latin Vulgate.

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi,

textual preservation has been a matter of divine sovereignty and general providence... preserved within the whole.

So divine sovereignty providence is simply mixing lots of corruptions in and thinking that the text is in there somewhere. Ok, fair enough, a very unusual idea of providential preservation, but at least I now know your belief.

Shalom,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Re: divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi,

So divine sovereignty providence is simply mixing lots of corruptions in and thinking that the text is in there somewhere. Ok, fair enough, a very unusual idea of providential preservation, but at least I now know your belief.

Shalom,
Steven

Steven:

Let me give an example of what I mean (before it's condemned out of hand).

Many of the Byzantine majority readings strongly support the Received Text: this is why the Received Text tradition basically rests on a lot of textual evidence.

Some of the Byzantine majority readings are themselves divided.

In places where the Byzantine majority readings are themselves divided, it can be helpful to consult other early evidence such as the papyri or even Sinaiticus or Alexandrinus in order to find a witness to the early existence of one of the Byzantine readings.

If I had said: 'Oh, I am only ever going to look at a manuscript if it's Byzantine'; then I would be ignoring the totality of the evidence, which, in some cases, can help to verify the early existence of certain readings where the Byzantine majority manuscripts are divided.

I don't think I can harbor a view of Providence which demands that God use Byzantine sources only, even though these Byzantine majority sources may often be weighty. Byzantine majority sources may be preferred to others, often, but what happens when those Byzantine majority sources themselves are divided, as is sometimes the case?

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Re: divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi,

an example of what I mean....If I had said: 'Oh, I am only ever going to look at a manuscript if it's Byzantine'; then I would be ignoring the totality of the evidence, I don't think I can harbor a view of Providence....

So your view of preservation of the word of God by divine sovereignty and general providence is based on your own perceived skills as a textual analyst.

And you will come up with a text different from any other Bible text, by using your own personal measuring rod.

Ok, as I said, I just wanted to understand what you meant by affirming divine sovereignty and general providence.

I don't think I can harbor a view of Providence which demands that God use Byzantine sources only

Such would be a very one-dimensional and deficient view of the Bible text. You are in agreement on this point with Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the learned men of Geneva and the AV.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Re: divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi,

So your view of preservation of the word of God by divine sovereignty and general providence is based on your own perceived skills as a textual analyst.

And you will come up with a text different from any other Bible text, by using your own personal measuring rod.

Ok, as I said, I just wanted to understand what you meant by affirming divine sovereignty and general providence.

Such would be a very one-dimensional and deficient view of the Bible text. You are in agreement on this point with Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the learned men of Geneva and the AV.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Steven:

I take it your idea of divine sovereignty and general providence is that God has restricted His activity in preserving the text in manuscript variants to those within printed texts called the Received Text?

Does what you may regard as the sole expression of divine providence revolve around printed texts rather than their sources?

I would be interested to find out exactly what your views are in answer to these questions, since what you are implying is that my previous suggestions and observations are supposedly based on egocentrism. (Leave aside my own perceived skills, as you say.)

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Re: divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi,

Each person making their own Bible is common these days, utilizing their personal skills. In this, you are no different from many others. (Frederick Nolan wrote as nice little section about this, I will try to pull it out later.)

Above, I was just curious about how that is considered:

divine sovereignty and general providence

When it seems more like "personal analysis", and essentially leads to 100 people having 100 preserved texts.

your idea of divine sovereignty and general providence is that God has restricted His activity in preserving the text in manuscript variants to those within printed texts called the Received Text? Does what you may regard as the sole expression of divine providence revolve around printed texts rather than their sources? .

Yes, I do believe the Received Text history, and the pure Reformation Bibles that have been sent all over the world from this text, was by divine providence.

The textual emphasis of correlating the two major somewhat divergent texts, the Greek and the Latin, with wisdom gleamed from ECW and faith-consistent analysis of internal evidences, was very successfully completed.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[farouk]

Re: divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi,

Each person making their own Bible is common these days, you are no different from many others.
I was just curious about how that is considered:

divine sovereignty and general providence

Yes, I do believe the Received Text history, and the pure Reformation Bibles that have been sent all over the world from this text, was by divine providence. The textual emphasis of correlating the two major somewhat divergent texts, the Greek and the Latin, with wisdom gleamed from ECW and faith-consistent analysis of internal evidences, was very successfully completed.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Steven:

Since the term Received Text refers to a printed text (the term started to gain currency after 1633, when a Leiden librarian used the term in a preface to a Greek edition by the Elzeviers), does what you say mean that in effect the printed text corrects the manuscript base from which it is derived?

Blessings.

 

[JCitoL]

the Spirit of the true God and Jesus is the Truth, which means that there is only a good Word and Testimony therein/thereof, while the "water" is the spiritual purity and the spiritual purification of life, and with regard to the "blood", it is the soul and the life, because each soul prefers the good life unlike that which is afflictive for it

Blessings

 

[Steven Avery]

Re: divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi,

Steven: Since the term Received Text refers to a printed text (the term started to gain currency after 1633, when a Leiden librarian used the term in a preface to a Greek edition by the Elzeviers), does what you say mean that in effect the printed text corrects the manuscript base from which it is derived?.

The manuscript base always consists of a group of imperfect manuscripts, Greek and Latin being the main groupings. Each individual manuscript has errors. Those hand-written texts need correction and improvement (often they have correctors in their own text). That is the purpose of such a textual enterprise as the Reformation Bible efforts.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Re: divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi,

The manuscript base always consists of a group of imperfect manuscripts, Greek and Latin being the main groupings. Each individual manuscript has errors. Those hand-written texts need correction and improvement (often they have correctors in their own text). That is the purpose of such a textual enterprise as the Reformation Bible efforts.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Steven,

Of course each manuscript may have errors and variants; and this is the purpose of textual criticism, to approach a soundly based text based on reliable sources.

What you call Reformation Bible efforts I would at a certain level respect and honor very greatly.

I'm still not sure whether what you mean, though, is that printed editions from a certain century or two supposedly 'correct' the manuscript textual sources from which they are derived?

The question arises, for example, already referred to: what about places in the New Testament where the Byzantine majority manuscripts have two different readings: does the fact that one variant was adopted in a printed text in the 16th or 17th centuries mean that this variant henceforth 'corrects' the manuscripts? I'm still not sure if you hold to this. I appreciate our discussion.

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Re: divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi,

What you call Reformation Bible efforts I would at a certain level respect and honor very greatly..

Good to hear !

I'm still not sure whether what you mean, though, is that printed editions from a certain century or two supposedly 'correct' the manuscript textual sources from which they are derived?.

This was directly answered above.

The question arises, for example, already referred to: what about places in the New Testament where the Byzantine majority manuscripts have two different readings: does the fact that one variant was adopted in a printed text in the 16th or 17th centuries mean that this variant henceforth 'corrects' the manuscripts?

Definitely. The learned scholars of the Reformation era were well aware of variants. When they occurred, they looked at the wide gamut of evidences, the Greek mss, the Latin mss, the early church writers, and the many grammatical and internal considerations, all faith-consistent. Their efforts were scholarly superb and ultimately part of the providential Bible preservation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[WIP]

2.5: Respect each others' opinions. Address issues, not persons or personalities. Give other members the respect you would want them to give yourself.

Let's discuss the topic of the thread with respect please. Perhaps a review of Ephesians 4:1-16 would be in order.

 

[farouk]

Re: divine providence - somewhere in the jigsaw puzzle

Hi Steven:

To my question:

"The question arises, for example, already referred to: what about places in the New Testament where the Byzantine majority manuscripts have two different readings: does the fact that one variant was adopted in a printed text in the 16th or 17th centuries mean that this variant henceforth 'corrects' the manuscripts?"

you answered:

Definitely. The learned scholars of the Reformation era were well aware of variants. When they occurred, they looked at the wide gamut of evidences, the Greek mss, the Latin mss, the early church writers, and the many grammatical and internal considerations, all faith-consistent. Their efforts were scholarly superb and ultimately part of the providential Bible preservation.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

Sorry, but I don't understand your point.

You do seem to be saying that what certain men put in a printed text in the 16th or 17th century - a text derived from manuscripts, sources - was a process which thereby gave the printed text precedence over the text of the sources from which it was derived.

I appreciate you having taken the trouble to give an answer to my question. But I truly don't understand what you mean by this.

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

how the Reformation Bible editions improved on the extant Greek and Latin texts

Hi,

You do seem to be saying that what certain men put in a printed text in the 16th or 17th century - a text derived from manuscripts, sources - was a process which thereby gave the printed text precedence over the text of the sources from which it was derived..

Every individual source manuscript is subject to at least two deficiencies.

1) hand copying errors

These are eliminated in a careful collation to a printed edition, with proof-reading, a second and third edition, etc.

2) a singular language line

Examples
A Greek manuscript in 1000 AD has inherited the text drops of the Greek manuscript line, and any corruptions that became predominant in that line. (The Greek Byzantine text line was generally of high quality, but it had some very significant deficiencies.)

A Latin manuscript has the same essential problem, that there were mistranslations and other problems that infected or disturbed the line. (The Latin Vulgate was a decent text in some ways, far better than the modern version texts, however it had a good number o of errors. Generally these were not signficiant text drops, they were more mistranslations and problems on the word or phrase level.)

Thus a solidly collated text that looks at both the Greek and Latin manuscripts can produce a new printed edition that is superior to any manuscript. And superior even to any collation that is based on one language line.

In fact, when Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza were producing their manuscripts, they produced superior Greek and Latin editions, that were far superior to any extant Greek or Latin manuscripts in their day.

Not only did they directly work with the Greek and Latin variants, they utilized the ECW and internal evidences, faith-consistent, to help make sure that the resultant text was pure. ie. That they made the right decisions where the Latin and Greek lines were at variance, or when there were internal significant splits within the lines.

Beyond that they put out multiple editions, and ,generally, Stephanus refined the Erasmus editions and Beza refined the Stephanus decisions. And then the final refination came from the learned men of the AV, who had the tools and the wisdom when working with the wide variety of excellent editions (including the Complutensian Polyglot, so they could have both printed editions and individual manuscripts in Latin and Greek. Their central focus was the Stephanus and Beza editions.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Steven:

Well, thank-you.

I certainly agree that what men such as Erasmus, Stephens and Beza did was produce a superior text compared with what had been available, as they engaged in a collation and refining textual process, which God was to use greatly.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'the final refination process came from the learned men of the AV'. I love and use the King James. I'm not sure what was the essential, 'final refination process was' that this supposedly refers to, though. Personally, I would not wish to imply that someone somewhere issued a decree whereby the collation and refining process, which you rightly describe, was suddenly to come to a halt.

Blessings.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I certainly agree that what men such as Erasmus, Stephens and Beza did was produce a superior text compared with what had been available, as they engaged in a collation and refining textual process, which God was to use greatly.

An additional way to look at it is scattering (over the centuries, God's pure word had been scattered to the Greek and Latin manuscripts, it was not longer in one place, one manuscript, one language line) and gathering .. which took place with the providential Reformation era scholarship.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[farouk]

Hi,

An additional way to look at it is scattering (over the centuries, God's pure word had been scattered to the Greek and Latin manuscripts, it was not longer in one place, one manuscript, one language line) and gathering .. which took place with the providential Reformation era scholarship.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Steven:

Yes, this is an interesting and even helpful analogy, under Divine sovereignty.

With the analogy, I'm still not entirely sure how the supposed decision comes about to mark a dividing line between the scattering and the gathering, though.

There is a sense in which the Divinely preserved text, dispersed among the fragmentary sources, may be assessed textually. This, rather than a blanket mantra being applied, such as: certain people in the 16th and 17th century 'would have known' about it, and on the basis of what we don't know what exactly they knew, render the text no longer capable of assessment, however positively and in a confirmatory way.

Blessings.