1John 5:7

The last time I used my friend's name on here, it got snipped. That was an uncalled for remark. She didn't deserve what happened to her!

 

Rules are rules, Granny, and we all agreed to abide by them when we joined this Board.

In Christ,
Trotter

 

An open forum is not the place to discuss administrative decisions. Have you done the Scriptural thing and gone to the ones who have offended you privatly first?

[ February 06, 2005, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I've actually read Hort's Introduction written in thick prose and do believe it is the most elegant piece on textual criticism ever written. Hort was a masterful writer, and I wish I could write like that, convincingly, persuasively, authoritatively, etc. He took the evidence and was a master of interpreting it, a master of defining what is good and why, what is bad and why, discarding what is bad and elevating what is good. His arguments are actually good but may also be used against him.

Take for example the blatant interpolation in Mt. 27:48 by the MSS he loves best. This shows they are all genealogically related to a single MS, and thus ALL OF THEM AMOUNT TNLY A SINGLE MS, which was copied and then became more corrupt afterward (shown by the thousands of differences between the MSS Hort loved best). The genealigical method has intrinsic principles that cannot be refuted, just as I have suggested above using Hort's own methodological principles but with a quite different result. If all the Byzantine MSS amount to only a single witness, so do the Alexandrians. So which single MS do you trust?

Hint: I actually believe all the Byzantines DID come from single MSS, namely, the originals.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

As for 1 Jn. 5:7-8, it is not in the bulk of the Byzantines, in fact, it is hardly in any of them, and it is hard to imagine how and why it would have disappeared from nearly all of them had it been original. Such an impressive theological statement, if original, is hardly likely to have been deleted, but if not original but rather added later, would not be able to propagate itself enough to overtake the already numberless copies of the original text that actually did not include the Johannine Comma. Just my assessment.

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Because BF the Latin witnesses for the Comma are impressive and ancient (in the Fathers).

The one explanation I favor: They were present and possibly reversed (verses 7 and 8) in the original. The heavenly witness was dropped out of the first copying Greek to Greek but retained in the the first translation Greek to latin.

Makes verse 9 make more sense as well :

9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater...

I know it's thin ice.

HankD