Text without Greek Authority

Here is another link for you to read concerning Erasmus, it is well documented and has a good bibliography at the end.

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/doug/erasmus.htm

 

^^^

From Doug Kutilek's statements, this is said:

"In constructing and editing the text, Erasmus had the feeblest of manuscript resources. He chiefly used one manuscript of the Gospels, dating from the twelfth century, and one manuscript of Acts and the Epistles, also from the twelfth century. These he edited and corrected, using one or two additional manuscripts of each section, along with his Latin Vulgate. For Revelation, Erasmus had but one Greek manuscript which, though of better than average quality (so says Hort), yet lacked the last six verses of the book. To remedy this defect, Erasmus back-translated the last six verses of Revelation from Latin into Greek, with the result that the final verses of Revelation in his printed Greek text contain numerous Greek readings found in no Greek manuscript of any kind, and are therefore devoid of manuscript authority. (A list of these are given in Scrivener, Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, p. 296, n. 1, and Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 100, n. 1)."

and also....


"One passage not included by Erasmus caused a great storm of controversy. That passage was the so-called trinitarian passage, which in the King James Version reads, "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" (found in 1 John 5:7- 8). The exclusion of these words from Erasmus' text was not from carelessness or haste, but was based on solid evidence: these words were not in the Greek manuscripts that Erasmus had used for his text; indeed, they were not found in any Greek text Erasmus had ever seen. When asked why he had deleted this proof text for the trinity, he replied that he didn't find it at all in the Greek manuscripts. The combination of accusations of Arianism, with Erasmus' thin-skinned sensitivity to criticism, caused him to rashly vow that if any Greek manuscript could be found to include the words in question, he would add them to his text. A manuscript was duly manufactured in Britain to suit the conditions of Erasmus' vow, so in his third edition (1522), Erasmus added the words to his text, but added a marginal note declaring his belief that the manuscript had been deliberately doctored. (The Greek manuscript evidence and the evidence from early translations and church fathers overwhelmingly declare that the trinitarian text is not an original or genuine part of 1 John, and has no legitimate place in the text of the New Testament, as anyone can see for himself by examining the evidence in, e.g., the commentaries of Adam Clarke [Vol. VI, pp. 927-933], Henry Alford [Vol. IV, pp. 503-505], and B. F. Westcott [pp. 202-209], Scrivener's Introduction [pp. 8, 149-150, 457-463], and Bruce Metzger's Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament [pp. 716- 718].) Luther never included the passage in any German translation produced in his lifetime. Both Tyndale and Coverdale indicated that they thought the suspect words were spurious."


There ya go, av1611jim!

Proof with bibliographic sources!

Now, stop begging the question, dodging, deflecting, hiding, detracting, or denying. We've proved our points, and I cannot say that you have proven yours!

 

I must be dense or I am missing something here.
What you have given me is Metzger's, Schrivener's, Kutilek's, et. al, statements about Erasamus.
I am not disputing that there is tons of others' testimony to which you and other's have given numerous times.

IS there anything Erasmus wrote that also supports this view either by his hand or in his words?

I have NEVER seen it.

For example, "When asked why he had deleted this proof text for the trinity, he replied that he didn't find it at all in the Greek manuscripts. The combination of accusations of Arianism, with Erasmus' thin-skinned sensitivity to criticism, caused him to rashly vow that if any Greek manuscript could be found to include the words in question, he would add them to his text."

This is taken from the same quote you just gave me. where is proof of this staement? It is NOT in this citation you provide, therefore, WHERE is it?
That is all I want. I have been LOOKING and CANNOT find it.
Quit it with your vehement hatred of my conviction about the KJV and be a "brother" and help a guy out.

OR is it you cannot provide it?

What I HAVE found is in direct contradiction to at least ONE charge against him and that is his "thin-skinned sensitivity". On the contrary, he lambasted many for their hypocrisy and psuedo-piousness.
Go here; www.thehistoryguide.org/intellect/erasmus

Happy clicking!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Sorry! Something happened to that link. this is it;

http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/erasmus.html

Try it now...
In HIS service;
Jim

 

av1611jim
"Could it not be that the verses that are there now did in fact come from Greek MSS but which are NOW lost?"
"
We have a full list of the ones he used for his first edition. Only one of those contained the book Apocalypse and that one missed it's last page containing the final 6 verses.

"Can you provide anything written BY Erasmus that clearly states this is what he did?"
"
Yes.
"quanquam in calce hujus libri, nonulla verba reperi apud nostros, quae
aberant in Graecis exemplaribus, ea tamen ex latinis adjecimus."
It's from his Novum Testamentum Annotationes.

 

No!...... I can't...... resist..... temptation..... to answer this...... question......

Just picking on you, Jim!

Anyway... to answer your question-begging argument:

These authors, in which Kutilek quotes, wrote from direct quotations from Erasmus' writings, translated from Latin, which is the language in which Erasmus wrote. This quote is from Erasmus:
If a single manuscript had come into my hands, in which stood what we read (sc. in the Latin Vulgate) then I would certainly have used it to fill inwhat was missing in the other manuscripts I had. Because that did not happen, I have taken the only course which was permissible, that is, I haveindicated (sc. in the Annotationes) what was missing from the Greek manuscripts. (Henk J. de Jonge, “Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum,” Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses 56 (1980) p. 385.) This was found on the Detroit Baptist Theological Journal, (Spring 1996), ERASMUS AND THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS, by William
W. Combs. ( www.dbts.edu/dbts/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF )

You can read further about Erasmus' statements and quotations from several sources, in the following bibliography, some of which are not published on the internet because some works have been copyrighted, or that some works just haven't been published to be viewed online:

J.A. Froude, Life and Letters of Erasmus (New York, 1896).
Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance (Princeton, 1983).
Erika Rummel, Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: from Philologist to Theologian (Toronto, 1986).
Roland H. Bainton, Erasmus of Christendom. (New York: Scribner, 1969).
Robert D. Sider, ed., Erasmus’ Annotations on Romans. Translated and annotated by John Barton Payne. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994).

At any rate, the views expressed by many authors who have written about the Comma Johanneum and who have read the translations of Erasmus have concluded that, as Daniel Wallace wrote:

"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),[3] 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,[4] 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."
( http://www.kjvonly.org/other/wallace_text_prob.htm )

It is not you personally that we hate, but it is the false doctrine of KJV-onlyism that we hate. Please don't take our comments personally as being in hatred for you!
I can only pray for you that you would turn away from such a monstrous teaching. Others like myself post comments here in order to defend the truth and defend the Word of God from false teachers and deceivers. KJV-onlyism propagates itself by those who are either deliberately deceiving the gullible or by those, who I believe are like yourself, being deceived into believing (sincerely) that you are 'defending the Bible'. We are calling for others to examine, even scrutinize, the false teachings of KJV-onlyism as much as the Berean Christians had done with examining the teachings of the Apostle Paul, whom Paul had commended for their diligence in making sure that Paul's words were in accordance with the Word of God.

 

mioque, and LRL;
Thank you for your gracious responses.

Looks like I got some homework to do.
In light of the fact that I am several weeks into this semester of College Algerbra 110, the spectre of MORE homework is NOT inviting! ARGH!

Thanks again!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

1 John 5:7 is in a late manuscript, and some "say" it is in some patristic writings, but I'm not sure of which one or book contains such reference(s).

 

See my previous posts for documentation.

Latin (itala) sources:

Latin Manuscripts:
m Speculum IV-IX
c Colbertinus XII/XIII
dem Demidovianus XIII
div Divionensis XIII
p Perpinianensis XIII
q Monacencensis VII

Latin Patristic:
Varimadum 380
Priscillian 385
Cassian 435
Ps-Vigilius ?
Victor-Vita 489 (accredited to)
Ps-Athansius VI
Fulgentius 533
Ansbert VIII

The Greek New Testament, Aland UBS, 1968. 2 Edition, Pg. 824.

Some say Cyprian (258AD) quoted the Comma:
"The Lord says, 'I and the Father are one' and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 'And these three are one'."
Treatises 1 5:423.

Some other sources include Victor Vitensis (485 AD), Codex Freisingensis (500 AD), Isidore of Seville (636 AD), Codex Pal Legionensis (650 AD), and Jaqub of Edessa (700 AD). It is also found in the edition of the Apostle's Creed used by the Waldenses and Albigensians of the twelfth century.

There are no know citations of 1 John 5:7 by any Greek or non-Latin father.

HankD

 

No problem there, Jim. I just hope that you are understanding what/why we, those who use MV's (as well as the KJV, which has superior translations in many places), believe that KJV-onlyism has distorted views of history, doctrine, and theology. Most KJV-onlyists are not of the 'Ruckmanite' kind, but rather like yourself. Even so, the 'moderate' KJV-onlyism of Strouse, Letis, Pensacola Christian College, and many KJV-only Baptist churches have been infected with a cancer that is so insidious that it spreads falsehoods, paranoia, and contempt for true Biblical scholarship. Again, please put yourself in our shoes and attempt to see our arguments; I was a former KJV-onlyist until I had friends and a college professor show me the truth about translations, doctrines, and linguistic studies.

 

HankD,

In the link I provided above, ( www.dbts.edu/dbts/journals/1996_1/ERASMUS.PDF ), William Combs documents and discusses the origins of the Comma Johanneum. The patristic statements seem to indicate that the passage was not in existence back in the 4th century (see Combs' footnote #70, "(70) Erasmus was, of course, correct. That the Comma is a later addition to the text can be demonstrated from the fact that it is found in the text of only four manuscripts (61, 629, 918, 2318), the earliest of which is from the fourteenth century, and in the margin of four others (88, 221, 429, 636), the earliest of which is the tenth century. It was not cited in the 4th century Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian) by any Greek Father, an absolutely inexplicable omission had they been aware of the passage. The old Scofield Reference Bible says that it “has no real authority, and has been inserted” (p. 1325).

Further comment about the history of this passage can be found at:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1185

The article was written by Daniel Wallace. It has relevance to the KJV-only debate since it is KJV-only proponents who say that Cyprian made an allusion to the verse, but Wallace proves that this is not so. Wallace notes this:
"The passage is quoted in 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."

At any rate, it would be impossible for the Comma Johanneum to be included in the text of 1 John since it is obviously an addition to the text, and is not original.

 

That is of course your opinion because the autograph of 1 John (as far as we know) no longer exists.

HankD

 

How about a PHRASE not found in any known Greek (or hebrew) sources for EITHER Testament?

"The image of" in the KJV's Romans 11:4 is NOT found either in the Greek for that verse nor in the Hebrew of the verse Paul quotes, 1 Kings 19:18. It appears those words were placed in the AV 1611 text at the whim of the translators.

 

Agreed, it should be removed along with all the "God forbid"s and "would to God"s they inserted into the text.

HankD

 

That is of course your opinion because the autograph of 1 John (as far as we know) no longer exists.

HankD </font>[/QUOTE]It is my opinion, yes, but do you discount all of the evidence that supports my opinion? Hmmmmm....

 

No.

HankD