Announcement

Collapse

Biblical Languages 301 Guidelines

This is where we come to delve into the biblical text. Theology is not our foremost thought, but we realize it is something that will be dealt with in nearly every conversation. Feel free to use the original languages to make your point (meaning Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). This is an exegetical discussion area, so please limit topics to purely biblical ones.

This is not the section for debates between theists and atheists. While a theistic viewpoint is not required for discussion in this area, discussion does presuppose a respect for the integrity of the Biblical text (or the willingness to accept such a presupposition for discussion purposes) and a respect for the integrity of the faith of others and a lack of an agenda to undermine the faith of others.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The real 1st John 5:7

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    Because most of the oldest codexes are poor copies of the majority of manuscripts. Pamphilius has his name on one. Pamphilius is either the scribe of Eusebius or Eusebius himself. Older is not always better.
    Of course not, no good text critic would say that. It is one factor among many. But that was not my question. How can you argue against the standard critical text if you do not even include it among the options presented?
    βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
    ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

    אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by robrecht View Post
      Of course not, no good text critic would say that. It is one factor among many. But that was not my question. How can you argue against the standard critical text if you do not even include it among the options presented?
      I think the apparatus is severely flawed, but you did use it cite which manuscripts had five-seven. Hence, I think there is some naiveness about it. There a 2 codexes, aleph and B, which don't agree with each other often. Siniactus and Vaticanus?

      It used to take a ticket to the mueseum to recheck everything.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
        I think the apparatus is severely flawed, but you did use it cite which manuscripts had five-seven. I think there is some naiveness about it though. There a 2 codexes, aleph and B, which don't agree with each other often. Siniactus and Vaticanus?
        Once again, I am not speaking of any critical apparatus, but the standard critical text. How can you argue against the standard critical text, if you do not even include it among the textual options in your presentation?

        And you are not just leaving out Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, but all Greek manuscripts before the 10th century, not to mention the great majority of later manuscripts.
        Last edited by robrecht; 03-16-2014, 02:57 PM.
        βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
        ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

        אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

        Comment


        • #19
          I don't argue against Westscott and Hort's critical text and other inspired texts. I just ignore them usually. But even the most fanatical KJV onlyist uses the critical text to prove 1 John 5:7. Furthermore, there is no exact pattern of ommission of the 7th verse. The 8th and 6th verses of chapter 5 are rumored to be inconsistently copied too. Why is the majority text so popular now despite Von Soden not being translated? (This very fact, I find frustrating) But even Von Soden has severe problems too, and who is good at reading Cursives?
          Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-16-2014, 03:06 PM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
            I don't argue against Westscott and Hort's critical text and other inspired texts. I just ignore them usually. But even the most fanatical KJV onlyist uses the critical text to prove 1 John 5:7. Furthermore, there is no exact pattern of ommission of the 7th verse. The 8th and 6th verses of chapter 5 are rumored to be inconsistently copied too. Why is the majority text so popular now despite Von Soden not being translated? (This very fact, I find frustrating)
            If you are frustrated by the scholarly popularity of critical texts and the retrograde popularity of the majority text, why not include them here so that you can argue against them?
            Last edited by robrecht; 03-16-2014, 03:10 PM.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #21
              Abandon hope, all ye who enter. Save yourselves!

              Click here for a text critical assessment of 1 Jn 5,7-8
              βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
              ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

              אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

              Comment


              • #22
                The majority text is a textual criticism theory. There are 2 editions which don't have it, and cspmt.org's version has inaccurate info in the apparatus. It says the complutensian polyglot doesn't have it. Everyone knows for a fact, there is a version of the verse, though mutilated [in it]. I do consider the Textus Receptus and Complutensian Polyglot to be majority text, though they are flawed.
                Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-17-2014, 02:30 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                  Abandon hope, all ye who enter. Save yourselves!

                  Click here for a text critical assessment of 1 Jn 5,7-8
                  Not about what we are talking about specificly. Thanx for the questions.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannine_comma <-- A very good article

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                      The majority text is a textual criticism theory. There are 2 editions which don't have it, and cspmt.org's version has inaccurate info in the apparatus. It says the complutensian polyglot doesn't have it. Everyone knows for a fact, there is a version of the verse, though mutilated. I do consider the Textus Receptus and Complutensian Polyglot to be majority text, though they are flawed.
                      The Textus Receptus and the Complutensian Polyglot usually tend to be the same as the Majority Text because all three are based on Byzantine mss. However, the published version of the Complutensian Polyglot does include the Johannine comma, while the first two editions of Erasmus, like the Majority Text, do not include the Johannine comma. There is very good evidence that the original printing of the Complutensian Polyglot in 1514 did not include the Johannine comma, but that it was added (by retro translation from the Latin) prior to the delayed publication in 1522. Erasmus added it to his third edition under a great deal of ecclesiastical pressure. Thus every version of the Textus Receptus has the Johannine Comma. The most virulent combatant against Erasmus was Diego López de Zúńiga, who was one of the editors of the Complutensian Polyglot.

                      Here is the 1516 text of the first edition of Erasmus:

                      ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες. τὸ πνεῦμα, καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα.καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσιν.

                      Here is the 1522 edited text of the Complutensian Polyglot:

                      ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ καὶ ὁ λόγος καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα, καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσι. καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα.

                      Since the Johannine comma is only included in about 10 very, very late manuscripts, the Majority Text also does not include the Johannine comma.

                      https://archive.org/details/Complutensian_Polyglot

                      http://www.e-rara.ch/bau_1/content/pageview/896099

                      http://books.google.com/books?id=yblbVru7dnAC
                      Last edited by robrecht; 03-17-2014, 09:20 AM.
                      βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                      ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                      אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Since the Johannine comma is only included in about 10 very, very late manuscripts, out of some 5,800 Greek manuscripts total, the Majority Text also does not include the Johannine comma.
                        Actually it is about 400 manuscripts [edit: which wouldn't have it]; but if you want to be real particular, the majority of manuscripts don't contain 1st John. And about half of them, that contain it, don't have the 5th chapter. And I doubt all 240 manuscripts which should have it, were checked. Not everybody has the money to buy facsmiles, and if they aren't collated, it is like a needle in a haystack.
                        Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-18-2014, 12:55 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                          Actually it is about 400 manuscripts; but if you want to be real particular, the majority of manuscripts don't contain 1st John. And about half of them, that contain it, don't have the 5th chapter. And I doubt all 240 manuscripts which should have it, were checked. Not everybody has the money to buy facsmiles, and if they aren't collated, it is like a needle in a haystack.
                          Oh yeah, I forgot about that. What is your source on the number of mss that include 1 Jn 5,7-8?
                          βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
                          ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

                          אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Unfortunately, it seems to be Michael Maynard; who hasn't studied the facsimiles. But there are certainly not 5000 greek manuscripts which have the epistle 1 John. I can't confirm there are only 250 manuscripts that have the 5th chapter of the epistle though.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              I forgot I still had my source, and it says there [are] 498 manuscripts which have a least some part of the first epistle of John.
                              Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-18-2014, 12:12 PM.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                                The majority text is a textual criticism theory. There are 2 editions which don't have it, and cspmt.org's version has inaccurate info in the apparatus. It says the complutensian polyglot doesn't have it. Everyone knows for a fact, there is a version of the verse, though mutilated [in it]. I do consider the Textus Receptus and Complutensian Polyglot to be majority text, though they are flawed.
                                FYI, according to the NKJV notes, the Majority Text omits the Johannine comma:
                                Source: NKJV Notes


                                1John 5:8
                                NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (1John 5:7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.

                                © Copyright Original Source



                                And according to the Believer's Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1980) by William MacDonald, edited by Arthur Farstad (the same fellow who with Zane Hodges edited the Majority Text):
                                Source: BELIEVER’S BIBLE COMMENTARY


                                5:7, 8 It always disturbs some devout Christians to learn that parts of verses 7, 8, as found in the KJV and NKJV, are actually found in only a handful of Greek manuscripts of the NT. But this does not at all affect the truth of the inspiration of the Scriptures. Some people think it is important to retain the words because they mention the three Persons of the Trinity. However, the truth of the Trinity does not depend on this passage alone, but is found in many other portions of the Scriptures.

                                Having stated in the previous verses the Person and work of Christ, John now goes on to state the trustworthiness of our belief in Him. He says that there are three that bear witness (the words “in earth” should not be included), the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one. Although the word of God should be sufficient for us, as a basis of faith, He condescends to give us a threefold witness concerning the truth. First of all, the Spirit of God bears witness to the truth that Jesus Christ is God and that He is the only Savior of the world. The witness of the Spirit is found in the written word of God. ...

                                © Copyright Original Source

                                Last edited by Kbertsche; 03-17-2014, 05:53 PM.
                                "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Quantum Weirdness, 08-29-2021, 04:29 PM
                                6 responses
                                108 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Christian3, 09-09-2017, 10:08 AM
                                369 responses
                                50,176 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Working...
                                X