Originally posted by Omniskeptical
View Post
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
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
-
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׃
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostOf 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?
It used to take a ticket to the mueseum to recheck everything.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostI 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?
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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostI 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)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
-
Abandon hope, all ye who enter. Save yourselves!
Click here for a text critical assessment of 1 Jn 5,7-8βλέπομεν 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
-
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
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostAbandon hope, all ye who enter. Save yourselves!
Click here for a text critical assessment of 1 Jn 5,7-8
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostThe 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.
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=yblbVru7dnACLast 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
-
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.Last edited by Omniskeptical; 03-18-2014, 12:55 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostActually 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.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
-
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
-
Originally posted by Omniskeptical View PostThe 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.
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):
Last edited by Kbertsche; 03-17-2014, 05:53 PM."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment