Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: tc-list 1 Jn 4:1-3 translations

Expand Messages
  • Jim West
    ... Yuri- the answer seems simple- the RSV gives the text attested in the best and oldest mss whereas the KJV and the other versions have expanded the text
    Message 1 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      At 01:20 PM 11/2/98 -0500, you wrote:
      >
      >Dear friends,
      >
      >I'm now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1
      >Jn 4:1-3.
      >
      >
      >But in the case of v. 3 the Greek text seems to be rather uncertain. I've
      >looked at the variants, but I'm still not sure which variant may be the
      >more reliable.
      >
      >English translations of v. 3 are divided. Some, like RSV above, and the
      >more recent translations in general, say
      >
      >"...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God"
      >
      >But KJV, Darby, and YLT translate more like
      >
      >"...every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is
      >not of God"
      >
      >Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. Why has RSV chosen to go with
      >"...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God", and not the
      >other translation?
      >
      >Thanks in advance.
      >
      >Yuri.


      Yuri- the answer seems simple- the RSV gives the text attested in the best
      and oldest mss whereas the KJV and the other versions have expanded the text
      (based, to be sure, on expansions in various Greek mss).

      This is one of those places where the various scribes just tried to make
      clear something they perceived as unclear. Either way, the point remains
      the same--- those who, like the proto-gnostics- deny the authenticity of the
      incarnation are not to be believed... that is, it seems to me, John's point
      plain and simple- textual variants here arose simply to make that plain.


      Best,

      Jim

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
      Jim West, ThD
      Quartz Hill School of Theology
      jwest@...

      de mortuis nihil nisi baloni!
    • Michael Holmes
      ... In March, 1997, there was an announcement in the press about a new find by Mirecki and Hedrick; I pass along the following as I received it. Sounds like
      Message 2 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
      • 0 Attachment
        At 06:37 PM 11/1/98 -0000, Julio Anjos inquired:
        >Fall 1998
        >October 2125, 1998
        >Flamingo Hotel, Santa Rosa, California
        >
        >Paul A. Mirecki and Charles W. Hedrick upcoming book on the recently found
        >papiry ( a previouslly unknown dialogue-sayings gospel ) in a german
        >Egyptian Museum was suposed to be presented there.
        >
        >Anyone has any info?
        >

        In March, 1997, there was an announcement in the press about a "new find" by
        Mirecki and Hedrick; I pass along the following as I received it. Sounds
        like it is the document Julio is inquiring about

        Mike Holmes
        Bethel College

        *************************************************
        >
        >KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuter) - In a rare finding that could
        >shed light on the origins of Christianity, an American professor
        >said Tuesday that he and a colleague have identified fragments
        >of a ``lost gospel'' that contains conversations between Jesus
        >Christ and his disciples.
        > Paul Mirecki, associate professor of religious studies at
        >the University of Kansas, said he is confident the text is an
        >authentic early account of the teachings of Christ. If true,
        >this would mark the first time since 1945 that a so-called lost
        >gospel has been identified.
        > Mirecki said that apart from the New Testament's four
        >Gospels, scholars recognize approximately six other lost gospels
        >that detail Christ's teachings. The gospel of Thomas, discovered
        >in Egypt in 1945, was the last such text to be identified,
        >Mirecki said.
        > Mirecki happened on this manuscript in 1991 in the vast
        >holdings of Berlin's Egyptian Museum, but it has taken him until
        >now to piece together the document's content. He does not know
        >how the manuscript found its way to the museum.
        > A specialist in paleography, or ancient modes of writing,
        >Mirecki said he was confident the item was not a fraud or a
        >forgery. ``It's definitely an ancient manuscript -- fourth or
        >fifth century,'' Mirecki told Reuters in an interview.
        > The newly found gospel was written in the first or second
        >century, he said. ``The context here is there were many gospels
        >written in the first two centuries,'' Mirecki said. ``This text
        >is ... identical to similar texts that are called gospels. It
        >fits the literary pattern and the contents.''
        > Mirecki has been editing and translating the manuscript with
        >Charles Hedrick, professor of religious studies at Southwest
        >Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri.
        > Each man studied the manuscript independently while working
        >at the Berlin museum. After a chance encounter at a 1995
        >convention in Philadelphia they realized they were working on
        >the same project and decided to collaborate. Their book on the
        >new gospel will be published this summer by Brill Publishers in
        >the Netherlands.
        > Mirecki said the manuscript is written in Coptic, an ancient
        >Egyptian language that uses Greek letters. It was probably the
        >work of a Christian minority group called Gnostics, or knowers,
        >he said, and recounts a rare ``dialogue gospel'' of
        >conversations between Jesus and his disciples that supposedly
        >took place after Christ was resurrected.
        > He said the text and its message indicate Christianity's
        >origins were more diverse than what medieval historians have
        >described.
        > ``This is simply evidence of minority groups that existed
        >and that either were brought into the larger church -- the
        >Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches -- or died out. Quite
        >often they were persecuted to the point of death,'' he said.
        > Only 15 pages remain of the manuscript. Mirecki said it was
        >probably the victim of an orthodox book burning in about the
        >fifth century.
        > Specifically, the gospel espouses a stronger focus on
        >individual knowledge, urging its readers to reject the confines
        >of institutional religion. ``It's a non-orthodox text ...
        >Salvation comes to these people through knowledge rather than
        >faith,'' Mirecki said.
        > ``They see orthodox Jews and Christians as being duped by
        >the evil creator of the material universe. They had a very
        >different mythology ... one that could not be incorporated into
        >the larger Catholic church and had to be rejected.''
        > For example, one passage unique to the gospel reads, ``I
        >have overcome the Cosmos, so don't let the Cosmos overcome
        >you.''
        > ``That type of theology is not what developing orthodoxy
        >wanted to hear,'' Mirecki said. ``They wanted to promote
        >salvation in the Church, not in one's personal experience.''
        > Mirecki said he will present a paper on his findings at an
        >academic symposium in November in San Francisco.
        >
        **********************************
      • William L. Petersen
        Michael Holmes is correct: Mierecki and Hedrick announced this papyrus more than a year ago. It was noted in some major newspapers both here and abroad. In
        Message 3 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
        • 0 Attachment
          Michael Holmes is correct: Mierecki and Hedrick announced this papyrus
          more than a year ago. It was noted in some major newspapers both here and
          abroad. In the Netherlands, I know the NRC Handelsblat (their equivalent
          of the NYTimes; the paper of record) ran a piece on it in their weekend
          "CS" ["Cultural Supplement") section, and interviewed--among others--Prof.
          Henk Jan de Jonge of Leiden for his reaction. He, along with virtually
          everyone else I've spoken with, have described it as another secondary,
          derivative, apocryphal text (akin in many ways to some of the Nag Hammadi
          stuff, qua genre), with nothing new (at least insofar as can be determined
          now) to contribute to research. This is why few have heard of it: it
          doesn't appear to be significant, despite the discoverers' excitement.

          My recollection is that the "symposium in San Francisco" where the
          presentation was made not the Westar Institute "fall meeting," as Julio
          Anjos suggested, but the annual AAR/SBL meeting.

          --Petersen, Penn State University.


          >In March, 1997, there was an announcement in the press about a "new find" by
          >Mirecki and Hedrick; I pass along the following as I received it. Sounds
          >like it is the document Julio is inquiring about
          >
          >Mike Holmes
          >Bethel College
          >
          >*************************************************
          >>
          >>KANSAS CITY, Mo. (Reuter) - In a rare finding that could
          >>shed light on the origins of Christianity, an American professor
          >>said Tuesday that he and a colleague have identified fragments
          >>of a ``lost gospel'' that contains conversations between Jesus
          >>Christ and his disciples.
          >> Paul Mirecki, associate professor of religious studies at
          >>the University of Kansas, said he is confident the text is an
          >>authentic early account of the teachings of Christ. If true,
          >>this would mark the first time since 1945 that a so-called lost
          >>gospel has been identified.
          >> Mirecki said that apart from the New Testament's four
          >>Gospels, scholars recognize approximately six other lost gospels
          >>that detail Christ's teachings. The gospel of Thomas, discovered
          >>in Egypt in 1945, was the last such text to be identified,
          >>Mirecki said.
          >> Mirecki happened on this manuscript in 1991 in the vast
          >>holdings of Berlin's Egyptian Museum, but it has taken him until
          >>now to piece together the document's content. He does not know
          >>how the manuscript found its way to the museum.
          >> A specialist in paleography, or ancient modes of writing,
          >>Mirecki said he was confident the item was not a fraud or a
          >>forgery. ``It's definitely an ancient manuscript -- fourth or
          >>fifth century,'' Mirecki told Reuters in an interview.
          >> The newly found gospel was written in the first or second
          >>century, he said. ``The context here is there were many gospels
          >>written in the first two centuries,'' Mirecki said. ``This text
          >>is ... identical to similar texts that are called gospels. It
          >>fits the literary pattern and the contents.''
          >> Mirecki has been editing and translating the manuscript with
          >>Charles Hedrick, professor of religious studies at Southwest
          >>Missouri State University in Springfield, Missouri.
          >> Each man studied the manuscript independently while working
          >>at the Berlin museum. After a chance encounter at a 1995
          >>convention in Philadelphia they realized they were working on
          >>the same project and decided to collaborate. Their book on the
          >>new gospel will be published this summer by Brill Publishers in
          >>the Netherlands.
          >> Mirecki said the manuscript is written in Coptic, an ancient
          >>Egyptian language that uses Greek letters. It was probably the
          >>work of a Christian minority group called Gnostics, or knowers,
          >>he said, and recounts a rare ``dialogue gospel'' of
          >>conversations between Jesus and his disciples that supposedly
          >>took place after Christ was resurrected.
          >> He said the text and its message indicate Christianity's
          >>origins were more diverse than what medieval historians have
          >>described.
          >> ``This is simply evidence of minority groups that existed
          >>and that either were brought into the larger church -- the
          >>Catholic or Eastern Orthodox churches -- or died out. Quite
          >>often they were persecuted to the point of death,'' he said.
          >> Only 15 pages remain of the manuscript. Mirecki said it was
          >>probably the victim of an orthodox book burning in about the
          >>fifth century.
          >> Specifically, the gospel espouses a stronger focus on
          >>individual knowledge, urging its readers to reject the confines
          >>of institutional religion. ``It's a non-orthodox text ...
          >>Salvation comes to these people through knowledge rather than
          >>faith,'' Mirecki said.
          >> ``They see orthodox Jews and Christians as being duped by
          >>the evil creator of the material universe. They had a very
          >>different mythology ... one that could not be incorporated into
          >>the larger Catholic church and had to be rejected.''
          >> For example, one passage unique to the gospel reads, ``I
          >>have overcome the Cosmos, so don't let the Cosmos overcome
          >>you.''
          >> ``That type of theology is not what developing orthodoxy
          >>wanted to hear,'' Mirecki said. ``They wanted to promote
          >>salvation in the Church, not in one's personal experience.''
          >> Mirecki said he will present a paper on his findings at an
          >>academic symposium in November in San Francisco.
          >>
          >**********************************
          >
        • Yuri Kuchinsky
          Dear friends, I m now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1 Jn 4:1-3. Here s the RSV translation: 1 Beloved, do not believe every
          Message 4 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
          • 0 Attachment
            Dear friends,

            I'm now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1
            Jn 4:1-3.

            Here's the RSV translation:

            1
            Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the
            spirits to see whether they are of God; for many
            false prophets have gone out into the world.
            2
            By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit
            which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the
            flesh is of God,
            3
            and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not
            of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which
            you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the
            world already.

            The text of v. 2 seems quite clear, and according to this, the opponents
            of the writer seem to be Docetists (or Marcionites) who claimed that Jesus
            Christ only "appeared" to come in the flesh.

            But in the case of v. 3 the Greek text seems to be rather uncertain. I've
            looked at the variants, but I'm still not sure which variant may be the
            more reliable.

            English translations of v. 3 are divided. Some, like RSV above, and the
            more recent translations in general, say

            "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God"

            But KJV, Darby, and YLT translate more like

            "...every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is
            not of God"

            Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. Why has RSV chosen to go with
            "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God", and not the
            other translation?

            Thanks in advance.

            Yuri.
          • Bart Ehrman
            Don t think the opponents could be Marcionites, unless you *really* late-date the letter (or prefer not to follow the still-standard-and-for-good-reason line
            Message 5 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
            • 0 Attachment
              Don't think the opponents could be Marcionites, unless you *really*
              late-date the letter (or prefer not to follow the
              still-standard-and-for-good-reason line on the dates of marcion).

              I've dealt with the textual problem at length in my _Orthodox
              Corruption of Scripture_ pp. 125-35, if you want to see the evidence,
              arguments, and counterarguments. (I push strongly for _me homologei_
              against _luei_).

              -- Bart Ehrman
              University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill


              On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Yuri Kuchinsky wrote:

              >
              > Dear friends,
              >
              > I'm now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1
              > Jn 4:1-3.
              >
              > Here's the RSV translation:
              >
              > 1
              > Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the
              > spirits to see whether they are of God; for many
              > false prophets have gone out into the world.
              > 2
              > By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit
              > which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the
              > flesh is of God,
              > 3
              > and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not
              > of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which
              > you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the
              > world already.
              >
              > The text of v. 2 seems quite clear, and according to this, the opponents
              > of the writer seem to be Docetists (or Marcionites) who claimed that Jesus
              > Christ only "appeared" to come in the flesh.
              >
              > But in the case of v. 3 the Greek text seems to be rather uncertain. I've
              > looked at the variants, but I'm still not sure which variant may be the
              > more reliable.
              >
              > English translations of v. 3 are divided. Some, like RSV above, and the
              > more recent translations in general, say
              >
              > "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God"
              >
              > But KJV, Darby, and YLT translate more like
              >
              > "...every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is
              > not of God"
              >
              > Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. Why has RSV chosen to go with
              > "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God", and not the
              > other translation?
              >
              > Thanks in advance.
              >
              > Yuri.
              >
              >
            • lakr
              ... I do not have my Nestle Aland with me at the moment, but the translatins are different because the textus receptus which underlies the KJV is different
              Message 6 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                >
                > Dear friends,
                >
                > I'm now trying to determine who exactly were the opponents criticised in 1
                > Jn 4:1-3.
                >
                > Here's the RSV translation:
                >
                > 1
                > Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the
                > spirits to see whether they are of God; for many
                > false prophets have gone out into the world.
                > 2
                > By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit
                > which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the
                > flesh is of God,
                > 3
                > and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not
                > of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which
                > you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the
                > world already.
                >
                > The text of v. 2 seems quite clear, and according to this, the opponents
                > of the writer seem to be Docetists (or Marcionites) who claimed that Jesus
                > Christ only "appeared" to come in the flesh.
                >
                > But in the case of v. 3 the Greek text seems to be rather uncertain. I've
                > looked at the variants, but I'm still not sure which variant may be the
                > more reliable.
                >
                > English translations of v. 3 are divided. Some, like RSV above, and the
                > more recent translations in general, say
                >
                > "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God"
                >
                > But KJV, Darby, and YLT translate more like
                >
                > "...every spirit which does not confess that Jesus Christ came in flesh is
                > not of God"
                >
                > Perhaps someone can clarify this for me. Why has RSV chosen to go with
                > "...every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God", and not the
                > other translation?
                >
                > Thanks in advance.
                >
                > Yuri.
                >

                I do not have my Nestle Aland with me at the moment, but the translatins
                are different because the textus receptus which underlies the KJV
                is different that the texts which are derived from the science of
                Textual Criticism.

                I can give both texts here but cannot comment on exactly which
                manuscripts follow which tradition.

                1Jo 4:3 TR
                KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
                [ XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA ]
                EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
                OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH


                1Jo 4:3 W&H
                KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
                EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
                OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH

                Notice that in the top example the words 'Christ in flesh came' are inserted
                into the Textus Receptus.

                The RSV does not follow the TR Greek text.

                Hope this helps,
                Larry Kruper
              • Prof. Ron Minton
                ... Can someone check to see if the few mss. Erasmus used have the words or did he use another source? They are in Aleph [kurion instead of christon] which,
                Message 7 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, lakr wrote:
                  > 1Jo 4:3 TR
                  > KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
                  > [ XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA ]
                  > EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
                  > OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH
                  >
                  > 1Jo 4:3 W&H
                  > KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
                  > EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
                  > OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH
                  >
                  > Notice that in the top example the words 'Christ in flesh came' are
                  > inserted into the Textus Receptus.

                  Can someone check to see if the few mss. Erasmus used have the words or
                  did he use another source? They are in Aleph [kurion instead of christon]
                  which, of course, he did not have.

                  Ron Minton
                  5379 North Farm Road 179
                  Springfield, MO 65803
                  (417)833-9581
                • Prof. Ron Minton
                  We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the
                  Message 8 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
                  • 0 Attachment
                    We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
                    will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
                    Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

                    Ron Minton
                  • Kevin W. Woodruff
                    Ron: The TR reading is also the reading of the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts ... Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div. Library Director/Reference Librarian Cierpke
                    Message 9 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ron:

                      The TR reading is also the reading of the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts


                      At 02:11 PM 11/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
                      >On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, lakr wrote:
                      >> 1Jo 4:3 TR
                      >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
                      >> [ XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA ]
                      >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
                      >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH
                      >>
                      >> 1Jo 4:3 W&H
                      >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
                      >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
                      >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH
                      >>
                      >> Notice that in the top example the words 'Christ in flesh came' are
                      >> inserted into the Textus Receptus.
                      >
                      >Can someone check to see if the few mss. Erasmus used have the words or
                      >did he use another source? They are in Aleph [kurion instead of christon]
                      >which, of course, he did not have.
                      >
                      >Ron Minton
                      >5379 North Farm Road 179
                      >Springfield, MO 65803
                      >(417)833-9581
                      >
                      >

                      Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
                      Library Director/Reference Librarian
                      Cierpke Memorial Library
                      Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
                      1815 Union Ave.
                      Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
                      United States of America
                      423/493-4252 (office)
                      423/698-9447 (home)
                      423/493-4497 (FAX)
                      Cierpke@... (preferred)
                      kwoodruf@... (alternate)
                      http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
                    • Robert B. Waltz
                      ... While I heartily agree with the sentiment, I have to point out that this has not actually been tested. The key word is *eventually*. I won t go into the
                      Message 10 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Prof. Ron Minton" <rminton@...> wrote:

                        >We have all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters
                        >will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
                        >Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true.

                        While I heartily agree with the sentiment, I have to point out that
                        this has not actually been tested. The key word is *eventually*.

                        I won't go into the math -- my calculator doesn't run that high --
                        but the odds of the monkeys doing the job in any given period of
                        time are extremely low. We'd need something like the lifetime of
                        the universe to conduct the test.

                        While we have our million monkeys, and more, we haven't had the time.

                        Besides, the monkey are supposed to type *random* letters. The people
                        driving the Internet don't type random letters. They type things they
                        think are meaningful. Net result: They will probably *never* manage
                        the complete works of Shakespeare. The average Internet user isn't
                        nearly as smart as random chance. :-)
                        -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

                        Robert B. Waltz
                        waltzmn@...

                        Want more loudmouthed opinions about textual criticism?
                        Try my web page: http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn
                        (A site inspired by the Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism)
                      • Kevin W. Woodruff
                        Codices of manuscripts used by Erasmus for his first edition (1516) Most of these codices are at the University Library at the University of Basel, Switzerland
                        Message 11 of 15 , Nov 2, 1998
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Codices of manuscripts used by Erasmus for his first edition (1516)

                          Most of these codices are at the University Library at the University of
                          Basel, Switzerland

                          Evan. 2
                          15th century or earlier. According to Scrivener "is the the inferior
                          manuscript chiefly used by Erasmus for his first edition of the N.T. (1516)."

                          Act. Paul 2
                          13th or 14th century according to Burgon. Erasmus grounded on this
                          copy in some passages with some alterations of the manuscripts the text of
                          his first edition

                          Paul. 7
                          date not known

                          Evan.Act.Paul 1
                          12th or 13th century according to Burgon

                          Act.Paul 4
                          15th century according to Scrivener, most likely 12th century
                          Apoc. 1
                          12th century according to Scrivener


                          At 02:11 PM 11/2/98 -0600, you wrote:
                          >On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, lakr wrote:
                          >> 1Jo 4:3 TR
                          >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
                          >> [ XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA ]
                          >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
                          >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH
                          >>
                          >> 1Jo 4:3 W&H
                          >> KAI PAN PNEUMA O MH OMOLOGEI TON IHSOUN
                          >> EK TOU QEOU OUK ESTIN KAI TOUTO ESTIN TO TOU ANTIXRISTOU O AKHKOATE
                          >> OTI ERXETAI KAI NUN EN TW KOSMW ESTIN HDH
                          >>
                          >> Notice that in the top example the words 'Christ in flesh came' are
                          >> inserted into the Textus Receptus.
                          >
                          >Can someone check to see if the few mss. Erasmus used have the words or
                          >did he use another source? They are in Aleph [kurion instead of christon]
                          >which, of course, he did not have.
                          >
                          >Ron Minton
                          >5379 North Farm Road 179
                          >Springfield, MO 65803
                          >(417)833-9581
                          >
                          >

                          Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
                          Library Director/Reference Librarian
                          Cierpke Memorial Library
                          Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
                          1815 Union Ave.
                          Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
                          United States of America
                          423/493-4252 (office)
                          423/698-9447 (home)
                          423/493-4497 (FAX)
                          Cierpke@... (preferred)
                          kwoodruf@... (alternate)
                          http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm
                        • Julio Anjos
                          Info on the book can be found on: http://westarinstitute.org/Books/Author/Savior/savior.html I have mine ordered sice August. More info on the find can be
                          Message 12 of 15 , Nov 3, 1998
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Info on the book can be found on:
                            http://westarinstitute.org/Books/Author/Savior/savior.html
                            I have mine ordered sice August.

                            More info on the find can be found in:
                            http://scholar.cc.emory.edu/scripts/jv/rsn_may_gosp.html
                            But in short the facts are:

                            Designated the Berlin Manuscript P. 22220, the manuscript is comprised of
                            approximately thirty fragments, which are the remains of at least eighteen
                            parchment leaves. The fragments range in size from a few centimeters square
                            to at least one complete, though damaged, sheet comprising two leaves. One
                            or two fragments show evidence of having been burned. Hedrick and Mirecki
                            estimate on codicological grounds that the fragments come from leaves 97114
                            of the original codex.
                            ...
                            Written in Coptic, the document is probably a translation of an original
                            Greek text. Hedrick describes the Coptic as a rather pure example of the
                            Sahidic dialect, with only one possible Achmimic variant extant.
                            ....
                            . The Lord is portrayed as speaking with his apostles, and the names
                            James, John, and Andrew are extant.


                            As far as I know there are new sayings strong in gnostic imagery, and new
                            versions like:
                            Whoever is near me is near the fire; whoever is far from me is far from
                            life. A slightly different version of the same saying is attested in the
                            Gospel of Thomas, logion 82: Whoever is near me is near the fire; whoever
                            is far from me is far from the kingdom.


                            The info on the Westar Fall 1998 Meeting where the first presentation was to
                            be made was removed once the meeting was held, but it stated very clearly
                            both authours were to be there.

                            Best regards.
                            Julio
                          • Yuri Kuchinsky
                            ... Dear Bart, I have read your treatment now, and I agree with you on some points, while disagree on others. We agree that the opponents in 1Jn 4:1-3 are
                            Message 13 of 15 , Nov 3, 1998
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Bart Ehrman wrote:

                              > I've dealt with the textual problem at length in my _Orthodox
                              > Corruption of Scripture_ pp. 125-35, if you want to see the evidence,
                              > arguments, and counterarguments. (I push strongly for _me homologei_
                              > against _luei_).

                              Dear Bart,

                              I have read your treatment now, and I agree with you on some points, while
                              disagree on others.

                              We agree that the opponents in 1Jn 4:1-3 are docetists. But your treatment
                              of this passage focuses primarily on _me homologei_ against _luei_
                              problem. For all I can see you're right on this, but this does not really
                              seem relevant to the issues I'm dealing with at this time.

                              There are many interpretative problems with 1Jn. I've just read Anchor BD
                              (1992) article on the Johannine epistles by Robert Kysar, and he admits
                              that plenty is disputed as to authorship, context, and dating. According
                              to him,

                              "The dates of the documents can be fixed only approximately."

                              He, himself, gives ca. 100, but other opinions are possible.

                              Now, the question as to whether the opponents in 1Jn 4:1-3 are Marcionites
                              is not directly relevant to my larger thesis, and depends on the dating. I
                              think it is possible to date the epistles to mid-second century, and I
                              prefer such later dating.

                              My larger thesis is that there are two distinct sets of opponents
                              discernable in 1Jn, and this has been argued by a number of commentators.
                              You mention Smalley yourself. According to such a view, some opponents are
                              Ebionites, and have low Christology. These are the opponents in 1Jn
                              2:18-23. Others, in 1Jn 4:1-3, and in 2Jn, are docetists with high
                              Christology.

                              You don't like this sort of an interpretation, but I disagree on this. I'm
                              just taking the most literal reading of these passages, and this is what
                              the texts seem to say to me. I have a more detailed treatment of these
                              matters that I posted to Synoptic-l in the last few days.

                              http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/1253.html

                              and

                              http://www.egroups.com/list/synoptic-l/1259.html

                              Johannine correspondence is only a part of my larger argument in these two
                              long articles that deal mostly with Papias and Irenaeus.

                              I see no real need to conflate the opponents in 1Jn 2:18-23, and in 1Jn
                              4:1-3 like you tend to. But this question is very complex, since it
                              involves the exact understanding of various Christologies. In spite of
                              many apparent similarities between the two, I think there was a pretty
                              clear distinction between the much earlier group of
                              Ebionites/Adoptionists, and the rather later docetists, although this
                              distinction is often neglected by scholars.

                              On this, see M. Goulder, ST. PAUL VERSUS ST. PETER: A TALE OF TWO
                              MISSIONS, Westminster/John Knox Press, 1995, p. 117. (Goulder uses the
                              term Possessionist to describe Adoptionists.) He points out that, while in
                              mainstream academic literature "Adoptionists" are often conflated with
                              "Docetists", according to him this is confusing, and he advocates defining
                              these terms more precisely.

                              It was the Adoptionists/Possessionists who resisted identifying Jesus with
                              Christ, just like the opponents in 1Jn 2:22.

                              Now, the question that I posted to tc-list originally only focused on the
                              reading of 4:3a, which, in itself, is a rather narrow problem that does
                              not need to involve larger issues, since the interpretation of 4:2 is
                              already pretty clear.

                              According to Kevin, the longer reading comes mostly from the Byzantine
                              mss. Whether or not XRISTON EN SARKI ELHLUQOTA was added later, or was
                              edited out later, still seems not too clear to me. In any case, the phrase
                              just seems to fit the meaning of the passage rather well.

                              Best wishes,

                              Yuri.

                              Yuri Kuchinsky || Toronto

                              http://www.trends.net/~yuku/bbl/bbl.htm
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.