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

Re: [textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."

Expand Messages
  • sarban
    I m afraid I can t show documentation. However, I don t believe that there is any evidence that the KJV translators themselves had access to the readings of
    Message 1 of 14 , Jun 7, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      I'm afraid I can't show documentation.
       
      However, I don't believe that there is any evidence that the KJV
      translators themselves had access to the readings of Vaticanus.
       
      What is claimed (on how strong evidence I'm not sure) is that
      Erasmus (whose Greek NT is in large measure the ultimate base
      for the KJV NT) knew at least some of the readings of Vaticanus
      but rejected them.
       
      Andrew Criddle
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:17 PM
      Subject: [textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."


      I hear and read this statement often: "The KJV translators had access
      to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."

      Can anyone on this list show documentation whether this is true or false?

      Thank-you.

      David Robert Palmer

    • Schmuel
      Hi Folks, Daniel Buck - Michael Marlowe writes, . . . the Codex Vaticanus, the readings of which were previously known to most scholars only from the scanty
      Message 2 of 14 , Jun 7, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Folks,

        Daniel Buck -
         Michael Marlowe writes, ". . . the Codex Vaticanus, the readings of which were previously known to most scholars only from the scanty extracts included in the sixth volume of Walton 1657."
        Papal librarian Paulus Bombasius apparently had sent some B readings to Erasmus, which he did not use to change the text of his GNT.  But it doesn't appear possible that anyone outside the Vatican would have had access to Vaticanus itself, and it was not fully collated
        until hundreds of years later.

          Actually, there are reports of receiving Vaticanus readings from two separate sources.
        I have a number of secondary sources here that give primary sources, some may do
        well to be checked for accuracy.  Some reports indicate that he only asked Bombasius
        about a couple of specific readings, including the Johannine Comma.  However there
        appears to be a secondary source who sent him many more readings.

        http://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/1023/1/279_050.pdf
        Erasmus and the  Comma Johanneum - H. J. De Jonge
        On 18 June 1521 Paul Bombasius, the secretary of the influential cardinal Lorenzo Pucci at Rome, sent a letter to Erasmus containing a copy of l John 4, l-3 and 5,7-11 from the Codex Vaticanus
        (
        P S ALLEN   IV, p 530, Opus Epistolaium Des Eiasmi Rötetodami, II Oxford 1910,)

        http://www.pathlights.com/onlinebooks/KJV-HB/KJV-early%20Centuries.htm
        The King James Bible and the Modern Versions by Vance Farrell
        there is evidence that Erasmus was told about many variant readings in the Vaticanus, by Sepúlveda, and from the papal librarian, Paul Bombasius, as early as 1521
         (see Wetstein’s Prolegomena to the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 23).

        http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-whynew.html#_ftnref12
        Which Version is the Bible? - Frank Nolen Jones (1996)
        Erasmus was in regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant readings which he desired.
        [12] In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus (a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent Erasmus 365 selected readings from Vaticanus B as proof of its superiority to the Textus Receptus. [13]   He offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the TR.  However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct.  Thus Erasmus knew about Vaticanus nearly one hundred years before the King James Bible ever saw the light of day!

        [12]    Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on Its Revision upon Critical Principal Together with a Collation of Critical Texts, (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854), p. 22.

        [13]    Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (New York: MacMillian, 1899), p. 53; F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol I, p. 109.


        http://www.present-truth.org/Wilkinson/authorizedbible5.htm
        Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Benjamin G. Wilkinson

        We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could have secured a transcript of this manuscript.(17) There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, who sent him such variant readings as he wished.(18)
        "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Codex B), as proof of its superiority to the Received Text."(19)

        (17) Bissell, Historic Origin of the Bible,  p. 84
        (18) S.P. Tregelles, On the Printed Text of the Greek Test., p. 22
        (19) Kenyon, Our Bible,  p. 133

        http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_wilkinson_incred.htm
        An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament
        Wilkinson .. cites .. Tregelles .. the page in question gives a somewhat different picture. Erasmus didn’t request readings, only a reading: I John 5:7.
        Erasmus requested his friend, Paulus Bombasius, at Rome, to examine the Codex Vaticanus for him as to this passage (emphasis added); and accordingly, in a letter, dated Rome, June 18, 1521, he sent him a transcript of the introductory verses of both the 4th and 5th chapters of St. John’s 1st article. (An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament - Tregelles)

        http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.html
        Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts: - Wieland Willker
        "Sepulveda had access to Codex Vaticanus (from 1521 on) and supplied Erasmus with 365 readings in the year 1533 to show that these readings agreed with the Vulgate against the TR"

        http://omega.cohums.ohio-state.edu/mailing_lists/CLA-L/Older/log98/9804e/9804e.165.html
        Pfeiffer's History of CPh. .See pp. 94f
        :... - David Lupher

        A more competent and sensible Spanish opponent of Erasmus than Stunica [Zun~iga] was Juan Ginez Sepulveda [sic] (1491-1572).  .......... Sepulveda was the first to collate the fourth-century Vatican manuscript of the Bible, later called Vaticanus B.  Though it was in the Vatican before 1481 and known to Stunica, it was not used for the Complutensian Polyglot. Sepulveda compiled a list of 365 variant readings in B, as he wrote to Erasmus in 1533, but whether he sent him the list, we cannot tell .... Pfeiffer

        For more information on Sepulveda and Erasmus, see Marcel Bataillon's huge and magisterial book on Erasmus and Spain (avail. in both French and Spanish versions). 

        =============================================================
        http://edburrell.com/Defense_Erasmus.html

        IN DEFENSE OF ERASMUS Dr. John Cereghin

        Erasmus did have access to Codex B readings (2) and rejected them because he knew how corrupt they were. After all, B is the Pope's manuscript, and since Erasmus was anti-Catholic, he rejected it. Paulus Bombasius discovered the neglected Codex B in the Vatican library in 1521 and in June of that year sent Erasmus its readings from I John 4:1-3 and I John 5:7. (3)

        These same readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were very much before the scholars in the 1611 AV as represented in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus was a personal friend of Leo X (from his earlier days) and had access to every library in Europe (because of his reputation as a scholar), including the Vatican. Erasmus had access to Vaticanus if he wanted it. He didn't need the manuscript itself because Paulus Bombasius, who was in Rome, was sending him B readings.

        Erasmus was furnished with 365 readings of B by Sepulveda, who was in possession of them as early as 1521. (5)
        ================
        2) Thomas Strouse, "The 19th Century Baptists, Bible Translations and Bible Societies." Tabernacle Baptist Theological Journal, Summer, 1994, Vol., I, No. 2, p. 7.

        3) Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over I John 5:7,8. Tempe AZ: Comma Publications, 1995, p. 75.

        4) David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence. Way of Life Literature: Oak Harbor WA, 1993, p. 10.

        5)  Frederick Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of the Biblical Student, ed. Edward Miller, 2 volumes. London: George Bell and Sons, 1894, 2:226, cited by William Grady, Final Authority, Schereville, IN: Grady Publications, 2993, page 113 and David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible, op. cit., p. 9. Also Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible, page 133, cited in Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Version Vindicated," cited by David Otis Fuller, ed. Which Bible? page 225. Maynard says, "A good Catholic would honor the 365 Vaticanus readings collected by J.G. Sepulveda, which agreed with the Vulgate. But Erasmus rejected these (p. 319). How could Erasmus reject Vaticanus readings unless he had them to reject? Maynard says on page 88 that Sepulveda supplied Erasmus with these readings because he was opposed to the manuscripts Erasmus was using to translate and edit his Greek text and was trying to influence Erasmus away from those manuscripts. Erasmus had these B readings to use for his 5th edition but rejected every single reading.

        ================================================================
        http://www.biblebelievers.com/JEcob1.html
        MODERN VERSIONS AND ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS By J. Ecob
        It is noteworthy that, though Erasmus had correspondence with three (3) Popes, (Julius II, Leo X and Adrian VI) and spent some time at Rome, he did not use Codex Vaticanus (b) when compiling the first printed text. (Codex B was the prime authority used by Westcott and Hort whose text is the basis for most modern translations.)
        In 1533 Sepulveda furnished Erasmus with 365 readings of Codex B to show its agreement with the Latin Version against the Common Greek Text. It is therefore evident that Erasmus rejected the readings of Codex B as untrustworthy and it is probable that he had a better acquaintance with it than did Tregelles in the 19th Century.

        ========================================================
        http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/8936/TEXTUS.HTM
        "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Codex B) as proof of its superiority over the Received Greek Text" Sir Fredrick Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" p133.

        Shalom,
        Steven Avery
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/



      • Larry Overton
        Steven s posted list of sources pertaining to Vaticanus and Erasmus was interesting. Of course, this does not directly answer the question raised by David in
        Message 3 of 14 , Jun 8, 2007
        • 0 Attachment

          Steven’s posted list of sources pertaining to Vaticanus and Erasmus was interesting. Of course, this does not directly answer the question raised by David in this particular thread, but it is interesting nonetheless.

          Several of the secondary sources Steven listed were works authored by KJO advocates. And each of these authors cited or alluded to Tregelles as a source for their claims. Steven spoke of checking quotes for accuracy, and I thought this would be worthwhile, particularly for those that do not have Tregelles.

          So I have taken the time to transcribe the oft-cited Tregelles reference. Since the page in question (p. 22) begins mid-sentence, I started my transcription on p. 21, in order to provide the whole of Tregelles’ statement plus a little context.

          Larry G. Overton

           

           

          Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament; with Remarks on Its Revision upon Critical Principles. Together with a Collation of the Critical Texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf, with That in Common Use. London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, Paternoster Row. M.DCCC.LIV [1854], pp. 21-22.

           

          …He [Erasmus] was attacked by Edward Lee, afterwards Archbishop of York, and also by Stunica, the Complutensian editor. The ignorance and presumption of the former, are such as might seem almost incredible. If Erasmus’s

          [p. 22] MSS. did not contain what Lee said ought to have been there, he should have condemned and rejected them as worthless! Stunica was an antagonist of a different stamp; and he had the tact to point out the marks of overhaste in the edition of Erasmus, and to object to those things which really required correction.

          Especially did Lee and Stunica complain of the omission of 1 John v.7; and it was in vain for Erasmus to answer that this was a case not of omission, but simply of non-addition. He showed that even some Latin copies did not contain the verse; and that Cyril of Alexandria, in his “Thesaurus,” so cited the context of the passage as to show that he knew nothing of the words in question. All this availed nothing in a dispute with dogmatic reasoners. At length Erasmus promised that if a Greek MS. were produced which contained the words, he would insert them. It was some time, however, before such a MS. made its appearance. In the course of the discussions on this passage, the authority of the Codex Vaticanus was appealed to for the first time in a point of criticism. Erasmus requested his friend, Paulus Bombasius, at Rome, to examine the Codex Vaticanus for him as to this passage; and accordingly, in a letter, dated Rome, June 18, 1521, he sent him a transcript of the introductory verses of both the 4th and the 5th chapters of St. John’s 1st Epistle.

           

        • Larry Overton
          Continuing with Steven’s suggestion of checking his quotes for accuracy, I want to comment on the reference to John Cereghin’s article “In Defense of
          Message 4 of 14 , Jun 9, 2007
          • 0 Attachment

            Continuing with Steven’s suggestion of checking his quotes for accuracy, I want to comment on the reference to John Cereghin’s article “In Defense of Erasmus,” and then supply the appropriate quote from Scrivener.

            The quote from John Cereghin’s article referring to Vaticanus readings and Erasmus is confusing, even flawed, both in its recounting of Scrivener’s information and in citation. Cereghin’s line reads as follows:

            Erasmus was furnished with 365 readings of B by Sepulveda, who was in possession of them as early as 1521.”

            This wording makes it unclear just exactly who was “in possession of” the Vaticanus readings “as early as 1521.” I am guessing that Cereghin meant for “Erasmus” to be taken as the antecedent of the pronoun “who,” though the nearest noun to the pronoun “who” in his sentence is “Sepulveda.” In Scrivener, it is clear that Erasmus “had obtained some account of this manuscript from the Papal Librarian Paul Bombasius as early as 1521.

            Furthermore, the readings that Erasmus had “as early as 1521” were not those supplied to him by Sepulveda, but the readings sent to him by “the Papal Librarian Paul Bombasius.”

            In his footnote to this statement, Cereghin specifically cites “2:226,” i.e., page 226 of Volume II of Scrivener’s work (the 1894 two volume fourth edition of Scrivener’s work edited by Miller) as the source of his statement. Actually, Cereghin goes on to indicate that his reference to Scrivener is based on other KJO authors that had cited Scrivener. This is an error of citation, either of Cereghin’s or of the other KJO authors he references (i.e., Grady & Cloud).

            In Volume II, page 226 is found in Chapter VII of that work. It deals with critical editions of the Greek NT, more specifically with the critical editions of Griesbach and Scholz. There is no reference to Vaticanus on this page, let alone any reference to Erasmus being supplied with 365 readings from Codex B. Mind you, I’m not disputing that Scrivener reported that information; I’m just pointing out that there is an error in the citation. Scrivener gives us this information on page 109 of Vol. I, not page 226 of Vol. II.

            Now, for that quote from Scrivener.

            Larry G. Overton

             

            Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of Biblical Students. Fourth Edition, edited by Edward Miller. London: George Bell & Sons, York Street, Covent Garden and New York, 66 Fifth Avenue. Cambridge: Deighton Bell & Co. 1894. Vol. I, p. 109.

            Tischendorf says truly enough that something like a history might be written of the futile attempts to collate Cod. B, and a very unprofitable history it would be. The manuscript is first distinctly heard of (for it does not appear to have been used for the Complutensian Polyglott1) through Sepulveda, to whose correspondence with Erasmus attention has been seasonably recalled by Tregelles. Writing in 1533, he says, ‘Est enim Graecum exemplar antiquissimum in Bibliothecâ Vaticanâ, in quo diligentissimè et accuratissimè literis majusculis conscriptum utrumque Testamentum continetur longè diversum a vulgatis exemplaribus’ : and, after noticing as weighty proof of excellence its agreement with the Latin version (mutum convenit cum vetere mostra tanslatione) against the common Greek text (vulgatam Graecorum editionem), he furnishes Erasmus with 365 readings as a convincing argument in support of his statements. It would probably be from this list that in his Annotations to the Acts, published in 1535, Erasmus cited the reading καυ̃δα, ch. xxvii. 16 (‘quidam admonent’ is the expression he uses), from a Greek codex in the Pontifical Library, since for this reading Cod. B is the only known Greek witness, except a corrector of Cod. א. It seems, however, that he had obtained some account of this manuscript from the Papal Librarian Paul Bombasius as early as 1521 (see Wetstein’s Proleg. N. T. vol. i. p. 23). Lucas Brugensis, who published his Notationes in S. Biblia in 1580, and his Commentary on the Four Gospels (dedicated to Cardinal Bellarmine) in 1606, made known some twenty extracts from Cod. B taken by Werner of Nimeguen; that most imperfect collection being the only source from which Mill and even Wetstein had any acquaintance with the contents of this first-rate document.

             

            1 The writer of the Preface to the Roman edition (vol. vi. Praef. p. 9, 1881) vainly struggles to maintain the opposite view, because the Cardinal, in his Preface to the Complutensian N.T., speaks about ‘adhibitis Vaticanis libris,’ as if there was but one there.

             

          • K.Martin Heide
            Hi Folks, just came back from a short trip and read all that stuff about Erasmus. Actually, I dealt with that in detail in my book Der einzig wahre Bibeltext?
            Message 5 of 14 , Jun 9, 2007
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Folks,

              just came back from a short trip and read all that stuff about Erasmus.
              Actually, I dealt with that in detail in my book "Der einzig wahre Bibeltext? Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Frage nach dem Urtext", 5th edition.
              The best way is to read the sources, which means here: the letters Erasmus and Sepulveda
              exchanged, pertaining to the question of the Codex Vaticanus.

              As I am squeezed by a lot of work, I hope you are not disappointed when I post some of the most important quotations in Latin & German. Perhaps someone of our English native speakers is moved to translate them into English. The numbers "EE" are the numbers of the Latin edition of Erasmus' letters (Allen, "Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami").
              Sepulveda first of all informed Erasmus, that a very old codex was found, which agreed more with the Latin than the Byzantine manuscripts Erasmus had used in Basel, and that he had prepared a list of 365 readings, and that, with the help of this codex, Erasmus could even emendate the common  Greek manuscripts he knew so far:


              J. G. de Sepulveda bezog sich auf den Codex Vaticanus mit den Worten: „In der vatikanischen Bibliothek befindet sich in der Tat ein sehr alter griechischer Text, sehr genau und akkurat in Majuskelschrift geschrieben (»diligentissime et accuratissime litteris maiusculis conscriptum«), sehr verschieden von den gewöhnlichen [griechischen] Texten (»longe diversum ab vulgatis exemplaribus«) […] Dieser Text ist der am sorgfältigsten überlieferte von allen (»omnium esse emendatissimum«), ersichtlich aus seinem Alter und der Gewissenhaftigkeit des Schreibers. Er stimmt oft mit unserer alten Übersetzung [d.h. der lateinischen Vulgata] überein, die ja zweifellos aus sehr alten und genauen Exemplaren übersetzt und uns überliefert wurde. Ob die übrigen [griechischen] Handschriften entsprechend der Genauigkeit jenes Exemplars als eine Art Referenztext korrigiert und berichtigt werden sollten (»Cum igitur ad illius exemplaris fidem et quasi normam caeteri libri sint emendandi ac dirigendi«), entscheide du selbst […] Wir haben 365 abweichende Schriftstellen aufgezeichnet“ (Brief an Erasmus vom 23. Oktober 1533, EE 2873: 19-34).

              1533 exzerpierte also Johannes Genesius de Sepulveda nach eigenen Angaben 365 Lesarten dieses Codex; ob er sie alle Erasmus zugesandt hat, wissen wir nicht. Erasmus hat nur wenige der Vaticanus-Varianten verwertet. Er gab eine Lesart dieses Codex in den Annotationen zu Apg 27,16 an und verwies beim Streit um das CJ darauf, daß der Codex Vaticanus das CJ nicht habe.

              Erasmus believed, by mistake, in addition - and that may have been the reason why he was very reluctant to inspect the Vaticanus-readings more closely - that the Codex Vaticanus was tampered with after the Council of Florence, 1435. Sepulveda argued that this is totally wrong; Erasmus, in turn, agreed in so far, that he knew of this idea only second-hand, but nevertheless that did not convince him of the Codex Vaticanus ... so, nothing was changed.

              Erasmus glaubte außerdem, Codex B sei 1435 nach dem Konzil von Florenz durch einen Erlaß (die Aurea Bulla, die aber davon nichts berichtet) des byzantinischen Imperators an die Vulgata angepaßt worden (EE 2905: 37-46 vom 17. Februar 1534). Das konnte ihm Sepulveda widerlegen (EE 2938: 69ff. vom 23. Mai 1534). Erasmus gab zu, er habe dies nur über dritte gehört (EE 2951: 49-54 vom 3. Juli 1534), blieb aber bei seiner Einschätzung: Die oben erwähnten Codices seien nach den lateinischen emendiert, und um letztendliche Gewißheit zu erlangen, solle man doch die griechischen Kirchenväter aufsuchen: „Sed Graecorum lectio petenda est ex Graecis auctoribus, Athanasio, Basilio, Origene, Chrysostomo, Nazianzeno, Cyrillo“ (EE 2905: 45-46). Zu dieser Zeit bereitete Erasmus bereits die letzte Auflage des NT vor (EE 2951: 12-13).


              Hope these little hints help,

              Martin


              Schmuel wrote:

              Hi Folks,

              Daniel Buck -

               Michael Marlowe writes, ". . . the Codex Vaticanus, the readings of which were previously known to most scholars only from the scanty extracts included in the sixth volume of Walton 1657."
              Papal librarian Paulus Bombasius apparently had sent some B readings to Erasmus, which he did not use to change the text of his GNT.  But it doesn't appear possible that anyone outside the Vatican would have had access to Vaticanus itself, and it was not fully collated
              until hundreds of years later.

                Actually, there are reports of receiving Vaticanus readings from two separate sources.
              I have a number of secondary sources here that give primary sources, some may do
              well to be checked for accuracy.  Some reports indicate that he only asked Bombasius
              about a couple of specific readings, including the Johannine Comma.  However there
              appears to be a secondary source who sent him many more readings.

              http://openaccess. leidenuniv. nl/dspace/ bitstream/ 1887/1023/ 1/279_050. pdf
              Erasmus and the  Comma Johanneum - H. J. De Jonge
              On 18 June 1521 Paul Bombasius, the secretary of the influential cardinal Lorenzo Pucci at Rome, sent a letter to Erasmus containing a copy of l John 4, l-3 and 5,7-11 from the Codex Vaticanus
              ( P S ALLEN   IV, p 530 , Opus Epistolaium Des Eiasmi Rötetodami, II Oxford 1910,)

              http://www.pathligh ts.com/onlineboo ks/KJV-HB/ KJV-early% 20Centuries. htm
              The King James Bible and the Modern Versions by Vance Farrell
              there is evidence that Erasmus was told about many variant readings in the Vaticanus, by Sepúlveda, and from the papal librarian, Paul Bombasius, as early as 1521
               (see Wetstein’s Prolegomena to the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 23).

              http://av1611. com/kjbp/ articles/ jones-whynew. html#_ftnref12
              Which Version is the Bible? - Frank Nolen Jones (1996)
              Erasmus was in regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant readings which he desired. [12] In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus (a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent Erasmus 365 selected readings from Vaticanus B as proof of its superiority to the Textus Receptus. [13]   He offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the TR.  However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct.  Thus Erasmus knew about Vaticanus nearly one hundred years before the King James Bible ever saw the light of day!

              [12]    Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on Its Revision upon Critical Principal Together with a Collation of Critical Texts, (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854), p. 22.

              [13]    Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (New York: MacMillian, 1899), p. 53; F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol I, p. 109.


              http://www.present- truth.org/ Wilkinson/ authorizedbible5 .htm
              Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Benjamin G. Wilkinson
              We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could have secured a transcript of this manuscript.( 17) There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, who sent him such variant readings as he wished.(18)
              "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Codex B), as proof of its superiority to the Received Text."(19)

              (17) Bissell, Historic Origin of the Bible,  p. 84
              (18) S.P. Tregelles, On the Printed Text of the Greek Test., p. 22
              (19) Kenyon, Our Bible,  p. 133

              http://www.kjvonly. org/doug/ kutilek_wilkinso n_incred. htm
              An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament
              Wilkinson .. cites .. Tregelles .. the page in question gives a somewhat different picture. Erasmus didn’t request readings, only a reading: I John 5:7.
              Erasmus requested his friend, Paulus Bombasius, at Rome, to examine the Codex Vaticanus for him as to this passage (emphasis added); and accordingly, in a letter, dated Rome, June 18, 1521, he sent him a transcript of the introductory verses of both the 4th and 5th chapters of St. John’s 1st article. (An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament - Tregelles)

              http://www-user. uni-bremen. de/~wie/Vaticanu s/umlauts. html
              Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts: - Wieland Willker
              "Sepulveda had access to Codex Vaticanus (from 1521 on) and supplied Erasmus with 365 readings in the year 1533 to show that these readings agreed with the Vulgate against the TR"

              http://omega. cohums.ohio- state.edu/ mailing_lists/ CLA-L/Older/ log98/9804e/ 9804e.165. html
              Pfeiffer's History of CPh. .See pp. 94f :.. . - David Lupher

              A more competent and sensible Spanish opponent of Erasmus than Stunica [Zun~iga] was Juan Ginez Sepulveda [sic] (1491-1572).  .......... Sepulveda was the first to collate the fourth-century Vatican manuscript of the Bible, later called Vaticanus B.  Though it was in the Vatican before 1481 and known to Stunica, it was not used for the Complutensian Polyglot. Sepulveda compiled a list of 365 variant readings in B, as he wrote to Erasmus in 1533, but whether he sent him the list, we cannot tell .... Pfeiffer

              For more information on Sepulveda and Erasmus, see Marcel Bataillon's huge and magisterial book on Erasmus and Spain (avail. in both French and Spanish versions). 

              ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====
              http://edburrell. com/Defense_ Erasmus.html

              IN DEFENSE OF ERASMUS Dr. John Cereghin

              Erasmus did have access to Codex B readings (2) and rejected them because he knew how corrupt they were. After all, B is the Pope's manuscript, and since Erasmus was anti-Catholic, he rejected it. Paulus Bombasius discovered the neglected Codex B in the Vatican library in 1521 and in June of that year sent Erasmus its readings from I John 4:1-3 and I John 5:7. (3)

              These same readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were very much before the scholars in the 1611 AV as represented in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus was a personal friend of Leo X (from his earlier days) and had access to every library in Europe (because of his reputation as a scholar), including the Vatican. Erasmus had access to Vaticanus if he wanted it. He didn't need the manuscript itself because Paulus Bombasius, who was in Rome, was sending him B readings.

              Erasmus was furnished with 365 readings of B by Sepulveda, who was in possession of them as early as 1521. (5)
              ============ ====
              2) Thomas Strouse, "The 19th Century Baptists, Bible Translations and Bible Societies." Tabernacle Baptist Theological Journal, Summer, 1994, Vol., I, No. 2, p. 7.

              3) Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over I John 5:7,8. Tempe AZ: Comma Publications, 1995, p. 75.

              4) David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence. Way of Life Literature: Oak Harbor WA, 1993, p. 10.

              5)  Frederick Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of the Biblical Student, ed. Edward Miller, 2 volumes. London: George Bell and Sons, 1894, 2:226, cited by William Grady, Final Authority, Schereville, IN: Grady Publications, 2993, page 113 and David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible, op. cit., p. 9. Also Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible, page 133, cited in Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Version Vindicated," cited by David Otis Fuller, ed. Which Bible? page 225. Maynard says, "A good Catholic would honor the 365 Vaticanus readings collected by J.G. Sepulveda, which agreed with the Vulgate. But Erasmus rejected these (p. 319). How could Erasmus reject Vaticanus readings unless he had them to reject? Maynard says on page 88 that Sepulveda supplied Erasmus with these readings because he was opposed to the manuscripts Erasmus was using to translate and edit his Greek text and was trying to influence Erasmus away from those manuscripts. Erasmus had these B readings to use for his 5th edition but rejected every single reading.

              ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= =======
              http://www.biblebel ievers.com/ JEcob1.html
              MODERN VERSIONS AND ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS By J. Ecob
              It is noteworthy that, though Erasmus had correspondence with three (3) Popes, (Julius II, Leo X and Adrian VI) and spent some time at Rome, he did not use Codex Vaticanus (b) when compiling the first printed text. (Codex B was the prime authority used by Westcott and Hort whose text is the basis for most modern translations. )
              In 1533 Sepulveda furnished Erasmus with 365 readings of Codex B to show its agreement with the Latin Version against the Common Greek Text. It is therefore evident that Erasmus rejected the readings of Codex B as untrustworthy and it is probable that he had a better acquaintance with it than did Tregelles in the 19th Century.

              ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========
              http://www.geocitie s.com/Heartland/ Plains/8936/ TEXTUS.HTM
              "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Codex B) as proof of its superiority over the Received Greek Text" Sir Fredrick Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" p133.

              Shalom,
              Steven Avery
              http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Messianic_ Apologetic/


            • Jovial
              Who really cares whether the KJV translators had accept to Vaticanus or any other Alexandrian text? It s clear from the translation that they prefers the
              Message 6 of 14 , Jun 11, 2007
              • 0 Attachment
                Who really cares whether the KJV translators had accept to Vaticanus or any other Alexandrian text?  It's clear from the translation that they prefers the Byzantine text type since it is mostly the TR with some pre-1599 Geneva readings mixed into it that deviate from the TR but agree with older English translations. If they were only interested in commerical success, the Byzantine text would be what we would expect them to use.  Perhaps someone did a translation of one of the Alexandrian texts back in the 17th century but it did not survive to this day due to a lack of commercial success.
                 
                The 1611 KJV was mostly a reaction to the changes in the Geneva Bible in 1599.  They didn't like the changes and wanted to go back to older readings that most English translations traditionally used.  That's why there's numerous places where it agrees with the Vulgate against the TR it is allegedly translated from.
                 
                Joe
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:21 AM
                Subject: [textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."

                Hi Folks,

                just came back from a short trip and read all that stuff about Erasmus.
                Actually, I dealt with that in detail in my book "Der einzig wahre Bibeltext? Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Frage nach dem Urtext", 5th edition.
                The best way is to read the sources, which means here: the letters Erasmus and Sepulveda
                exchanged, pertaining to the question of the Codex Vaticanus.

                As I am squeezed by a lot of work, I hope you are not disappointed when I post some of the most important quotations in Latin & German. Perhaps someone of our English native speakers is moved to translate them into English. The numbers "EE" are the numbers of the Latin edition of Erasmus' letters (Allen, "Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami") .
                Sepulveda first of all informed Erasmus, that a very old codex was found, which agreed more with the Latin than the Byzantine manuscripts Erasmus had used in Basel, and that he had prepared a list of 365 readings, and that, with the help of this codex, Erasmus could even emendate the common  Greek manuscripts he knew so far:


                J. G. de Sepulveda bezog sich auf den Codex Vaticanus mit den Worten: „In der vatikanischen Bibliothek befindet sich in der Tat ein sehr alter griechischer Text, sehr genau und akkurat in Majuskelschrift geschrieben (»diligentissime et accuratissime litteris maiusculis conscriptum«), sehr verschieden von den gewöhnlichen [griechischen] Texten (»longe diversum ab vulgatis exemplaribus«) […] Dieser Text ist der am sorgfältigsten überlieferte von allen (»omnium esse emendatissimum«), ersichtlich aus seinem Alter und der Gewissenhaftigkeit des Schreibers. Er stimmt oft mit unserer alten Übersetzung [d.h. der lateinischen Vulgata] überein, die ja zweifellos aus sehr alten und genauen Exemplaren übersetzt und uns überliefert wurde. Ob die übrigen [griechischen] Handschriften entsprechend der Genauigkeit jenes Exemplars als eine Art Referenztext korrigiert und berichtigt werden sollten (»Cum igitur ad illius exemplaris fidem et quasi normam caeteri libri sint emendandi ac dirigendi«), entscheide du selbst […] Wir haben 365 abweichende Schriftstellen aufgezeichnet“ (Brief an Erasmus vom 23. Oktober 1533, EE 2873: 19-34).

                1533 exzerpierte also Johannes Genesius de Sepulveda nach eigenen Angaben 365 Lesarten dieses Codex; ob er sie alle Erasmus zugesandt hat, wissen wir nicht. Erasmus hat nur wenige der Vaticanus-Varianten verwertet. Er gab eine Lesart dieses Codex in den Annotationen zu Apg 27,16 an und verwies beim Streit um das CJ darauf, daß der Codex Vaticanus das CJ nicht habe.

                Erasmus believed, by mistake, in addition - and that may have been the reason why he was very reluctant to inspect the Vaticanus-readings more closely - that the Codex Vaticanus was tampered with after the Council of Florence, 1435. Sepulveda argued that this is totally wrong; Erasmus, in turn, agreed in so far, that he knew of this idea only second-hand, but nevertheless that did not convince him of the Codex Vaticanus ... so, nothing was changed.

                Erasmus glaubte außerdem, Codex B sei 1435 nach dem Konzil von Florenz durch einen Erlaß (die Aurea Bulla, die aber davon nichts berichtet) des byzantinischen Imperators an die Vulgata angepaßt worden (EE 2905: 37-46 vom 17. Februar 1534). Das konnte ihm Sepulveda widerlegen (EE 2938: 69ff. vom 23. Mai 1534). Erasmus gab zu, er habe dies nur über dritte gehört (EE 2951: 49-54 vom 3. Juli 1534), blieb aber bei seiner Einschätzung: Die oben erwähnten Codices seien nach den lateinischen emendiert, und um letztendliche Gewißheit zu erlangen, solle man doch die griechischen Kirchenväter aufsuchen: „Sed Graecorum lectio petenda est ex Graecis auctoribus, Athanasio, Basilio, Origene, Chrysostomo, Nazianzeno, Cyrillo“ (EE 2905: 45-46). Zu dieser Zeit bereitete Erasmus bereits die letzte Auflage des NT vor (EE 2951: 12-13).


                Hope these little hints help,

                Martin


                Schmuel wrote:

                Hi Folks,

                Daniel Buck -

                 Michael Marlowe writes, ". . . the Codex Vaticanus, the readings of which were previously known to most scholars only from the scanty extracts included in the sixth volume of Walton 1657."
                Papal librarian Paulus Bombasius apparently had sent some B readings to Erasmus, which he did not use to change the text of his GNT.  But it doesn't appear possible that anyone outside the Vatican would have had access to Vaticanus itself, and it was not fully collated
                until hundreds of years later.

                  Actually, there are reports of receiving Vaticanus readings from two separate sources.
                I have a number of secondary sources here that give primary sources, some may do
                well to be checked for accuracy.  Some reports indicate that he only asked Bombasius
                about a couple of specific readings, including the Johannine Comma.  However there
                appears to be a secondary source who sent him many more readings.

                http://openaccess. leidenuniv. nl/dspace/ bitstream/ 1887/1023/ 1/279_050. pdf
                Erasmus and the  Comma Johanneum - H. J. De Jonge
                On 18 June 1521 Paul Bombasius, the secretary of the influential cardinal Lorenzo Pucci at Rome, sent a letter to Erasmus containing a copy of l John 4, l-3 and 5,7-11 from the Codex Vaticanus
                ( P S ALLEN   IV, p 530 , Opus Epistolaium Des Eiasmi Rötetodami, II Oxford 1910,)

                http://www.pathligh ts.com/onlineboo ks/KJV-HB/ KJV-early% 20Centuries. htm
                The King James Bible and the Modern Versions by Vance Farrell
                there is evidence that Erasmus was told about many variant readings in the Vaticanus, by Sepúlveda, and from the papal librarian, Paul Bombasius, as early as 1521
                 (see Wetstein’s Prolegomena to the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 23).

                http://av1611. com/kjbp/ articles/ jones-whynew. html#_ftnref12
                Which Version is the Bible? - Frank Nolen Jones (1996)
                Erasmus was in regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant readings which he desired. [12] In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus (a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent Erasmus 365 selected readings from Vaticanus B as proof of its superiority to the Textus Receptus. [13]   He offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the TR.  However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct.  Thus Erasmus knew about Vaticanus nearly one hundred years before the King James Bible ever saw the light of day!

                [12]    Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on Its Revision upon Critical Principal Together with a Collation of Critical Texts, (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854), p. 22.

                [13]    Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (New York: MacMillian, 1899), p. 53; F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol I, p. 109.


                http://www.present- truth.org/ Wilkinson/ authorizedbible5 .htm
                Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Benjamin G. Wilkinson
                We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could have secured a transcript of this manuscript.( 17) There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, who sent him such variant readings as he wished.(18)
                "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Codex B), as proof of its superiority to the Received Text."(19)

                (17) Bissell, Historic Origin of the Bible,  p. 84
                (18) S.P. Tregelles, On the Printed Text of the Greek Test., p. 22
                (19) Kenyon, Our Bible,  p. 133

                http://www.kjvonly. org/doug/ kutilek_wilkinso n_incred. htm
                An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament
                Wilkinson .. cites .. Tregelles .. the page in question gives a somewhat different picture. Erasmus didn’t request readings, only a reading: I John 5:7.
                Erasmus requested his friend, Paulus Bombasius, at Rome, to examine the Codex Vaticanus for him as to this passage (emphasis added); and accordingly, in a letter, dated Rome, June 18, 1521, he sent him a transcript of the introductory verses of both the 4th and 5th chapters of St. John’s 1st article. (An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament - Tregelles)

                http://www-user. uni-bremen. de/~wie/Vaticanu s/umlauts. html
                Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts: - Wieland Willker
                "Sepulveda had access to Codex Vaticanus (from 1521 on) and supplied Erasmus with 365 readings in the year 1533 to show that these readings agreed with the Vulgate against the TR"

                http://omega. cohums.ohio- state.edu/ mailing_lists/ CLA-L/Older/ log98/9804e/ 9804e.165. html
                Pfeiffer's History of CPh. .See pp. 94f :.. . - David Lupher

                A more competent and sensible Spanish opponent of Erasmus than Stunica [Zun~iga] was Juan Ginez Sepulveda [sic] (1491-1572).  .......... Sepulveda was the first to collate the fourth-century Vatican manuscript of the Bible, later called Vaticanus B.  Though it was in the Vatican before 1481 and known to Stunica, it was not used for the Complutensian Polyglot. Sepulveda compiled a list of 365 variant readings in B, as he wrote to Erasmus in 1533, but whether he sent him the list, we cannot tell .... Pfeiffer

                For more information on Sepulveda and Erasmus, see Marcel Bataillon's huge and magisterial book on Erasmus and Spain (avail. in both French and Spanish versions). 

                ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====
                http://edburrell. com/Defense_ Erasmus.html

                IN DEFENSE OF ERASMUS Dr. John Cereghin

                Erasmus did have access to Codex B readings (2) and rejected them because he knew how corrupt they were. After all, B is the Pope's manuscript, and since Erasmus was anti-Catholic, he rejected it. Paulus Bombasius discovered the neglected Codex B in the Vatican library in 1521 and in June of that year sent Erasmus its readings from I John 4:1-3 and I John 5:7. (3)

                These same readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were very much before the scholars in the 1611 AV as represented in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus was a personal friend of Leo X (from his earlier days) and had access to every library in Europe (because of his reputation as a scholar), including the Vatican. Erasmus had access to Vaticanus if he wanted it. He didn't need the manuscript itself because Paulus Bombasius, who was in Rome, was sending him B readings.

                Erasmus was furnished with 365 readings of B by Sepulveda, who was in possession of them as early as 1521. (5)
                ============ ====
                2) Thomas Strouse, "The 19th Century Baptists, Bible Translations and Bible Societies." Tabernacle Baptist Theological Journal, Summer, 1994, Vol., I, No. 2, p. 7.

                3) Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over I John 5:7,8. Tempe AZ: Comma Publications, 1995, p. 75.

                4) David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence. Way of Life Literature: Oak Harbor WA, 1993, p. 10.

                5)  Frederick Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of the Biblical Student, ed. Edward Miller, 2 volumes. London: George Bell and Sons, 1894, 2:226, cited by William Grady, Final Authority, Schereville, IN: Grady Publications, 2993, page 113 and David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible, op. cit., p. 9. Also Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible, page 133, cited in Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Version Vindicated," cited by David Otis Fuller, ed. Which Bible? page 225. Maynard says, "A good Catholic would honor the 365 Vaticanus readings collected by J.G. Sepulveda, which agreed with the Vulgate. But Erasmus rejected these (p. 319). How could Erasmus reject Vaticanus readings unless he had them to reject? Maynard says on page 88 that Sepulveda supplied Erasmus with these readings because he was opposed to the manuscripts Erasmus was using to translate and edit his Greek text and was trying to influence Erasmus away from those manuscripts. Erasmus had these B readings to use for his 5th edition but rejected every single reading.

                ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= =======
                http://www.biblebel ievers.com/ JEcob1.html
                MODERN VERSIONS AND ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS By J. Ecob
                It is noteworthy that, though Erasmus had correspondence with three (3) Popes, (Julius II, Leo X and Adrian VI) and spent some time at Rome, he did not use Codex Vaticanus (b) when compiling the first printed text. (Codex B was the prime authority used by Westcott and Hort whose text is the basis for most modern translations. )
                In 1533 Sepulveda furnished Erasmus with 365 readings of Codex B to show its agreement with the Latin Version against the Common Greek Text. It is therefore evident that Erasmus rejected the readings of Codex B as untrustworthy and it is probable that he had a better acquaintance with it than did Tregelles in the 19th Century.

                ============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========
                http://www.geocitie s.com/Heartland/ Plains/8936/ TEXTUS.HTM
                "A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Codex B) as proof of its superiority over the Received Greek Text" Sir Fredrick Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" p133.

                Shalom,
                Steven Avery
                http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Messianic_ Apologetic/


              • David Robert Palmer
                Thank-you very much Martin Heide and Larry Overton and Steven Avery and everyone else for your replies. I do care about what the KJV translators based their
                Message 7 of 14 , Jun 12, 2007
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thank-you very much Martin Heide and Larry Overton and Steven Avery and everyone else for your replies.
                   
                  I do care about what the KJV translators based their translation on, since the KJV is an extremely important and influential English document and Bible translation.
                   
                  I am only interested in truth in this matter, for the sake of getting all Christians on the same page and happy and harmonious as much as possible.
                   
                  Several years ago, King James Onlyists would email me and assert that the King James translators had access to Codex Sinaiticus and rejected it as well.  I think it has finally been proven to them, and they are convinced, that Codex Sinaiticus could not possibly have been consulted by Erasmus and the KJV tranlators, since it was discovered many years subsequent in time to the time of their work.  KJV onlyists have subsequently stopped saying this.  That is progress.
                   
                  Steven Avery quoted Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones.  I recently rebutted another quotation from him concerning 1 John 5:7, wherein he gives Greek manuscript evidence supporting the KJV text.  If anyone would care to check the accuracy of my rebuttal I would greatly appreciate it.  I posted it in PDF format, so everyone should be able to view it:  http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/FirstJohnCh5v7.pdf 
                   
                  Thank-you.
                   
                  David Robert Palmer
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Jovial
                  Sent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:41 AM
                  Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."

                   

                  Who really cares whether the KJV translators had accept to Vaticanus or any other Alexandrian text? 
                  .

                • James Snapp, Jr.
                  David Robert Palmer, I didn t double-check all the overlapping Tischendorf-and-Gregory numbers but your basic point clearly stands; Dr. Jones was using both
                  Message 8 of 14 , Jun 14, 2007
                  • 0 Attachment
                    David Robert Palmer,

                    I didn't double-check all the overlapping Tischendorf-and-Gregory
                    numbers but your basic point clearly stands; Dr. Jones was using both
                    numbering-systems.

                    In the excerpt from Metzger's Textual Commentary, the word "not"
                    should be added to the second line of the third point listed under
                    External Evidence, so that the sentence reads, "it is not found"
                    instead of "it is found."

                    Also, Metzger's paragraph which begins "For the story of how the
                    spurious passage came to be included" unquestionably should be
                    supplemented -- i.e., corrected -- by Metzger's statements which
                    appear in the appendix of "Text of the NT" 3rd edition, in the
                    appendix, where Metzger acknowledges that the story about Erasmus'
                    rash promise (apparently the same tale spread by Tregelles, and
                    spread further by Ezra Abbot in the 1800's, and still being spread to
                    this day) has been shown by deJonge to be historically unverifiable;
                    i.e., it is only true to about the same extent that the claim that
                    the KJV-translators had access to the contents of Codex Vaticanus is
                    true.

                    Yours in Christ,

                    James Snapp, Jr.
                    Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
                    Tipton, Indiana (USA)
                    www.curtisvillechristian.org/BasicTC.html
                  • Daniel Buck
                    ... 5:7, wherein he gives Greek manuscript evidence supporting the KJV text. If anyone would care to check the accuracy of my rebuttal I would greatly
                    Message 9 of 14 , Jun 14, 2007
                    • 0 Attachment
                      "David Robert Palmer" wrote:
                      >> I recently rebutted another quotation from him concerning 1 John
                      5:7, wherein he gives Greek manuscript evidence supporting the KJV
                      text. If anyone would care to check the accuracy of my rebuttal I
                      would greatly appreciate it.
                      http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/FirstJohnCh5v7.pdf
                      >>
                      The UBS4 footnote is apparently your source for "the" text of the
                      Johannine Comma in Greek. What sources Münster uses for the texts
                      they relegate to footnotes is still a mystery to me, as they don't
                      seem to bother to give the mss evidence for what they do provide.

                      In fact, there is no one Greek text of the Comma, nor should anyone
                      expect there to be one, if each individual mss editor used
                      independent translation from Latin to produce a Greek version. Latin
                      and Greek are near opposites when it comes to the use of articles.
                      Therefore, as one would suspect, the various Greek versions of the
                      Comma differ widely on the use of articles.

                      A few years ago I read a collation of several Greek versions of the
                      Comma in ms and print, which hopefully will come online in the near
                      future, once Unicode problems can be worked out.
                    • Larry Overton
                      Bravo. A very good rebuttal of Jones claims concerning Greek MSS evidence pertaining to the Comma Johanneum. I would, however, like to ask for some
                      Message 10 of 14 , Jun 14, 2007
                      • 0 Attachment

                        Bravo. A very good rebuttal of Jones’ claims concerning Greek MSS evidence pertaining to the Comma Johanneum. I would, however, like to ask for some clarification, if I may.

                        Regarding your citation of data, specifically of “The footnote apparatus herein is data as of about 1993,” would you please elaborate on the sources for the data you mentioned here? On my first reading of that sentence I took it to mean that you were quoting the footnote on 1 John 5:7-8 in the first printing of the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (a.k.a., UBS4), since that particular edition was published in 1993. However, the data you give is not a verbatim quote of the footnote on 1 John 5:7-8 in either UBS3 (page 824) or UBS4 (page 819).

                        For example, you do not indicate, as does UBS4, that MSS Ψ, 1844 & 1852 are enclosed in parentheses for having the reading μαρτυρουσιν instead of μαρτυρουντες. (UBS3 has only MS Ψ enclosed in parentheses).

                        Another example: your citation of MS 048 lacks the superscript “vid” (048vid, as found in UBS4), indicating its inclusion at that place in the apparatus is indicative of the “most probable reading” of the MS. It appears on this point you took UBS3 as your source, which also lacks the superscript “vid.”

                        Furthermore, you reference uncial MSS 049, 056, 0142 & 0296, but these are not found in the footnote in UBS4. MSS 049, 056 & 0142 (but not 0296) are found in UBS3.

                        After citing various “patristic” writers as omitting the Comma, you referred to Hodges-Farstad, Robinson-Pierpont and NA27 as additional editorial support for the omission of the added words in 1 John 5:7-8. However, the apparatus in each of these respective texts do not supply the kind of MS citations you gave in your data.

                        So I respectfully ask for some clarification on your sources for this portion of your document. Thanks in advance, and again, Bravo. Job well done.

                         

                        Larry G. Overton

                         

                         


                        From: David Robert Palmer [mailto:watutman@...]
                        Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:56 PM
                        To: textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."

                         

                        Thank-you very much Martin Heide and Larry Overton and Steven Avery and everyone else for your replies.

                         

                        I do care about what the KJV translators based their translation on, since the KJV is an extremely important and influential English document and Bible translation.

                         

                        I am only interested in truth in this matter, for the sake of getting all Christians on the same page and happy and harmonious as much as possible.

                         

                        Several years ago, King James Onlyists would email me and assert that the King James translators had access to Codex Sinaiticus and rejected it as well.  I think it has finally been proven to them, and they are convinced, that Codex Sinaiticus could not possibly have been consulted by Erasmus and the KJV tranlators, since it was discovered many years subsequent in time to the time of their work.  KJV onlyists have subsequently stopped saying this.  That is progress.

                         

                        Steven Avery quoted Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones.  I recently rebutted another quotation from him concerning 1 John 5:7, wherein he gives Greek manuscript evidence supporting the KJV text.  If anyone would care to check the accuracy of my rebuttal I would greatly appreciate it.  I posted it in PDF format, so everyone should be able to view it:  http://www.bibletra nslation. ws/trans/ FirstJohnCh5v7. pdf 

                         

                        Thank-you.

                         

                        David Robert Palmer

                         

                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.