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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 14 , Jun 14, 2007

      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 




      David Robert Palmer


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