Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1

[Caroline Wong]

Another extended quote from Wallace (b/c I could not be type all this out)   This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus� Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 1215 (in a Greek translation of the Acts of the Lateran Council, a work originally written in Latin). This is all the more significant, since many a Greek Father would have loved such a reading, for it so succinctly affirms the doctrine of the Trinity.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth century Latin homily in which the text was allegorized to refer to members of the Trinity. From there, it made its way into copies of the Latin Vulgate, the text used by the Roman Catholic Church. The Trinitarian formula (known as the Comma Johanneum) made its way into the third edition of Erasmus� Greek NT (1522) because of pressure from the Catholic Church. After his first edition appeared (1516), there arose such a furor over the absence of the Comma that Erasmus needed to defend himself. He argued that he did not put in the Comma because he found no Greek manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript sometime between May of 1520 and September of 1521. In his annotations to his third edition he does not protest the rendering now in his text,4 as though it were made to order; but he does defend himself from the charge of indolence, noting that he had taken care to find whatever manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. In the final analysis, Erasmus probably altered the text because of politico-theologico-economic concerns: he did not want his reputation ruined, nor his Novum Instrumentum to go unsold. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 10:44 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 If the Johanine Commatext (1 Jn 5:7-8)  did not exist before Erasmus. Please explain how a good number of Church fathers quoted it all the way back to 300AD. Magic? ESP? Or you are in error? Caroline Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I thought about posting a long post explaining textural variants in the Hebrew texts, the making of the Septuagint, what is considered the most reliable version of the Septuagint today, the Hebrew texts KJV translators used and the differences between them, Jewish criticism of the translations, but then I thought, oh why bother?   I (and many others) are fully convinced that no translation is error free but the modern ones are very good. We've looked into the matter and decided the KJV is inferior.   I'll throw in a paragraph by Daniel B. Wallace, PhD. for free (because I don't have to type it out :-) Read it or not, I don't care.   Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.[1] He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to �back-translate� the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading �there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.� However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read �there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.� Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge�viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text�did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus� third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was �made to order� to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century. [1] Now a humanist in the sixteenth century is not the same as a humanist today. Erasmus was generally tolerant of other viewpoints, and was particularly interested in the humanities. Although he was a friend of Melanchthon, Luther�s right-hand man, Luther did not care for him. ----- Original Message ----- From: Kevin Deegan To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 There is a mountain of evidence that the KJV is not the best English translation   Like the mythological Septuagint, we are still looking for?   "Mountain of evidence" of which by the way you have provided only three very questionable examples! What was that one about cattle that was a classic, could you resend that? Caroline Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi Terry and Izzy;   It boils down to faith. I know a little of philosophy, a little theology, a little church history and I know how trends in thinking and beliefs change over time and in different cultures. Faith is what keeps me going when things are dark and uncertain and I've just learned something that I wished I never knew. Faith assures me this is not the end even when others abandon the journey at the very way station I'm at. Faith can blithely park anomalous data for decades just in the off chance that some day it will make sense. Faith keeps my eyes on Christ as I shift around jigsaw pieces of hell, election, freewill, suffering, joy, grace, works etc.   Most people operate the same way. There is a mountain of evidence that the KJV is not the best English translation but by faith many say it is. There is evidence all over that God has abandoned some children to hideous suffering but by faith we say He has not. Logically, no one can be both 100% God and 100% man at the same time but by faith, we declare Jesus Christ is exactly that. Rationally, three Gods in one is nonsensical but by faith we relate to all three distinctively and as one.   I've know the stories of Christians who persevered despite all odds, even to a martyr's death. I know some who met up with evidence that was beyond reasonable doubt and they walked away from Christianity. (ex. Charles Templeton). My pastor is fond of saying to me "Fides quarens intellectum" which is Latin for "faith seeking understanding". That is what theology is. It is not to explain Christianity so that we can believe. As Augustine said, "I believe in order that I may understand."   So in summary, my main objection to your assertion that if someone proved Jesus is false, then it would be logical to stop believing is this: there is no room in my faith for such a thought. It is like asking me "is yellow circular?" or "are circles cold?" or "are my cats pious?" :-)   I know this is kind of long and I hope it makes sense. I hope this will also show why the Mormon people and the Canadians are so resistant to your arguments.   Love,   Caroline   ----- Original Message ----- From: Terry Clifton To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Monday, May 09, 2005 7:24 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fw: Rikk Watts on Genesis 1 Caroline Wong wrote: I consider myself Christian. There are tons of definitions of Evangelical. The simplest is a person who belongs to an Evangelical denomination. I define it as a person who tells another the good news.   BTW, was it you who said that if someone proved to you Jesus was false, you would stop believing? (I think it was in relation to the LDS people and Joseph Smith) I was completely stunned by that post and not sure if I read it right.   Love,   Caroline ================================================================ If you had absolute proof that Jesus was not the Savior, you would be out of your mind to continue to believe.  I am a realist.  I have examined the evidence.  Jesus is real!!! Terry __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!