# Majority Text VS Received Text



## nwink (Aug 2, 2012)

Let me preface my question by saying that I would appreciate only responses in favor of the Received Text.

I know there are some differences between the Majority Text and Received Text. How was the Received Text obtained and how was it known that it's readings are God's Word even though these readings were not preserved as a majority reading in the Byzantine text line?

I found an interesting quote from Rev Winzer on an old thread: "There seems to be some confusion in terminology. The MT is the majority text as contained in the Byzantine family of mss. It is merely ms. evidence. The ecclesiastical text is the text received by the church through the ages. The one is witness; and the other is judge. It is absurd to make one witness the sole witness and ultimate judge of the matter."

Does anyone know of some good resources for digging further into this topic?

(I'd also like to hear any thoughts continuing off what Rev Winzer said on the matter)


----------



## rbcbob (Aug 2, 2012)

nwink said:


> I would appreciate only responses in favor of the Received Text.



As I am hereby disqualified I must pass.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 2, 2012)

Hello Nathan,

I give you the link to an extended discussion of this very topic here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/#post304894. Mr. Kurschner had posted a challenge in this regard which I saw fit to answer.

My take is from a different angle than Rev Winzer's: The Majority Text (aka the Greek Byzantine text) represents the last development in a line of transmission from the apostles to the Greek-speaking churches in the Aegean area, Rome, and Palestine (note: no autographs / apostolic originals were sent to Alexandria, from which the Critical Text arose), and which remained in a mostly pure form in the Greek churches until the Reformation, and the final compiling of the Greek edition from which the King James Bible was translated. A clear and succinct presentation of this early history may be found in Wilbur Pickering’s chapter 5 of his, _The Identity of the New Testament Text III_.

The Received Text (Textus Receptus) is not at a far remove from the Byzantine / Majority textform – or the “Traditional Text” of Burgon, Hoskier, Miller, Scrivener, which is pretty much the same. I have said this of the situation via-à-vis the MT and the TR,
Be it known that while I fully use what is of value in the Byz/MT labors, which are immense and of precious value, I go beyond what they allow. We of the TR and AV school stand on their shoulders – or to perfect the metaphor, we _leap_ from their shoulders to a high rock, upon which we take our stand.​
It is this leap of faith (which is not without evidences) in God’s providence bringing certain readings back into the Biblical text that had been taken out of the Byzantine textform so the Reformation Bible could be made intact, it is in this leap that many Byz folks cannot follow us.

I have also presented the case (though not as extensively focused on the MT/TR as in the Kurschner response) here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/.

I hope this is helpful.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 3, 2012)

My understanding has always been that the TR is very similar to the MT upon which it is based.

Steve: I have always heard that there are places in the TR, such as in Revelation, where the TR was translated from the Latin Vulgate because there was no Greek manuscript available. Is this true? and if so, is this important?


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 3, 2012)

There is no such such as a ''received text'' per se. It refers to several different critical New Testament editions (started by Erasmus and continued under de Bèze and some others) and was used as the Greek text by the Reformers in their various translation of the Bible and for research. That is why it has been given the name ''of textus receptus'' because it was the first critical Greek text given to the Church and allowed us to get the closest to the original than the Church has ever before, thus creating Revival in the Church under the Reformation and through which the Gospel was rediscovered. But 

That is what my former pastor told me who is TR only, though not KJV only. I myself am a critical text man myself, but I don't make this an issue of major importance between brothers in the Lord.


----------



## J. Dean (Aug 3, 2012)

As I understand it, there are no differences between the TR and MT that cause any doctrinal divulgence (In other words, you're not going to find one of the texts supporting justification by faith alone, while the other does not).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill, to answer your question I’m going to excerpt from the response to James White article linked above (you may find this and more on the topic in that thread by entering the words “Concerning Erasmus” in your browser’s search feature – and this should take you to the section).

------------

*CONCERNING ERASMUS*

I want to quote first from a paper titled, “That Rascal Erasmus—Defense Of His Greek Text”, pages 5-8, by Dr. Daryl R. Coats (available for $2.00 at BFT – Bible For Today Webstore – item # OP2456). Most of us have heard stories of Erasmus’ poor copies of texts available to him, and especially the one about his offering to insert 1 John 5:7 into his Greek editions if but one Greek MS was shown him which contained it. Dr. Coats writes,
*
The supposed “Erasmian Inventions”*

Modern critics such as Metzger almost gleefully repeat the story that when Erasmus put together his Greek New Testament, he had access to only one copy of Revelation, a “very mutilated” copy missing the last six verses of the book and damaged in verse 17:4. As a result Erasmus supposedly retranslated the missing verses from the Latin vulgate back into Greek, producing several readings supposedly known in no Greek manuscripts and one word (akaqavrthtoVin 17:4) which doesn’t even exist in Greek. These readings (to Metzger’s apparent distress!) “are still perpetuated today in printings of the so-called Textus Receptus” [_The Text of the New Testament: its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration_, 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Edition, by Bruce Metzger (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 100].

Even if this story were completely true,* these “Erasmian inventions” are of no consequence unless a person believes that the New Testament exists in no language other than the “original Greek.” Pressed to prove the seriousness of his claim of supposed inventions, Metzger lists only _33_ words. Of these 33 words, 18 match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament which Metzger helped edit! Of the 15 words that _don’t_ Metzger’s own text, 11 make no difference in English translation. Of the four words that _do_ affect translation, _three_ are found in Codex Sinaiticus (a), the oldest existing “complete Greek manuscript of Revelation!**

There are, however, at least three good reasons to doubt the validity of the story of Erasmus and his mutilated copy of Revelation: 1) the only evidence for it is that the manuscript apparently used by Erasmus for Revelation is missing its last page;*** 2) Erasmus’s Latin New Testament doesn’t agree with the Latin Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation (a problem if his Greek text for those verses was derived from the Vulgate); and 3) there exists Codex 141.†

H.C. Hoskier spent a lifetime collating every edition of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, several other printed Greek New Testaments, and almost all of the known Greek manuscripts of Revelation….His study and collation of Revelation in Codex 141 surprised him, because it contained substantially the same text that appears in Erasmus’s Greek New Testament. In Hoskier’s own words:

Upon reaching the end [of Revelation] and the famous final six verses, _supposed to have been re-translated from the Vulgate into Greek by Erasmus_ when Codex I was discovered and found to lack the last leaf: the problem takes on a most important aspect. For if our MS. 141 is _not_ copied from the printed text, then Erasmus would be absolved from the charge for which his memory has suffered for 400 years! [Emphasis in the original]​ 
In an effort to nullify the testimony of Codex 141, most “scholars” assign the manuscript a “young” age and simply claim that it is a copy of Erasmus’s (or Aldus’s or Colinaeus’s) printed Greek New Testament. But based on his study of the penmanship of the scribe who composed it, Hoskier determined that Codex 141 was executed in the 15[SUP]th[/SUP] century—well before Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was printed; and based on his study of its contents (and the collation of same), Hoskier determined that MS 141 “has no appearance of being a copy of any [printed edition of the Greek New Testament], _although containing their text_ (Coats’s emphasis).†† There is, then, manuscript evidence to support the supposed “Erasmian readings”—as much as there is to support the reading of Revelation 5:9 that appears in all the modern “bibles”—and critics who claim otherwise are either ignorant or purposely deceitful.

-------------
Footnotes

* By their own admissions, not all the stories which these “scholars” tell about Erasmus are true. Since 1964, on p. 101 of all three editions of _Text of the New Testament_, Metzger has claimed that Erasmus inserted 1 John 5:7 in his Greek New Testament only because “in an unguarded moment [he] promised that he would….if a single manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a manuscript was found—or made to order!” He has claimed further (pp. 62, 101) that Erasmus wrote notes stating his suspicions that the manuscript was a forgery and the passage was spurious. Yet in the third edition, in small print in footnote 2 on p. 292, he makes this admission: *“What was said about Erasmus’ promise….and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to [add 1 John 5:7 to the text], needs to be corrected in light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion”* [bold emphasis mine –SMR; italic Coats’]. Why isn’t this admission in larger type in the _text_ of the book? Why is the “assertion” (that is, lie!) _still_ included? Because the enemies of the Bible are liars and crooks at heart.

** In _Text of the New Testament_ (p. 100, n. 1), Metzger lists these “Erasmian inventions” in Revelation: one word in 17:14; one in 22:16; three in 22:17; seventeen in 22:18; ten in 22:19; and one in 22:21. But the “coined word” of 17:4 and the “invented words” of 22:16 & 17 are _synonymous_ with the “original” words and make no difference in English translation.

Of the 17 words in question in 22:18, twelve match the text of the UBS Greek New Testament; two more are synonymous with the “original words” and make no difference in English translation. One word (a personal pronoun) “missing” from Erasmus’ Greek New Testament is also “missing” from many manuscripts of the Received Text, including von Soden’s subgroups c, d, and e—and including it makes no difference in English translation, because the King James translators already added a personal pronoun to the English text for clarity. The other two “invented words” appear in the scribal corrections in Codex a. (Other words in Erasmus’ text of this verse also appear in Codex A and the corrections in Codex a.

Six of the ten “invented words” in 22:19 match the USB Greek text. Three more represent only differences in spelling or inflection (case; conjugation/voice) andmake no difference in English translation. Only biblou (*“book”*) would affect English translation (*“book of life”* vs. “tree of life”). The invention cited for 22:21 is almost laughable: amhvn (*“amen”*! The word is rejected by the UBS Greek New Testament, but it’s found in most of the manuscripts of the Received Text as well as in Codices a, 046, 051, 94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2020, 2042, 2053, 2065 (commentary section), 2073, and 2138. It is also translated in most of the counterfeit “bibles” on the market… 

*** The audacity of “scholars” in speculating (and then basing theories and “facts”) on the contents of _a missing leaf of a manuscript_—or even in assuming that the leaf was missing when Erasmus used the manuscript (provided that this _is_ the manuscript he used)—aptly demonstrates the reliability of such men in matters of scholarship.

† The manuscript is listed under several call numbers. Under Hoskier’s, Scrivener’s and the Old Gregory classification systems, it is MS 141; under the New Gregory system it is 2049; and under von Soden’s system, it is _w_ 1684. It is located in the Parliamentary Library in Athens.

†† For full details, see H.C. Hoskier, _Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen’s Third Edition, Together with the Testimony of the Versions, and Fathers; a Complete Conspectus of All Authorities_, Vol. 1 (London: Bernard Quaritch, Ltd, 1929), pp. 474-477. It was also Hoskier who noted that Erasmus’s Latin New Testament differs from the Vulgate in the last six verses of Revelation.​ 
-----------

Some of the links in the section from the Response to White are defunct so I here post updated ones: 

articles - Another King James Bible Believer

Rev22:19bookoflife - Another King James Bible Believer

Revelation 22:19 and "The Book of Life"

-------------

I hope you don’t mind my answering you like this, but as I’ve already put in a lot of work on these issues it’s easier to refer to the repository of info than writing it all out again. Though of course I do write new stuff on these things as the need arises. You may see part of the compiled material on textual issues by clicking on the Textual Posts link in my signature below. Feel free to ask more if you wish.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 3, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Bill, to answer your question I’m going to excerpt from the response to James White article linked above (you may find this and more on the topic in that thread by entering the words “Concerning Erasmus” in your browser’s search feature – and this should take you to the section).
> 
> ------------
> 
> ...



Steve,
Thanks as always for a great and informative post. I do have one further question. In the KJV, Revelation 22:19 says that if anyone adds or takes away from this book, God will take away his part from the Book of Life. All of the modern translations have it as "tree" of life rather than "book", and the NKJV footnotes this verse and notes that both the critical and the majority read "tree" of life. This is a significant difference because if the correct reading is indeed "book" of life, then this could bring into question the concept of perserverance of the saints. Many commentators attempt to solve this by suggesting that this passage was translated from Latin Vulgate because Erasmus lacked a Greek text. What is your opinion on which is the correct reading?


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 3, 2012)

Bill, good question – although it’s not peculiar to Rev 22:19; Rev 3:5 has, “He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.”

The perseverance of the saints is sure, as Jesus said, “My sheep...shall never perish . . . And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day” (John 10:27,28; 6:39).

With respect to Rev 3:5, the context is that in the ancient world, and in Roman cities, when a citizen did something really bad, his or her name could be blotted out of the city register, and lose the highly-prized citizenship, without which they lose all their rights and privileges.

You will notice the Lord is *not* threatening any such to His people, but rather promising them that those who are His people (and all His saints overcome the world by their Spirit-quickened faith, even if He has to chasten them with afflictions) can *never* have their names blotted out as the world does to its citizens. If a person did not own Caesar as Lord, but instead Jesus, they could indeed lose their citizens’ rights.

There are some dire warnings written in our Bibles, is that not so? And these are written for the sobering of the saints (are not our hearts often given to stupid carelessness and infatuations with the world?), and the warning them that this path they are on is indeed a matter of eternal life and death, so be vigilant and prayerful. This particular warning concerning mutilating the Scripture is one restated elsewhere (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:6).

Contra Bart Ehrman, the early Christian scribes – remembering this saying of the Lord through John – were most careful when making copies of His word, even as the Jewish priests before them were. An accidental omission or addition or one of the various scribal-type errors were not such as garnered to them this terrible sentence; nor are they held accountable who publish such errors by mistake (with a conscience void of offense). Yet there are those who vaunt their own intellects and methodologies against that faith which is born of the word of God, and against the age-old judgment of the true church – who by these things show they are not children of promise, but of the flesh – and judgment awaits them when He returns. I would not venture to judge – even those who with malice have disdained and altered the church’s sacred Deposit – but judgment will find them. This does not pertain to God’s children, but rather to those who presume to name the Name, and gather among us, but are not of us, but are destroyers of the faith. That place in the roll of the redeemed, which they thought to obtain, is denied them, and shown to be just when all the secrets of the hearts are revealed.

Again, this does not pertain to those who use versions that may have been altered, or even those who publish them, for they do so in innocence.


P.S. I hold the correct reading to be "the book of life".


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Aug 3, 2012)

Thanks again Steve for a wonderfully informative and enlightening post. I am indebted to your vast knowledge of this subject.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 4, 2012)

Bill The Baptist said:


> All of the modern translations have it as "tree" of life rather than "book", and the NKJV footnotes this verse and notes that both the critical and the majority read "tree" of life. This is a significant difference because if the correct reading is indeed "book" of life, then this could bring into question the concept of perserverance of the saints.


An interesting find to me, when I looked up this verse because of this thread, I found that the reading "tree of life" is in the margin of the KJV.

It also seems that at least John Gill did not think it affected the meaning of the passage whether one used one reading or the other. "The Alexandrian copy, one of Stephens's, and the Complutensian edition, read, "the tree of life"; and so do the Syriac and Ethiopic versions; the sense is the same"


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 5, 2012)

Bill, I think Andrew does have a good point, in that whether it be rendered book or tree, the import is much the same. Either way, the one upon whom this sentence would be pronounced had no part in the eternal City of God – and this would not apply to any of God’s born-of-His-Spirit children. (Nor do I think my knowledge really “vast”, it’s just that so far my memory is holding up, and that I have read and written a lot, which I can still put to use. I know it is the Lord I serve who keeps me going.)

Andrew, I don’t think that marginal reading of “tree” is native to the AV (not in the 1611 facsimile I have at any rate), but was likely put there by a recent editor sympathetic to the tree reading.

Getting back to readings from the Latin entering into the Erasmian editions of the NT: Before the time of the Diocletian persecution (beginning in about 303 A.D.) the common Greek texts were intact, but afterwards — after a great and effective campaign to root out and destroy all Bibles (and believers), we know that the new emperor, Constantine, had ordered from Eusebius 50 complete Bibles to replace those destroyed during the persecution of Diocletian, and we know the textual treasure house of Origen’s library in Caesarea was available to Eusebius (a devotee of Origen); Tischendorf, among others, was of the opinion that Sinaiticus (Aleph) was of that 50. A number of verses are altered or omitted in Aleph and Vaticanus (B), that could well have been useful in resisting the Arian and Sabellian causes; these two, Aleph and B, were very likely representative of the new Bibles ordered and delivered. 

So there were readings that disappeared during this time due to these new Bibles; it is also historically documented that after Constantine’s reign, during the next 50 years (approximately 335 – 385 A.D.) the Arian party (denying the Deity of Christ) held supreme power both in the Greek church _and_ the Imperial government. It is very likely the zealous among them expunged parts of those verses they held to conduce to heresy (Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7, among others)***, and which could be used against them. 

This _would_ explain why 1 John 5:7 is missing in the Greek / Byzantine manuscripts of the Eastern Empire and remained intact in the Latin MSS of the Western portion of the Empire where neither Diocletian’s vendetta against the Scriptures (and Eusebius’ replacements) nor the Arian oppression had much impact. This, in part, is what Frederick Nolan investigated in his classic work, _An Inquiry into The Integrity of the Greek Vulgate Or Received Text of the New Testament_: An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (no Preface or footnotes in this version), while a multi-format selection of this important text-critical work may be found here. The value of the online reading or pdf etc formats is that the Preface _and_ the _extensive_ footnotes are available for viewing and copying (not so in the Mountain Retreat version). It’s a fascinating study.

*** So fervent and violent were the anti-Nicenes, “in 357 a council at Sirium…forced Hosius, now a centenarian [a hundred years or more of age], to attend against his will and to sign [an Arian formula] after being beaten and tortured…” (from, _A History of Heresy_, by David Christie-Murray, p. 51). One might imagine what the JWs or Unitarians would do if they held the same positions of governmental _and_ ecclesiastical authority in a country for *50 years*. There are historical accounts of the Arians persecuting and torturing the orthodox believers to get them to recant owning Christ as God; if they would do this to flesh & souls, what would they do to paper — “paper” which confirmed those beliefs they _hated_?

--------

We have then a scenario that gives historical insight into why the Johannine Comma (what 1 John 5:7 is sometimes called) was missing from the Greek Byzantine manuscripts.

For the sake of you church history buffs – as well as those of you who seek to follow the chains of the transmission of the NT text-types – I will add more from Nolan’s aforementioned book, _Inquiry Into the Integrity, etc_, where he examines the causes of a number of omitted verses as exhibited in the Critical Text of M. Griesbach. After discussing Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11, he proceeds on to 1 John 5:7:

From these circumstances, I conceive, we may safely infer, that Eusebius’s copies agreed with his canons in omitting this passage (John 7:53-8:11): from which it was withdrawn by him in strict conformity to the powers with which he was vested by Constantine.

As it is probable that he omitted those passages, it is not less probable that he omitted at least one of those verses, 1 John v.7, the authenticity of which has been so long a subject of controversy. Indeed, the whole three [Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, 1 John 5:7] inculcate a doctrine, which is somewhat at variance with what we know, on the most indisputable testimony, to have been his peculiar opinions. The doctrine of Christ being of _one substance_ with the Father is asserted in all of them [the omitted Scriptures]; though most particularly in St. John’s Epistle. But on the subject of this doctrine, it is notorious that Eusebius shamefully prevaricated in the celebrated Council of Nice. He first positively excepted against it, and then subscribed to it, and at length addressed a letter to his Church at Caesarea, in which he explained away his former compliance, and retracted what he has asserted. On a person of such versatility of principle no dependence ought to be placed; not that I am inclined to believe what has often been laid to his charge, that he was at heart an Arian. The truth is, as he has himself placed beyond a doubt,—he erred from a hatred to the peculiar notions of Sabellius, who, in maintaining that Christ was the First Person incarnate, had confounded the Persons, as it was conceived he divided the substance. [Note: The Sabellian heresy, also known as Modalism, or Monarchianisn, taught that there were not three Persons in the Godhead, but only one, and that Christ was the Father Himself incarnate. Thus Nolan thinks Eusebius omitted 1 John 5:7 to withdraw supposed Scriptural support to the Sabellians rather than the Arians. –SMR] Into this extreme he must have seen that the Catholicks [i.e. orthodox] were inclined to fall, in combating the opposite errour in Arius; and on this very point he consequently maintained a controversy with Marcellus of Ancyra, who was however acquitted of intentional errour, by St. Athanasius and the Council of Sardica. Whoever will now cast but a glance over the disputed texts, as they stand in our authorized version, will directly perceive that they afford a handle by which any person may lay hold who was inclined to lapse into the errours of Sabellius. Will it be therefore thought too much to lay to the charge of Eusebius to assert; that in preparing an edition of the Scriptures for general circulation, he provided against the chance of that danger which he feared, by canceling one of those passages, 1 John v.7; and altering the remainder, 1 Tim iii.16. Acts xx.28? [1]​ 
Nolan has shown a) the power of Eusebius to edit the texts for “use in doctrine”, b) the will – motive – to do so (believing his act would benefit the church), and c) the “textual fingerprints” of this omission pointing to his very own manuscripts. (This from an earlier discussion of Emperor Constantine’s commission to Eusebius to produce 50 Bibles for him after the destruction of many Scriptures during Diocletian’s persecution, and the theological pressures upon him during this production.)

Later in his investigation he looks again at why the orthodox believers did not use these disputed three verses, especially 1 John 5:7, against the Arians, as well as commencing a demonstration of the potency of the internal evidences manifest of their deliberate removal (which are lightly glossed over by many today):

The determination of the integrity of the Greek Vulgate, now turns on the decision of this question, whether those texts relative to the doctrine of the Incarnation, Redemption, and Trinity, which have already been mentioned, as impugned by the advocates of a more correct text than exists in our printed editions, must be considered authentick [sic] or spurious.

I have hitherto laboured to no purpose if is not admitted, that I have already laid a foundation sufficiently broad and deep for maintaining the authenticity of the contested verses. The negative argument arising in their favour, from the probability that Eusebius suppressed them in his edition, has already been stated at large [footnote #188: see pages 27-42]. Some stress may be laid on this extraordinary circumstance, that the whole of the important interpolations, which are thus conceived to exist in the Received Text, were contrary to his peculiar notions. If we conceive them cancelled by him, there is nothing wonderful in the matter at issue; but if we conceive them subsequently interpolated, it is next to miraculous that they should be so circumstanced. And what must equally excite astonishment, to a certain degree they are not more opposed to the peculiar opinions of Eusebius, by whom I conceive they were cancelled, than of the Catholicks [orthodox (with a small “o”) believers –SMR], by whom it is conceived they were inserted in the text. When separated from the sacred context, as they are always in quotation, the doctrine which they appear most to favour is that of the Sabellians; but _this heresy was as contrary to the tenets of those who conformed to the Catholick as of those who adhered to the Arian opinions_. It thus becomes as improbable that the former should have inserted, as it is probable that the latter suppressed those verses; and just as probable is it, that both parties might have acquiesced in their suppression when they were once removed from the text of Scripture. If we connect this circumstance with that previously advanced, that Eusebius, the avowed adversary of the Sabellians, expunged these verses from his text, and that every manuscript from which they have disappeared is lineally descended from his edition, every difficulty in which this intricate subject is involved directly vanishes. The solution of the question lies in this narrow space, that he expunged them from the text, as opposed to his peculiar opinions: and the peculiar apprehensions which were indulged of Sabellianism, by the orthodox, prevented them from restoring those verses, or citing them in their controversies with the Arians. [Emphasis added]

Thus far we have but attained probability, though clearly of the highest degree, in favor of the authenticity of these disputed verses. The question before us is, however, involved in difficulties which still require a solution. In order to solve these, and to investigate more carefully the claims of those verses to authenticity, I shall lay them before the reader as they occur in the Greek and Latin Vulgate; subjoining those various readings which are supposed to preserve the genuine text. [2]​ 
Nolan then renders these disputed Scriptures in the two languages, as well as the texts from which they have been removed. He continues,

In proceeding to estimate the respective merit of these readings, the first attention is due to the internal evidence. In reasoning from it, we work upon solid ground. For the authenticity of some parts of verses in dispute we have that strong evidence which arises from universal consent; all manuscripts and translations supporting some part of the context of the contested passages. In the remaining parts we are given a choice between two readings, one only of which can be authentick. And in making our election, we have, in the common principles of plain sense and ordinary language, a certain rule by which we may be directed. Gross solecisms in the grammatical structure, palpable oversights in the texture of sense, cannot be ascribed to the inspired authors. If of any two given readings one be exposed to such objections, there is but the alternative, that the other must be authentick. [3]​ 
He continues with a close scrutiny of the selected passages in their respective Greek and Latin: Acts 20:28, 1 Timothy 3:16, and 1 John 5:7, examining both the sense of the passages in their contexts, and the grammar. As may be understood by those considering the grammar of the passage 1 John 5:6 and 5:8 when verse 7 is omitted, it is incorrect, but is perfect when 7 is included. But this is not all. Later in his work investigating the integrity of the Greek Vulgate (Received Text), he presents _positive external_ evidence.

On 1 John v.7 we may cite [its use in] Tertullian in the age next the apostolical, and St. Cyprian in the subsequent era. In the following age, we may quote Phoebadius, Marcus Celedensis, and Idatius Clarus; and in the succeeding age, Eucherius, Victor Vitensis, and Vigilius Tapsensis. Fulgentius and Cassiodorus occur in the next age; and Maximus in the subsequent: to whom we might add many others, or indeed the whole of the Western Church, who, after this period, generally adopted this verse in their authorized version…

With respect to 1 John v.7 the case is materially different [than the cases of 1 Tim 3:16 and Acts 20:28]. If this verse be received, it must be admitted on the single testimony of the Western Church; as far at least as respects the external evidence. And though it may seem unwarrantable to set aside the authority of the Greek Church, and pay exclusive respect to the Latin, where a question arises on the authenticity of a passage which properly belongs to the text of the former; yet when the doctrine inculcated in that passage is taken into account, there may be good reason for giving even a preference to the Western Church over that of the Eastern. The former was uncorrupted by the heresy of the Arians, who rejected the doctrine of the passage in question; the latter was wholly resigned to that heresy for at least forty years, while the Western Church retained its purity. And while the testimony borne by the latter on the subject before us, is consistent and full; that borne by the former is internally defective. It is delivered in language, which has not even the merit of being grammatically correct; while the testimony of the latter is not only unexceptional in itself, but possesses the singular merit of removing the forementioned imperfection, on being merely turned into Greek, and inserted in the context of the original. But numberless circumstances conspire to strengthen the authority of the Latin Church in supporting the authenticity of this passage. The particular Church on whose testimony principally we receive the disputed verse, is that of Africa. And even at the first sight, it must be evident, that the most implicit respect is due to its testimony.

In those great convulsions which agitated the Eastern and Western Churches, for eight years, with scarcely any intermission; and which subjected the sacred text to the greatest changes, through the vast tract of country which extends round the Levant, from Libya to Illyricum, the African provinces were exposed to the horrours of persecution but for an inconsiderable period. The Church, of course, which was established in this region, neither required a new supply of sacred books, nor received those which had been revised by Eusebius and St. Jerome; as removed out of the range of the influence of those ancient fathers.

As the African Church possessed this competency to deliver a pure unsophisticated testimony on the subject before us; that which it has borne is as explicit as it is plenary: since it is delivered in a Confession prepared by the whole church assembled in council. After the African provinces had been over-run by the Vandals, Hunnerick, their king, summoned the bishops of this church, and of the adjacent isles, to deliberate on the doctrine inculcated in the disputed passage. Between three and four hundred prelates attended the Council, which met at Carthage; and Eugenius, as bishop of that see, drew up the Confession of the orthodox, in which the contested verse is expressly quoted. That a whole church should thus concur in quoting a verse which was not contained in the received text, is wholly inconceivable: and admitting that 1 John v.7 was generally thus received, its universal presence in that text is only to be accounted for by supposing it to have existed in it from the beginning.

The testimony which the African church has borne on the subject before us, is not more strongly recommended by the universal consent, than the immemorial tradition of the evidence, which attests the authenticity of the contested passage. Victor Vitensis and Fulgentius, Marcus Celedensis, St. Cyprian, and Tertullian, were Africans, and have referred to the verse before us. Of these witnesses, which follow each other at almost equal intervals, the first is referred to the age of Eugenius, the last to that nearly of the Apostles. Thus they form a traditionary chain, carrying up the testimony of the African Church, until it loses itself in time immemorial.

The testimony of the African Church, which possesses these strong recommendations, receives confirmation from the corroborating evidence of other churches, which were similarly circumstanced. Phoebadius and Eucherius, the latter of whom had been translated from the Spanish to the Gallican Church, were members of the latter; and both these churches had been exempt, not less than the African, from the effects of Dioclesian’s persecution. Both these early fathers, Phoebadius and Eucherius, attest the authenticity of the contested passage: the testimony of the former is entitled to greater respect, as he boldly withstood the authority of Hosius, whose influence tended to extend the Arian opinions in the Western world, at the very period in which he cited the contested passage. In addition to these witnesses we have, in the testimony of Maximus, the evidence of a person, who visited the African Church; and who there becoming acquainted with the disputed passage, wrote a tract for the purpose of employing it against the Arians. The testimony of these witnesses forms a valuable accession to that of the African Church.

We may appeal to the testimony of the Greek Church in confirmation of the African Churches. Not to insist on positive testimonies, the disputed verse, though not supported by the _text_ of the original Greek, is clearly supported by its _context_. The latter does not agree so well with itself, as it does with the testimony of the African Church. *The grammatical structure, which is imperfect in itself, directly recovers its original integrity, on being filled up with the passage which is offered on the testimony of this witness.* Thus far the testimony of the Greek Church is plainly corroborative of that of the Western…

…I shall now venture to conclude, that the doctrinal integrity of the Greek Vulgate is established, in the vindication of these passages. It has been my endeavor to rest it upon its natural basis; the testimony of the two Churches, in the eastern and western world, in whose keeping the sacred trust was reposed…[4] [Bold emphasis added.]​ 
In this unusual demonstration Frederick Nolan has shown how major portions of the Christian Church did not lose the use – *the presence* – of this verse in their Bibles. It is clear this is not a “well-meant” but unlawful addition to God’s Word, but a part of it that stood in John’s 1st Epistle from the beginning.

To conclude Nolan’s contribution to our investigation on what is authentic and what is false regarding the texts, some of his own conclusions are drawn from his Preface:

Another point to which the author has directed his attention, has been the old Italick translation…on this subject, the author perceived, without any labour of inquiry, that it derived its name from that diocese, which has been termed the Italick, as contradistinguished from the Roman. This is a supposition, which receives a sufficient confirmation from the fact,—that the principal copies of that version have been preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated in Milan. The circumstance is at present mentioned, as the authour thence formed a hope, that some remains of the primitive Italick version might be found in the early translations made by the Waldenses, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick Church; and who have asserted their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and have ever enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. In the search to which these considerations have led the authour, his fondest expectations have been fully realized. It has furnished him with abundant proof on that point to which his Inquiry was chiefly directed; *as it has supplied him with the unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in the Latin Church*, previously to the introduction of the Modern Vulgate. [5] [emphasis added]​ 
In a lengthy footnote at this point, he documents the progress of the text of this primitive Italick version up into the mountain communities of the Waldenses and into the French language in a number of texts, and he states, “*It thus easily made its way into Wicklef’s translation, through the Lollards, who were disciples of the Waldenses.*” [6]
-----------
1 _Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament; in which the Greek Manuscripts are newly classed; the Integrity of the Authorised Text vindicated; and the Various Readings traced to their Origin_, by Fredrick Nolan ((London: F.C. and J. Rivington, 1815), pages 38, 39, 40, 41. Reprint available at Bible for Today ministry (see bibliography above).
2 Ibid., pages 252-253.
3 Ibid., pages 254-255
4 Ibid., pages 291, 292, 293-305, 306.
5 Ibid., pages xvii, xviii.
6 Ibid., Footnote #1, pages xviii, xix.


End Nolan
---------------

I hope this demonstration of the legitimacy of Erasmus’ including the Johannine Comma in his 3rd edition gives a new perspective on the matter. Ultimately, of course, it was the providence of God overriding the failures of men in preserving His word intact, in His having the right MSS available to the Reformation editors.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 9, 2012)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Andrew, I don’t think that marginal reading of “tree” is native to the AV (not in the 1611 facsimile I have at any rate), but was likely put there by a recent editor sympathetic to the tree reading.


Huh, interesting! I think you're right about it not being in the 1611; I checked a scan of it online. There are some other discrepencies in the notes I have and the scanned 1611 I checked. And here I thought I had the original notes the whole time! But to be fair, it seems some internet sites that have "King James Translators" notes also have the tree marginal reading. Ah well. Apparently, there were a bunch of marginal notes added in the 1762 edition, and a couple more in 1769. Considering that mine is probably based on the 1769, that is possibly where the discrepancy comes from, though I do not know for sure and do not have the time to look into it further.


----------

