# James White & The Received Text



## Robert Truelove (Apr 28, 2017)

Here's my response to James White from his Dividing Line on 4/27/2017...

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## KeithW (Apr 29, 2017)

The program Robert Truelove is responding to.

4/27/2017 - A Textual Critical Geeky Dividing Line


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Apr 29, 2017)

Robert,

1. I recommend a couple of diffuse light sources - one at a 45 degree angle to your face and shooting down at you should be sufficient. It will make you look much better.

2. I think you make some points worthy of discussion but I also think the main point that needs to be wrestled with is the existence of manuscripts. Some of the quotes you pull will be easy fodder for disagreement when former Churchmen point out that they have all the manuscripts that have been used in the original language. I don't disagree with the concern about certain textual methodologies but I also think that many simply make the assumption that the same men would have made the same decisions if they had the manuscripts we have discovered. We'll never know the answer to that. I don't like that textual decisions are eclectic and in the hands of people outside the Church and would prefer there be some sort of Ecclesial process but it also seems that some are committed to never even considering that possibility.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## puritanpilgrim (May 6, 2017)




----------



## Warren (May 6, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I also think that many simply make the assumption that the same men would have made the same decisions if they had the manuscripts we have discovered.


Just to track, the same decisions as in those of the critical text crowd, or the same decisions as in the confessionalists' doctrine of inerrancy?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 6, 2017)

Warren said:


> Just to track, the same decisions as in those of the critical text crowd, or the same decisions as in the confessionalists' doctrine of inerrancy?


What I was trying to say is that we read certain things that Turretin might have written and assume he would have written the same things about Greek manuscripts if he had access to thousands of additional manuscripts. One of the very points Robert makes is citing Turretin stating that there are no known variants in any known Greek manuscripts and it's been that way from the very beginning of the Church. Some of his statements are just not accurate even for his own day. On the one hand he made a factual error (an unintended one) but, on the other, what might he and others have done with the discovery of so many ancient papyri? We can never know.
In other words, we can see how they handled the information they had and how they handled the manuscript evidence and learn from it. We don't dismiss it out of hand but we also can see things in these same men that we disagree with because we've discovered more information.
That's not to say that we have to buy into an eclectic approach to how we put together the Scriptures or leave it to "experts" outside the Church. It's simply an acknowledgement that we now possess a wealth of additional manuscripts and I am not persuaded that we simply ignore these manuscripts as having no bearing on determining what the autographs contained.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## TheOldCourse (May 7, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> What I was trying to say is that we read certain things that Turretin might have written and assume he would have written the same things about Greek manuscripts if he had access to thousands of additional manuscripts. One of the very points Robert makes is citing Turretin stating that there are no known variants in any known Greek manuscripts and it's been that way from the very beginning of the Church. Some of his statements are just not accurate even for his own day. On the one hand he made a factual error (an unintended one) but, on the other, what might he and others have done with the discovery of so many ancient papyri? We can never know.
> In other words, we can see how they handled the information they had and how they handled the manuscript evidence and learn from it. We don't dismiss it out of hand but we also can see things in these same men that we disagree with because we've discovered more information.
> That's not to say that we have to buy into an eclectic approach to how we put together the Scriptures or leave it to "experts" outside the Church. It's simply an acknowledgement that we now possess a wealth of additional manuscripts and I am not persuaded that we simply ignore these manuscripts as having no bearing on determining what the autographs contained.



I don't understand what you're criticizing Turretin for, he expressly acknowledges that there are variants in the Greek text:



> III.The question is not are the sources so pure that no fault has crept into the many sacred manuscripts, either through the waste of time, the carelessness of copyists or the malice of the Jews or of heretics? For this is acknowledged on both sides and the various readings which Beza and Robert Stephanus have carefully observed in the Greek (and the Jews in the Hebrew) clearly prove it. Rather the question is have the original texts (or the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) been so corrupted either by copyists through carelessness (or by the Jews and heretics through malice) that they can no longer be regarded as the judge of controversies and the rule to which all the versions must be applied? The papists affirm, we deny it. (Page 106)



He denies that there has been a corruption of the original Greek text. That's a different claim and one that multiplication of variant manuscript discoveries is virtually irrelevant to.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 7, 2017)

Chris,

I'd have to find the specific reference. I know Turretin understood this. There was a particular claim that a certain verse had no corruption in any of the manuscripts.

My point is not to get into the specifics of critiquing Turretin or arguing about him per se. That would be pointless. The broader point is taking into account what was known of existing manuscripts at the time and taking the arguments made in light of those facts. It's not fair to criticize our forefathers for neglect when they are working with the materials at hand. We simply cannot assume that, given more information, they would be in the same "camp" of those who quote them to maintain opposition to including additional manuscript finds as if they would be allies given the same information.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW (May 7, 2017)

Reformed scholastic views of the text did not operate according to modern empirical methodology. 1 John 5:7 is regularly used as if it were the Achilles heel of the TR. Whatever one thinks of the text, its wholesale acceptance demonstrates that the reformed church believed in the preservation of the Word without requiring the type of inductive, evidential methodology which is the trademark of modern textual criticism. It did not matter that it was not found in the majority of Greek mss. or how old the mss. were. Their doctrine of preservation was not dependent on the number or age of the mss.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheOldCourse (May 7, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Chris,
> 
> I'd have to find the specific reference. I know Turretin understood this. There was a particular claim that a certain verse had no corruption in any of the manuscripts.
> 
> My point is not to get into the specifics of critiquing Turretin or arguing about him per se. That would be pointless. The broader point is taking into account what was known of existing manuscripts at the time and taking the arguments made in light of those facts. It's not fair to criticize our forefathers for neglect when they are working with the materials at hand. We simply cannot assume that, given more information, they would be in the same "camp" of those who quote them to maintain opposition to including additional manuscript finds as if they would be allies given the same information.



Ah, ok, I think the one Rev. Truelove quoted was in reference to the Pericope Adulterae and I think the Comma Johanneum in which Turretin appealed to the unanimity of the Greek witness over against the variants in other textual groups.

That said, for most of the Reformed authors of the past who are being cited, they didn't base their arguments on manuscript evidence but rather on exegesis and theology. They only cited manuscript evidence as secondary support which should make their arguments more or less immune to changes in manuscript evidence which is why RT/ET folk still cite them. Turretin in particular gave a hint as to what his view would be when he was dealing with Louis Cappel who argued that the received Hebrew text had been corrupted and needed to be amended by reference to ancient sources. In this case they were secondary sources in old commentators, but Turretin's response was that the present text should not be amended by ancient sources, rather the ancient sources must be amended by the present, received Hebrew text that God preserved. Cappel gave more room for the use of conjecture in filling the gaps than evangelical CT advocates and was mostly talking about secondary sources, but, given the basic principles on which Turretin bases his response, I see no reason why his approach to the critical text would be any different.


----------



## KeithW (May 7, 2017)

Dr. White did a follow up program commenting on what Turretin wrote, after Pastor Truelove pointed out Turretin.

5/3/2017 - Thoughts on the King James, TR, Ecclesiastical Text Movement, etc.


----------



## MW (May 7, 2017)

I really cannot understand the idea behind linking to a video which takes an hour to say what could be read in a post in two minutes. The apologetical and autobiographical references are a waste of time so far as the issues are concerned.

Apologetics depends upon what can be "shown" in contrast to what is "known." The facts and what can be proved in a court of law are two different things. Reducing the Christian faith to what is apologetically feasible would leave us with an empty shell of a faith.

Yes, one "might" read from any version of Scripture and come to the basic truths of the Christian faith. One "might" also go off on a tangent and eventually deny the faith.

The fact is, confessional context is important. Regrettably for the person who follows the "scientific method" the confessional context is regarded, since Bacon's Organon, as an idol. It falls under tradition, and the scientific method has no place for tradition. This leaves the person following the scientific method in a confessional context stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Dr. White repeatedly brings the KJVO movement into the discussion of the issue over the textus receptus. It shows a lack of ability to distinguish things that differ. It would be akin to someone refuting his position by referring to Bart Ehrman.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## KeithW (May 8, 2017)

MW said:


> I really cannot understand the idea behind linking to a video which takes an hour to say what could be read in a post in two minutes.


This thread started with a video. To those interested in understanding the context of the dialogue between these two men, links to the actual videos have been provided. Not providing these can lead to misrepresentation.



MW said:


> Dr. White repeatedly brings the KJVO movement into the discussion of the issue over the textus receptus. It shows a lack of ability to distinguish things that differ. It would be akin to someone refuting his position by referring to Bart Ehrman.


On his program "The Dividing Line", and in his book "The King James Only Controversy", Dr. White has _always_ distinguished between the elements of discussion which differ: King James Only, King James preferred, TR only, TR preferred, Byzantine text, ecclesiastical text, etc.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW (May 8, 2017)

KeithW said:


> This thread started with a video. To those interested in understanding the context of the dialogue between these two men, links to the actual videos have been provided. Not providing these can lead to misrepresentation.



Pastor Truelove's initial video went straight to the points of dispute. One cannot reasonably expect someone to sit through an hour of gas-bagging to get to small sections of any relevance for no other reason but to avoid the bare possibility of misrepresentation. If Dr. White was misrepresented it should be demonstrated. If not, we can accept the initial video at face value.



KeithW said:


> On his program "The Dividing Line", and in his book "The King James Only Controversy", Dr. White has _always_ distinguished between the elements of discussion which differ: King James Only, King James preferred, TR only, TR preferred, Byzantine text, ecclesiastical text, etc.



Go to around 18.35 on the first video link you provided. He groups them together and answers them as if they are the same. It is fairly typical. As I said it would be akin to answering James White's defence of the critical text by allusions to Bart Ehrman's liberalism. A good polemicist divides the question to arrive at the status quaestionis and then proceeds to the onus probandi.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## puritanpilgrim (May 8, 2017)

I found the additional video post helpful.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## KeithW (May 8, 2017)

KeithW said:


> ... and in his book "The King James Only Controversy", Dr. White has _always_ distinguished between the elements of discussion which differ: King James Only, King James preferred, TR only, TR preferred, Byzantine text, ecclesiastical text, etc.


Let me support this claim. This book opens with:

We run the risk of offending individuals within the movement when we make broad generalizations, but such cannot be avoided completely. Hopefully, by defining the various positions found within the movement, we can help to focus attention upon the important issues at stake.​
chapter 1, paragraph 2.
_The King James Only Controversy_.
James R. White.
second edition, 2009.

He then goes on to describe different positions throughout the rest of chapter 1.



MW said:


> Pastor Truelove's initial video went straight to the points of dispute. One cannot reasonably expect someone to sit through an hour of [deleted]...
> 
> Go to around 18.35 on the first video link you provided.


The nature of White's live webcast does mean he covers different topics. And no index of topics is added later to the videos, which is unfortunate. The textual critical topic in his 4/27/2017 video starts at 10:40. He then proceeds to talk about the 1550 Stephanus Greek New Testament, variant reading notations in that particular printed edition(*), the ecclesiastical text, confessions, textus receptus, etc. Evidence is provided first before a summary is given at 16:40 that the people at this time dealing with the Greek texts recognized the existence of textual variants among the few Greek manuscripts (handwritten copies) available at the time.

(*)Dr. White's claim about textual variant notations in the margins of the 1550 Stephanus Greek New Testament can be checked at this website containing scans of this particular book.
http://www.bibles-online.net/1550/
To use White's example, go to the book of Romans and turn the pages to see what might be in the margins.


----------



## MW (May 8, 2017)

KeithW said:


> (*)Dr. White's claim about textual variant notations in the margins of the 1550 Stephanus Greek New Testament can be checked at this website containing scans of this particular book.
> http://www.bibles-online.net/1550/
> To use White's example, go to the book of Romans and turn the pages to see what might be in the margins.



This "claim" is not disputed. Those who hold to the TR from a reformed perspective are NOT the same as those who hold to it from a fundamentalist baptist perspective. Reformed advocates of the TR acknowledge the variants. The fact the same "claim" is put forward by Dr. White as if it answered the confessionally reformed advocate clearly shows that he paints with a broad brush.

I am happy for those who found the videos helpful for some reason other than the issue discussed in Pastor Truelove's video in the OP. The fact is, though, that Dr. White has not been misrepresented. One may watch the video in the OP and he will see the whole issue fairly represented from both sides of the discussion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Tyrese (May 8, 2017)

Here's a helpful post by Jeff Riddle from his blog: 

http://www.jeffriddle.net/2017/05/word-magazine-75-james-white-versus.html?m=1


----------



## Alex the Less (May 9, 2017)

Tyrese said:


> Here's a helpful post by Jeff Riddle from his blog:
> 
> http://www.jeffriddle.net/2017/05/word-magazine-75-james-white-versus.html?m=1



Thanks Tyrese for the link. I do not share Pastor's Riddle's concern which he stated in his last parafraph. I am able to hold 2LBC despite the failed reasoning. I do not think 1 John 5.7 is necessarily in John's writing.

God, the Spirit will never illumine your mind by a confession. 1 John 2.20, 27 speak of Him as how we know God and His word. This was one of the last words of the canon and shows the fulfillment of the New Covenant by the Priesthood of Christ in our hearts. This, I locate as the great failing of the post apostolic church (they didn't get the relevance or they would not have had the emphasis they did on institutionalizing. The Church is an organism and not a organization (one body). It was a personal choice before the foundations of the world.

The antecedent to _Petra _in Mt. 16.18 is the Father's work in Peter. Jesus is not building on Peter's statement but what was prior to it (Trinitarian operation, if you will).


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 11, 2017)

"Those who hold to the TR from a reformed perspective are NOT the same as those who hold to it from a fundamentalist baptist perspective."​
Interesting observation, Matthew. Could you elucidate a little further on the differences you see?


----------



## MW (May 11, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Interesting observation, Matthew. Could you elucidate a little further on the differences you see?



Steve, as I perceive it, within fundamentalist circles the defence of the AV assumes anti-reformed principles such as their doctrine that the translators were inspired and that the AV can be used to correct the Hebrew and Greek originals. The "baptist" view of regenerate church membership influences the way differences are discussed, especially using terms like "apostate" and "new age" to describe anything which might produce variation from the AV. The Reformed clearly hold to the authenticity of the originals while maintaining the integrity of faithful translations, and make careful distinctions between inspiration and providence, the visible and invisible church, etc.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 15, 2017)

MW said:


> Steve, as I perceive it, within fundamentalist circles the defence of the AV assumes anti-reformed principles such as their doctrine that the translators were inspired and that the AV can be used to correct the Hebrew and Greek originals. The "baptist" view of regenerate church membership influences the way differences are discussed, especially using terms like "apostate" and "new age" to describe anything which might produce variation from the AV. The Reformed clearly hold to the authenticity of the originals while maintaining the integrity of faithful translations, and make careful distinctions between inspiration and providence, the visible and invisible church, etc.


Being used to those holding to the KJVO position within baptist churches, they indeed would hold to it in a much different fashion that Reformed understanding on what was the received standard text!


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 16, 2017)

Thanks, Matthew, for your thoughts on this. While there are indeed some IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists) who hold to the things you speak of (inspired translators, AV correcting the Greek and Hebrew, calling those who do not use the AV apostates and New Age), there are some I have in mind who are scholarly, irenic, and godly.

Yes, even these latter are sometimes enemies of the doctrines of grace and Reformed teaching—on occasion virulently so—and yet they have done great good in their scholarship and research, especially as regards the Greek NT, and also the history of its transmission. There are not that many Presbyterians and Reformed as diligent and understanding with respect to the infallibility of the Bible, at least not nowadays.

Alas, the church is in disarray in many areas of knowledge, and disunion is rife among us. I think the LORD may bring things to pass to begin to remedy that, so we may be fitter to dwell together in His Paradise.


----------



## Dachaser (May 17, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Thanks, Matthew, for your thoughts on this. While there are indeed some IFBs (Independent Fundamentalist Baptists) who hold to the things you speak of (inspired translators, AV correcting the Greek and Hebrew, calling those who do not use the AV apostates and New Age), there are some I have in mind who are scholarly, irenic, and godly.
> 
> Yes, even these latter are sometimes enemies of the doctrines of grace and Reformed teaching—on occasion virulently so—and yet they have done great good in their scholarship and research, especially as regards the Greek NT, and also the history of its transmission. There are not that many Presbyterians and Reformed as diligent and understanding with respect to the infallibility of the Bible, at least not nowadays.
> 
> Alas, the church is in disarray in many areas of knowledge, and disunion is rife among us. I think the LORD may bring things to pass to begin to remedy that, so we may be fitter to dwell together in His Paradise.


Would see tha tthe church need not be divided over this issue, as the Critical/TR/Majority texts all pretty much agree on the majors of the Christian faith, and the englsh versions translated off all of them are the word of the lord to us for today...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 17, 2017)

Well, David, I do operate in a church (broadly speaking) where all "texts all pretty much agree on the majors of the Christian faith", and that is a good thing; the various English versions are sufficiently preserved that the Lord uses them to sustain and nurture both individuals and churches unto godliness and eternal life. 

It does remain, though, that some do take the Lord's saying seriously and literally when He said, "Man shall not *live by* bread alone, but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Emphasis added; Matt 4:4). Such folks have a strong interest in believing He kept His word when He said that "his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto *life* and godliness" (Emphasis added; 2 Pet 1:3), His "every word" among those things. So the validity of the minutiae / the many particular readings—which the Critical Text variants militate against—are of importance to us.

True, we—the churches—can thrive apart from this being settled, yet when the majestic word of our King is questioned it well behooves some of us to defend it. I think of passages, or even individual words, such as in the last twelve verses of Mark, John 7:53-8:11, Acts 20:28, Luke 23:34, Eph 5:30, 1 Tim 3:16, 1 John 5:7 etc etc that are denied in the CT. It is a legitimate and godly endeavor.

With regard to individual words, consider Jer 26:2: "Thus saith the LORD; Stand in the court of the LORD's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the LORD's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word".

And also Deut 4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Personally, I can carry this endeavor on without dividing the church, as I have a pastor's care for the flock as well as a scholar's for the truth. I would hope that all who are so engaged can do likewise.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 18, 2017)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Well, David, I do operate in a church (broadly speaking) where all "texts all pretty much agree on the majors of the Christian faith", and that is a good thing; the various English versions are sufficiently preserved that the Lord uses them to sustain and nurture both individuals and churches unto godliness and eternal life.
> 
> It does remain, though, that some do take the Lord's saying seriously and literally when He said, "Man shall not *live by* bread alone, but by *every word* that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Emphasis added; Matt 4:4). Such folks have a strong interest in believing He kept His word when He said that "his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto *life* and godliness" (Emphasis added; 2 Pet 1:3), His "every word" among those things. So the validity of the minutiae / the many particular readings—which the Critical Text variants militate against—are of importance to us.
> 
> ...


My position would not be directed towards those holdingto a preference for which Greek text to be used, but to those who think like KJVO, that ONLY one text can be used!


----------



## Robert Truelove (May 24, 2017)

Just a moment to comment and I don't want to wait as threads get closed here after a time.

Regarding Turretin's statement that 1 John 5:7 is found in all the Greek copies...I have heard that Turretin wrote a formal treatise in defense of 1 John 5:7 in Latin (that is untranslated) wherein he acknowledges problems in the Greek manuscripts. This has led some to think what he is referring to in the statement I quoted was pertaining to all of the printed Greek texts of his time (not manuscripts), which if so, would give credence to the idea that he saw authenticity due to the fact the reading had been received.

I can personally only offer that as a speculation.

Finally, the frustration I have with interacting with Dr. White on this subject is he never seems to engage the point I am actually making. In the videos above, I am demonstrating one key point and that is...

Question: "What did the Reformed orthodoxy of the 16th and 17th centuries see as proof the Greek and Hebrew texts had been corrupted?" 

Answer: "Not the fact that there are variants, for they acknowledged them. If the text was as corrupted in their day as reasoned eclecticism claims today that it was, according to their own writings, they acknowledged this gave the argument to those claiming the text had been corrupted."

The point of this was responding to White's video where he showed textual notes in the 1550 Stephanus and then making an argument from that that the men of that day would likely hold to his textual position if they only has our data. I go back and look at what key men of that era actually wrote to demonstrate that is not the case at all.

It is indeed helpful to have all of the videos in question to get the whole picture. Dr. White has never posted a single reference to my videos so people could listen to the entire argument. The vast majority of his listeners have no idea what I'm even talking about.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 24, 2017)

It would seem that this would be something to track down? 


Robert Truelove said:


> Regarding Turretin's statement that 1 John 5:7 is found in all the Greek copies...I have heard that Turretin wrote a formal treatise in defense of 1 John 5:7 in Latin (that is untranslated) wherein he acknowledges problems in the Greek manuscripts. This has led some to think what he is referring to in the statement I quoted was pertaining to all of the printed Greek texts of his time (not manuscripts), which if so, would give credence to the idea that he saw authenticity due to the fact the reading had been received.


----------



## Logan (May 24, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> This has led some to think what he is referring to in the statement I quoted was pertaining to all of the printed Greek texts of his time (not manuscripts), which if so, would give credence to the idea that he saw authenticity due to the fact the reading had been received.



You said you can only offer it as a speculation and it is an interesting thought but does seem highly speculative that Turretin would be trying to say that since it was printed multiple times, this means it should be accepted by the church. Particularly because in his arguments in that passage, he makes appeals to the apographa as representative of the autographa. Nothing I read in that section (which admittedly was a while ago) led me to believe he meant printed copies and was purposely ignoring manuscripts.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (May 24, 2017)

Robert Truelove said:


> Finally, the frustration I have with interacting with Dr. White on this subject is he never seems to engage the point I am actually making.


Why not set up a formal debate with Dr White. The cross examination often forces each debater to engage the specific points.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW (May 24, 2017)

Turretin's Opera, vol. 4, pp. 289ff., contains the theological disputation on the Three Heavenly Witnesses. The respondent is Benedict Pictet.

Pictet's view is expressed in his Christian Theology, p. 103: "There are, therefore, three persons in one divine essence; and this is clearly established by the passage in 1 John v. 7, which is brought forward and quoted by Cyprian, although not read in many copies. A far greater number of reasons can be alleged why this passage should be said to have been struck out by heretics, than to have been inserted by the orthodox. It was more to the advantage of heretics to suppress this passage, than to that of the orthodox to add it, because, if it were genuine, the heresy of the former would be entirely overthrown; if spurious, the orthodox creed was in no danger, being clearly established from other passages of scripture. The connection also of the text confirms our opinion; for unless this verse be admitted, there seems no reason why John should say, 'There are three that bear witness in earth,' not having before said any thing of 'three witnesses in heaven.' Nor can it be objected that these words _in earth_, were also added afterwards, for the contrary appears from verse 9, where mention is made both of the divine and the human testimony, 'If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater.'"

It will be observed that the number of copies is not relevant to its inclusion. It has early support in Cyprian, there is greater reason why it would have been suppressed than added, and internally the passage is coherent with its inclusion.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Logan (May 25, 2017)

MW said:


> It will be observed that the number of copies is not relevant to its inclusion. It has early support in Cyprian, there is greater reason why it would have been suppressed than added, and internally the passage is coherent with its inclusion.



Early support has some weight but that's certainly not the criteria for whether it is Scripture or not, and isn't it disputed that this was what Cyprian was actually referring to?

I don't see any reason to think it must have _either_ been suppressed by heretics or added by orthodox. A very reasonable third alternative is that it was a marginal note, as a comment on 1 John 5:8, which a later copyist added, which is why it doesn't exist in most copies and the few it does being very late (14th century being the earliest I think).


----------



## MW (May 25, 2017)

Looking at it in terms of the reformed orthodox, Pictet has fairly represented the rationale behind its inclusion. It goes to demonstrate that the reformed orthodox did not share the same view of manuscript evidence as the empirical science of textual criticism demands.

The Cyprian citation has been disputed, but even some weighty critics who consider the Comma to be an insertion have conceded it is a genuine citation. One must presume the allegorical interpretation of 1 John 5:8 in order to suppose that Cyprian was not quoting the Comma, and there is simply no reason to presume it other than to support a fabrication.


----------



## KeithW (May 27, 2017)

MW said:


> Pictet's view is expressed... "It was more to the advantage of heretics to suppress this passage, than to that of the orthodox to add it, because, if it were genuine, the heresy of the former would be entirely overthrown; if spurious, the orthodox creed was in no danger, being clearly established from other passages of scripture."


I came across a more brief statement of this argument while I was rereading about the _comma johanneum_ in a book I have. The following was said in the context of the controversy generated because the comma was missing from the first two printed editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament.

'Both Edward Lee and Diego Lopez Zuniga attacked him [Erasmus] for not including this passage and hence encouraging "Arianism"...'​
Let's think through the argument of Pictet, Lee, and Zuniga. For the orthodox, the doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall on one verse. Why? For someone who is orthodox in their doctrine their belief in the Trinity is based on a careful examination of all of Scripture. However, the same argument claims that one verse _will_ prevent the heretic from becoming a heretic. This sounds like a double standard. Let us examine real world evidence of this second claim.

The Christian Science church who has the comma in the KJV. It did not prevent their false view of Jesus.
The Mormons who have the comma in the KJV. It did not prevent their false view of Jesus.
The Oneness Pentecostals who have the comma in the KJV. It did not prevent their false view of the Trinity.
So the argument about stopping heretical views does not hold up to real world examination. I believe the argument misses the root cause of heresy.

Personal experience: I spent a few years in the Christian Science church as a child, which has the KJV. The comma did not prevent from believing that Jesus was not deity. At the age of 18 I first believed in the Gospel in a Oneness Pentecostal church. I read the KJV all the way through, and the New Testament many times. The comma did not convert me away from believing Jesus was not deity. It was only many years later while reading a different verse in a different book of the New Testament that my eyes were finally opened to the truth that Jesus is deity.


----------



## Dachaser (May 27, 2017)

KeithW said:


> I came across a more brief statement of this argument while I was rereading about the _comma johanneum_ in a book I have. The following was said in the context of the controversy generated because the comma was missing from the first two printed editions of Erasmus' Greek New Testament.
> 
> 'Both Edward Lee and Diego Lopez Zuniga attacked him [Erasmus] for not including this passage and hence encouraging "Arianism"...'​
> Let's think through the argument of Pictet, Lee, and Zuniga. For the orthodox, the doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall on one verse. Why? For someone who is orthodox in their doctrine their belief in the Trinity is based on a careful examination of all of Scripture. However, the same argument claims that one verse _will_ prevent the heretic from becoming a heretic. This sounds like a double standard. Let us examine real world evidence of this second claim.
> ...


Think that none of the modern versions that do not agree with those three witnesses as being valid would be saying that Jesus is not deity!


----------



## MW (May 28, 2017)

KeithW said:


> However, the same argument claims that one verse _will_ prevent the heretic from becoming a heretic.



Pictet did not make this claim. I do not recall coming across this claim among any of the reformed orthodox.


----------



## KeithW (May 28, 2017)

MW said:


> Pictet did not make this claim. I do not recall coming across this claim among any of the reformed orthodox.


Thank you for the clarification.


----------

