1 John 5:7-8

[jwithnell]

The Alexandrian manuscripts are the older of the texts, and simply weren't known. Saying their lack of availability during the Westminster sessions means one must use the Byzantine would be like saying we can't use electric lights in worship.

Textual criticism is a scholarly effort to ascertain the original text. It is by no means analogous to higher criticism and its dependence on an enlightenment world view.

I really dislike the ESV, not because of the textual tradition, but because it reads like 10 miles of rutted road. Its rendering of Isaiah is enough to make me cry. There are other, better, translations widely used in Presbyterian, scholarly circles.

 

[Taylor]

There are other, better, translations widely used in Presbyterian, scholarly circles.

Such as? (I’m genuinely curious!)

 

[jwithnell]

NASB was a standard for many years. Though it has the weakness of dynamic equivalence, the NIV has often been used in public settings, although the later "gender neutral" language chased many away. ESV gets use as the latest.

 

[Taylor]

...the NIV has often been used in public settings...

Unless I am mistaken, even the great Dr. Jim Boice preached from the NIV.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Jean,

In Michael Maynard’s, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5,7-8: A Tracing of the Longevity of the Comma Johanneum, With Evaluations of Arguments Against its Authenticity, is this tidbit:

Before proceeding with the discussion, another unique feature of the verse ought to be mentioned. De Jong describes it thus, elaborating on “codex” as it appears in the context of Erasmus’ discussion:

The Codex Vaticanus par excellence, now GR. 1209, B in N.T. textual criticism. This is the very first time that this highly important ms. is appealed to for critical purposes. On 18 June 1521 Paul Bombasius, the secretary of the Lorenzo Pucci at Rome, sent a letter to Er. containing a copy of 1 Ioh 4,1-3, and 5, 7-11 from the Cod. Vatic (Ep. 1213). In his Annot. on 1 Ioh. Er. stated in 1522 that that the Comma was missing from the Cod. Vat . . . (Erasmi Opera Omnia, IX-2: 257 note 505)
​

The significance in mentioning this is that several books claim that Erasmus had neither access nor knowledge of any minority text readings from uncials or from elsewhere. (Maynard Op. Cit., Pp 22-23)​

This, then, invalidates your saying,

The Alexandrian manuscripts are the older of the texts, and simply weren't known. Saying their lack of availability during the Westminster sessions means one must use the Byzantine would be like saying we can't use electric lights in worship.​

For if Erasmus knew of it (and noted it), the TR editors and Westminster divines also did.

Iain, I will stick with the Confessional view despite apparent difficulties (though I will explore re Ezekiel 40:14). I do, though, appreciate and respect your expertise (currently I am using your EP commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi—and have benefitted in the past from your work on Ezekiel).

Logan, I cannot see anything (unless I missed something) where I disagree with Pastor Barnes. I do realize I differ with other TR proponents on occasion, but I will only stand on ground I can defend, even if it is by naked faith in God’s word, the ground of my presuppositions. I also appreciate your dogged scholarly approach in these discussions. I don’t tangle with you lightly!