139 You who believe in the Name of the Son of God. 1 John 5:13

While at school, we often had to copy a lot of information from the blackboard. I remember how easily we would make a mistake when the eye jumped from one line to another, either duplicating a word or sentence (Dittography) or leaving out a word or sentence (Haplography). If such a mistake could happen so easily, the same thing might have happened during the copy of the Biblical Scriptures.

In 1 John 5:13 we have such a variation. Let us study it. Continue reading

Posted in Causes for Variations, Desiderius Erasmus, KJV/NIV Controversy, United Bible Societies Text | 3 Comments

138 “Son of God” or “Son of man”?

How did Jesus refer to Himself? As “Son of God” or as “Son of man”?

Jesus healed a man who had been born blind. This man was then banned from the temple by the Pharisees. When Jesus later met this man, He asked him an extremely important question. Did He ask him: “Do you believe in the Son of God?”, or did He ask him: “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”.

To find an answer to this question, we use three criteria, the first looking at the manuscripts that contain the two variations and see what we could derive from the evidence there. Continue reading

Posted in Causes for Variations, External Criteria, Internal Criteria, Intrinsic Criteria, KJV/NIV Controversy | Leave a comment

137 Regarding the day or not; Romans 14:6.

In Romans 14 verse 6 some manuscripts have additional text concerning the Sabbath and other holy days, not found in most modern versions of the Bible. The New King James Version has the additional text. The words printed in bold are the words in question.

NKJV: “He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.

Note that most modern versions are without this second statement, like the New International Version:

NIV: “ Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God.”

Was the negative part of this statement, part of the original autograph or was it added to the text at a later time? Continue reading

Posted in Context, External Criteria, Inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Internal Criteria | Leave a comment

136 Son or Donkey or Sheep in the well, Luke 14:5

Luke tells us of Jesus’ healing of the man who suffered of unusual swelling of the body due to water retention, also known as dropsy. This happened on a Sabbath day. Jesus defended Himself by asking the Pharisees who of them would not save something from a well on the Sabbath. What example did Jesus mention that had to be saved from the well?

KJV: “And answered them, saying, Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the sabbath day?”

NIV: “If one of you, has a son or an ox that falls into a well on the Sabbath day, will you not immediately pull him out?”

In the manuscripts we find three versions. Continue reading

Posted in Causes for Variations, External Criteria, Internal Criteria, Intrinsic Criteria | Leave a comment

135 The Profit of Boasting. 2 Cor. 12:1

In 2 Corinthians 12:1 the Bible translator is confronted with four variations caused by a very slight difference in the Greek. There is found the word of our investigation that could either be “dei”= be necessary or must; or “de”= but/and; or “dy”= indeed/therefore; or “ei”= if/whether.

These variations are represented in some versions of English Bibles:
1. “dei”: I must/necessary: “I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations of the Lord.” (New International Version)
“As it is necessary for me to take glory to myself, though it is not a good thing, I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.” (Bible in Basic English)
2. “de” but/and: “This boasting will do no good but I must go on.”(New Living Translation)
“Well, it is not of profit to me to boast, for I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.” (Darby)
3. “dy” Indeed/therefore: “Indeed, it is not profitable for me to boast. For I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord.” (Modern King James Version)
4. “ei” if/whether: “If it is necessary though certainly not expedient) to glory, then I will next tell of visions and revelations from the Lord.” (CPDV) Continue reading

Posted in Causes for Variations, Context, External Criteria, Internal Criteria, Intrinsic Criteria, KJV/NIV Controversy | Leave a comment

134 Grace versus works in Romans 11;6

To me the Word of God, as He had inspired the Bible Writers, is ample and the best. Sometimes one reads the Bible not noting a variation that deviates from the original, but when I do notice one, I like to study it. Quite often the variation does have an influence on the meaning of that sentence, or its function within the part it is embedded. Such a case is found in Romans eleven verse six in the King James Version.
On other occasions one reads over the verse without realising the function a clause should fulfil in that sentence. I am of the opinion that this happens when reading Romans 11:6 in the King James Version. The second part of the sentence (which is lacking in most modern versions) is just the opposite of the first. But does it have an influence on the understanding of the first, or of its specific role in the paragraph as a whole? Let us examine this difference with an open mind.
KJV: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
NIV: “And if by grace, then is it no longer by works: if it were, grace would no longer be grace.” Continue reading

Posted in External Criteria, Internal Criteria, Intrinsic Criteria, KJV/NIV Controversy | Leave a comment

133 The King James and The Comma Johanneum

This is a re-blog from beliefspeak2

The King James and The Comma Johanneum

In  a few days it will be 500 years since Erasmus published the first Greek New Testament. (1 March 1516) Before then every copy of the New Testament had to be hand copied. Erasmus’ text later became known as the Textus Receptus (Received Text) which was commonly and unquestioned used for translations like the King James Version.

Alex of beliefspeak2 writes:

“In another post I mentioned how the Quintcentenial of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament is approaching (March 1, 2016). Just about a year and a half later (Oct. 31, 1517) after its publication did Luther tack his 95 theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg Castle. So Erasmus’ work was in many ways pivotal yet it lacked integrity to a certain degree. One area of controversy are verses added between 1John 5.7 and the next verse. Here is 1John 5.6-8 (the NET) if only considering textual evidence with reasonable conclusions:

Jesus Christ is the one who came by water and blood—not by the water only, but by the water and the blood. And the Spirit is the one who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.

In a future post I will try to identify how Jesus came by “water and blood.” This is another question  and consensus to the references of these terms in a practical sense toward today’s reader of the text is quite varied. Christians today, if polled, would give a variety of solutions or confess ignorance as to what “water and blood” referred.

In this post, however, I would like to share a note from the NET Bible to show some of the machinations involved which produced the addition of [in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one.] after 1John 5.7.

Though Erasmus was a great scholar, his ethics left much to be desired. So today the King James adherents will insist that these words belong in the bible as an explicit testimony to the Trinity. The Trinity is on safe ground and is represented inherently throughout the bible without resorting to questionable means to defend it. Here is the note from the NET Bible explaining the controversy:

Before τὸ πνεῦμα καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα (to pneuma kai to hudōr kai to haima), the Textus Receptus(TR) reads ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ πατήρ, ὁ λόγος, καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα, καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσι. 5:8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ (“in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that testify on earth”). This reading, the infamous Comma Johanneum, has been known in the English-speaking world through the King James translation. However, the evidence—both external and internal—is decidedly against its authenticity. For a detailed discussion, see TCGNT 647–49. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence. This longer reading is found only in nine late mss, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these mss (221 2318 [18th century] {2473 [dated 1634]} and [with minor variations] 61 88 429 629 636 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest ms, codex 221 (10th century) includes the reading in a marginal note, added sometime after the original composition. The oldest ms with the Comma in its text is from the 14th century (629), but the wording here departs from all the other mss in several places. The next oldest mss on behalf of the Comma, 88 (12th century) 429 (14th) 636 (15th), also have the reading only as a marginal note (v.l.). The remaining mss are from the 16th to 18th centuries. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek ms until the 14th century (629), and that ms deviates from all others in its wording; the wording that matches what is found in the TR was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the Comma appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either ms, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until a.d. 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. The reading seems to have arisen in a 4th 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, 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 mss that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written in ca. 1520), Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this ms 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, 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 mss he could for the production of his text. 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. Modern advocates of the TR and KJV generally argue for the inclusion of the Comma Johanneum on the basis of heretical motivation by scribes who did not include it. But these same scribes elsewhere include thoroughly orthodox readings—even in places where the TR/Byzantine mss lack them. Further, these advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: Since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. (Of course, this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text.) In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum goes back to the original text yet does not appear until the 14th century in any Greek mss (and that form is significantly different from what is printed in the TR; the wording of theTR is not found in any Greek mss until the 16th century)? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: Faith must be rooted in history. Significantly, the German translation of Luther was based on Erasmus’ second edition (1519) and lacked the Comma. But the KJV translators, basing their work principally on Theodore Beza’s 10th edition of the Greek NT (1598), a work which itself was fundamentally based on Erasmus’ third and later editions (and Stephanus’ editions), popularized the Comma for the English-speaking world. Thus, the Comma Johanneum has been a battleground for English-speaking Christians more than for others.”

Thank you Alex.

I trust that this post will be as enlightening to my readers as it had been to myself. I also did a study on the Comma Johanneum some time ago.

God bless,

Herman.

Posted in Desiderius Erasmus | Leave a comment