VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Can we get a translation? lol
The Cyprian translation has already been provided. Perhaps someone else can do the Facundus translation.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can we get a translation? lol
You may not believe it is 'original' but, if you are going to subscribe to the WCF, then you must accept it as 'canon'.
Well, let's see the quote, since most of us don't have it in our libraries.
Sorry, didn't see this. Here is the Metzger quote:
What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus' promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the 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.
Just one suggestion. You may want to give the Edition you are using. I have a 4th Edition which has the de Jonge material as footnote 22 on pg 146.
Are you using the 3rd Edition?
And yes the Comma is genuine.
You may not believe it is 'original' but, if you are going to subscribe to the WCF, then you must accept it as 'canon'.
How so?
I accept, along with the first chapter the WCF, that the first epistle of John is canonical, but there is no similar requirement of holding to the comma itself. No Presbyterian body of which I am aware requires subscription to the proof-texts of the standards, of which there have been variations throughout its history.
I find it kind of presumptuous for a Baptist pastor to be lecturing a Presbyterian ordinand regarding the subscription requirements of his own denomination.
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). Nolan’s complete book online (save Preface): An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate
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.
You may not believe it is 'original' but, if you are going to subscribe to the WCF, then you must accept it as 'canon'.
How so?
I accept, along with the first chapter the WCF, that the first epistle of John is canonical, but there is no similar requirement of holding to the comma itself. No Presbyterian body of which I am aware requires subscription to the proof-texts of the standards, of which there have been variations throughout its history.
I find it kind of presumptuous for a Baptist pastor to be lecturing a Presbyterian ordinand regarding the subscription requirements of his own denomination.
I apologize. I would not presume to lecture a man of your stature. After reading my post again, I see how it might have sounded like a lecture.
How about if I rephrase it thusly: "As a subscriber to the WCF, you may believe it is not 'original', but you must believe it to be 'canon', right?"
After all, the books of the NT listed in the first chapter is a list of the books themselves as they were contained in the TR and not just a list of titles. Or am I missing something?
How so?
I accept, along with the first chapter the WCF, that the first epistle of John is canonical, but there is no similar requirement of holding to the comma itself. No Presbyterian body of which I am aware requires subscription to the proof-texts of the standards, of which there have been variations throughout its history.
I find it kind of presumptuous for a Baptist pastor to be lecturing a Presbyterian ordinand regarding the subscription requirements of his own denomination.
I apologize. I would not presume to lecture a man of your stature. After reading my post again, I see how it might have sounded like a lecture.
How about if I rephrase it thusly: "As a subscriber to the WCF, you may believe it is not 'original', but you must believe it to be 'canon', right?"
After all, the books of the NT listed in the first chapter is a list of the books themselves as they were contained in the TR and not just a list of titles. Or am I missing something?
I think that your understanding of canon is throwing you off. The books of Scripture listed in the WCF have been deemed canonical by the church, but nobody has sat down with every variant within those books (and I would add that these variants have been known to have been in existence long before the work of modern textual critics) and made a pronouncement as to which of the several renderings given is to be considered the "canonical" reading. Leave that up to the Magesterium.
Canon, as understood by historic Protestantism, has been first determined by God, and only secondarily recognized by the church; not determined by the church. So if the church has thought that a passage within a book recognized to be canonical was original, and then later decides that the variant has weak support in light of later manuscript study, they are only recognizing that they had previously misread a particular passage to be original that was not original. The Canon is fixed and set by the work of the Spirit as found in the autographa, and the job of the church is to discern that. However, since we do not have councils to do that work, it falls upon the shoulders of most ministers to make a decision on those passages prior to preaching or teaching them. For what it's worth, most variants have no real impact upon a passage, and it is only the few such as the ending of Mark, or the "Johannine Comma" that ever really raise a stir.
A good place to begin reading on this issue can be found in chapter 1, section 4 of H. Ridderbos' Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures. Section 4 specifically deals with the Reformed view of the canon, but the entire book is worth a good read as well. It's only about 80pp long, and about six or seven bucks. Look into it.
BTW, you can take your latte, and go do your obeisance elsewhere
Depends on who's asking; Liberals, Mormans, or Muslims?
I kept reverting to my basic question: how does it help us to say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God if in fact we don't have the words that God inerrantly inspired, but only the words copied by the scribes—sometimes correctly but sometimes (many times!) incorrectly? What good is it to say that the autographs (i.e., the originals) were inspired? We don't have the originals! We have only error-ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways.
The more I studied the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, the more I realized just how radically the text had been altered over the years at the hands of scribes, who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it. (p. 207)
When I was a student just beginning to think about those fifteen centuries of copying and the vicissitudes of the text, I kept reverting to the fact that whatever else we may say about the Christian scribes—whether of the early centuries or of the Middle Ages—we have to admit that in addition to copying scripture, they were changing scripture. Sometimes they didn't mean to—they were simply tired, or inattentive, or, on occasion, inept. At other times, though, they did mean to make changes, as when they wanted the text to emphasize precisely what they themselves believed, for example about the nature of Christ, or about the role of women in the church, or about the wicked character of their Jewish opponents. This conviction that scribes had changed scripture became an increasing certitude for me as I studied the text more and more. (p. 210)
As I realized already in graduate school, even if God had inspired the original words, we don't have the original words. So the doctrine of inspiration was in a sense irrelevant to the Bible as we have it, since the words God reputedly inspired had been changed and, in some cases, lost. (p. 211)
... the only reason (I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn't preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn't gone to the trouble of inspiring them. (p. 211)
Hmm. I'm a real KJV user (as opposed to the ruckman type). I take the bible as it stands. All of the questionable passages in the whole Bible would fill 1/2 of one page. I've heard all the reasons the moderns feel some passages should be taken out, but after doing a little research, they all should remain in the Bible. The stuff used against the Johnannine Comma is simmilar to the other passage arguements.
One of the best research things I do is to trace the history and go back to the begining. Modern scholars try and figure out the order in which the Gospels were written, and yet, if you read early church fathers, they spell it out clearly. I go with what they say.
Dennis,
Is Silva's piece, Biblical Greek and Reformed Textual Criticism, available anywhere in digital format? I see it is available in photocopy at WTS bookstore, but is it online? Thanks,
Steve
Hmm. I'm a real KJV user (as opposed to the ruckman type). I take the bible as it stands. All of the questionable passages in the whole Bible would fill 1/2 of one page. I've heard all the reasons the moderns feel some passages should be taken out, but after doing a little research, they all should remain in the Bible. The stuff used against the Johnannine Comma is simmilar to the other passage arguements.
One of the best research things I do is to trace the history and go back to the begining. Modern scholars try and figure out the order in which the Gospels were written, and yet, if you read early church fathers, they spell it out clearly. I go with what they say.
But isn't that the real question here? The Bible as it stood in 1611, or as it stood in one of the 4th century codices, or the reading of Paul's Philippian epistle as found in a second century papyrus?
When I see that there is a significant difference between a number of 2nd/3rd century papyri, and a reading as contained in the Received Text, what should I do? Should I ignore significant early evidence for a better reading, or should just hang with tradition on some superficial notion that there has always been one preserved Word for God's people at all times (and hope that the TR is it)? How does that doctrine of preservation fit when you look at the Christians of the 5th century and one particular codex that they may have had as their only Scripture? Did God fail to preserve his Word for them where it varies from the TR? What about a Christian village during the Medieval era, whose priest had only a 13th century minuscule from which to preach (yes, preaching went on even back then, even with priests and preaching orders) - did God fail to preserve His Word to them where that minuscule varies from the TR?
How express the text is, These three are one. When the apostle speaks of the unity of the earthly witnesses, ver. 8. he says, they "agree in one," acting in unity of consent or agreement only. But the heavenly witnesses are one, viz. in nature or essence. They are not only of a like nature or substance, but one and the same substance; and if so, they are and must be equal in all essential perfections, as power and glory.