Verses ommited from the ESV

[shackleton]

The following verses are omitted from the ESV Bible in their entirety but are found in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, the text which underlies the New Testament of Reformation-era translations:
Matthew 17.21, 18.11, 23.14
Mark 7.16, 9.44, 9.46, 11.26, 15.28
Luke 17.36, 23.17
John 5.4
Acts 8.37, 15.34, 28.29
Romans 16.24
1 John 5.7 (the famous Trinitarian reading known as the Johannine Comma is omitted
without any footnote to explain its omission)

This is taken from http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org.au/qr/QR563.pdf. Which I got in response to an earlier post.
I am in a quest to find out more about the ESV. I was always a user of the NASB. I am seeing if it is worth changing over.

 

[KMK]

1 John 5.7 (the famous Trinitarian reading known as the Johannine Comma is omitted
without any footnote to explain its omission)

This alone, if true, would make me question the trustworthiness of the version.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Since the ESV and the NASB are from the same text I would suspect these verses would be missing from it as well. I know 1 John 5:7 is.

 

[SEAGOON]

The portion of 1 John 5:7 reading "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" in the KJV is only to be found in the Old Latin and Vulgate versions of the bible, it occurs in none of the Greek manuscripts, early or late, major or minor. As such it has almost no attestation and is almost certainly not part of the original autograph. Personally while my daily reader is the NKJV I don't use the end of 1 John 5:7 in witnessing to JWs, especially because this is one of the weak verses they've been trained on.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I was under the impression there were 6 or 8 later manuscripts that had it.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/johannine.htm

It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices." Edward F. Hills concluded, "It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church

 

[SEAGOON]

Hello Blueridge,

This is poor reasoning at work: "there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost"

Given that we have several complete NT manuscripts in Greek and none of them contain the comma there is much more solid reason to suppose that it was added by later Latin copyists, which is what the late Dr. Bruce Metzger concluded in his book, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:

After μαρτυροῦντες the Textus Receptus adds the following: ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἔν εἰσι. 8 καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες ἐν τῇ γῇ. That these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain in the light of the following considerations.
(A) External Evidence.

(1) The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript. The eight manuscripts are as follows:

* 61: codex Montfortianus, dating from the early sixteenth century.
* 88: a variant reading in a sixteenth century hand, added to the fourteenth-century codex Regius of Naples.
* 221: a variant reading added to a tenth-century manuscript in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
* 429: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Wolfenbüttel.
* 629: a fourteenth or fifteenth century manuscript in the Vatican.
* 636: a variant reading added to a sixteenth-century manuscript at Naples.
* 918: a sixteenth-century manuscript at the Escorial, Spain.
* 2318: an eighteenth-century manuscript, influenced by the Clementine Vulgate, at Bucharest, Rumania.

(2) The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text. In the fifth century the gloss was quoted by Latin Fathers in North Africa and Italy as part of the text of the Epistle, and from the sixth century onwards it is found more and more frequently in manuscripts of the Old Latin and of the Vulgate. In these various witnesses the wording of the passage differs in several particulars. (For examples of other intrusions into the Latin text of 1 John, see 2.17; 4.3; 5.6, and 20.)
(B) Internal Probabilities.

(1) As regards transcriptional probability, if the passage were original, no good reason can be found to account for its omission, either accidentally or intentionally, by copyists of hundreds of Greek manuscripts, and by translators of ancient versions.

(2) As regards intrinsic probability, the passage makes an awkward break in the sense.

For the story of how the spurious words came to be included in the Textus Receptus, see any critical commentary on 1 John, or Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, pp. 101 f.

There is no reason to suppose that the Johannine Comma was "lost" from the Ancient Greek Manuscripts unless you are determined to prove that the TR (or perhaps the Vulgate if you are an Tridentine Catholic) is an exact recapitulation of the original manuscripts. Personally, when I was in the business world and someone handed me a copy of a report at the end of the day with a sentence I couldn't find in my copy of the first draft, I assumed that sentence was inserted in later revisions, not "mysteriously lost" from my copy of the first drafts.

The comma is good theology, but almost certainly not part of John's original letter and not necessary in order to prove the Trinity.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Pastor Andrew,

The Majority text manuscripts are not as old. They have variations in them. But from some evidence taken from hymns in the early church and writings of the Fathers the missing versus the Majority text contains, over the few older ones, seem to be support the validity of the majority over the older manuscripts. At least that is what I came away with when I studied this back in the mid 90's. Aren't the older few Codex's from Alexandria and not from the Byzantine area? It has been a long time since I studied this.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Calvin, Gill and Henry believed it should be there.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/1John5-7.html

A Trail of Evidence

We find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

Scholars often disagree with each other, but John Gill, in his well known commentary on the entire Bible, remarks concerning 1 John 5:7: "It is cited by Athanasius about the year 350 (Contra Arium p. 109); and before him by Cyprian in the middle of the "third" century, about the year 250 (De Unitate Eccles. p. 255. & in Ep. 73. ad Jubajan, p. 184.) and is referred to by Tertullian about, the year 200 (Contr. Praxeam, c. 25 ) and which was within a hundred years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage."

200 AD - Tertullian's quote is debated, but he may well be referring to the phrase found only in 1 John 5:7 when he says: "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete (Holy Ghost) makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, WHICH THREE ARE ONE entity, not one person. Just as it is said "I and the Father are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to oneness of their number."

250 AD - Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians. Note that Cyprian is quoting and says "IT IS WRITTEN, And the three are One." He lived from 180 to 250 A.D. and the scriptures he had at that time contained the verse in question. This is at least 100 years before anything we have today in the Greek copies. If it wasn't part of Holy Scripture, then where did he see it WRITTEN?

350 AD - Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD - Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD - Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

380 AD - Priscillian in Liber Apologeticus quotes "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

Likewise, the anti-Arian work compiled by an unknown writer, the Varimadum (380 AD) states: "And John the Evangelist says, . . . “And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one”. (Varimadum 90:20-21).

398 AD - Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD - Council of Carthage. The contested verse (1 John 5:7) is quoted at the Council of Carthage (415 A. D.) by Eugenius, who drew up the confession of faith for the "orthodox." It reads with the King James. How did 350 prelates in 415 A.D. take a verse to be orthodox that wasn't in the Bible? It had to exist there from the beginning. It was quoted as "Pater, VERBUM, et Spiritus Sanctus".

450-530 AD. Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"

B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]

C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD - Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

527 AD - Fulgentius in Contra Arianos stated: "Tres sunt qui testimonium perhibent in caelo. Pater, Verbum et Spiritus, et tres unum sunt."

550 AD - The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

636 AD - Isidor of Seville quotes the verse as it stands in the KJB.

750 AD - Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD - Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.] It is also in the Clementine Vulgate today.

157-1400 AD. Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse.

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s A.D. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s A.D. and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. Theodore Beza, John Wesley and Johnathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

 

[SEAGOON]

Hello Martin,

Pastor Andrew,

The Majority text manuscripts are not as old. They have variations in them. But from some evidence taken from hymns in the early church and writings of the Fathers the missing versus the Majority text contains, over the few older ones, seem to be support the validity of the majority over the older manuscripts. At least that is what I came away with when I studied this back in the mid 90's. Aren't the older few Codex's from Alexandria and not from the Byzantine area? It has been a long time since I studied this.

Actually, none of the church fathers or hymns of the early church include the comma. In terms of support for it's inclusion, it's about the weakest verse in the Vulgate. As Metzger noted:

The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4)

If we do choose to include it, we are overturning the most basic principles of lower textual criticism and translational accuracy by making the later translation normative over earlier copies. We might as well simply adopt a "well if its in some of the versions of the Vulgate it must be original" position, and leave it at that because what we have done is made a few of the later versions of the VULGATE translation our autograph. What value do the early Greek Manuscripts or any of the earlier codexes and scrolls have at that point?

 

[SEAGOON]

So, just out of interest is this a KJV-Only board that I've waded into? I didn't read the board rules that precisely and I don't want to upset any applecarts. I can still try to make a gracious exit stage right.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

So, just out of interest is this a KJV-Only board that I've waded into? I didn't read the board rules that precisely and I don't want to upset any applecarts. I can still try to make a gracious exit stage right.

It's OK dear brother. We're not KJV only, we just love it a whole lot. I guess you could say I'm TR only.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Hello Martin,

Pastor Andrew,

The Majority text manuscripts are not as old. They have variations in them. But from some evidence taken from hymns in the early church and writings of the Fathers the missing versus the Majority text contains, over the few older ones, seem to be support the validity of the majority over the older manuscripts. At least that is what I came away with when I studied this back in the mid 90's. Aren't the older few Codex's from Alexandria and not from the Byzantine area? It has been a long time since I studied this.

Actually, none of the church fathers or hymns of the early church include the comma. In terms of support for it's inclusion, it's about the weakest verse in the Vulgate. As Metzger noted:

The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

(3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome (codex Fuldensis [copied a.d. 541-46] and codex Amiatinus [copied before a.d. 716]) or (c) as revised by Alcuin (first hand of codex Vallicellianus [ninth century]).

The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4)

If we do choose to include it, we are overturning the most basic principles of lower textual criticism and translational accuracy by making the later translation normative over earlier copies. We might as well simply adopt a "well if its in some of the versions of the Vulgate it must be original" position, and leave it at that because what we have done is made a few of the later versions of the VULGATE translation our autograph. What value do the early Greek Manuscripts or any of the earlier codexes and scrolls have at that point?

I understand. And I am troubled a little bit about the Comma. I am not sure of the validity of the comma. I actually understood it to be added to the Greek by Erasmus. But there are many other places where the manuscripts do contain versus that are missing in the Alexandrian manuscripts. And these passages in the Majority are usually supported by the writings of the Early church. So it seems there is support for the claims that the Majority may be closer to the original even though the extant copies are older than the Alexandrian. Closer to date or origin is not necessarily the most accurate according to some. And I am not speaking of KJV only guys. I think you probably know what I am talking about. I was mainly responding to your analogy of the work place documents and additions. Byzantine vs. Alexandria.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So, just out of interest is this a KJV-Only board that I've waded into? I didn't read the board rules that precisely and I don't want to upset any applecarts. I can still try to make a gracious exit stage right.

No way... just go look at the debates in this forum. Some of them are pretty good. It may lean a bit more toward the Majority text but there are some good men on both sides of the isle.

I appreciate your Presence Pastor and feel you would definitely benefit many younger impressionable minds on this board for the better. Especially since I have been following you on the email list. You are awesome.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Greetings:

This thread has become a debate on the Johannine Comma. One should note that of all the Greek mss available only about 501 of them contain 1 John. Of these anywhere from 8 to 30 of them (depending on what scholar you trust) actually contain the Comma. The Greek textual witness is very low indeed. However, minority readings can be proven genuine as the many different minority readings in the Critical Text illustrate.

As far as "there are no early Greek mss that contain the Comma" such is not true. Codex Witzenburgensis (SP?) is dated as an early Greek mss according to the rules set up by UBS, and it contains the Comma.

Why are there so few early Greek mss that contain the Comma? Well, the Comma is a strong testimony to the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. Modalism and Arianism almost took over the Greek churches during the first few centuries. The transmission of these texts were in the hands of Arians who would have no qualms about changing the text. This was not as great a problem among the Latin church and the Latin fathers. Thus, only the most pure Greek texts would make it through the Arian domination of the early church. Yet, the Latin church retained the testimony of the Comma.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

 

[KMK]

Some of my favorite threads on the Comma:

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=15569
http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=20221

 

[Greg]

I understand. And I am troubled a little bit about the Comma. I am not sure of the validity of the comma. I actually understood it to be added to the Greek by Erasmus.

I came across an article written by Daniel Wallace where he is making this case (which I don't necessarily agree with BTW):

“5:7 For there are three that testify, 5:8 the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement.” --NET Bible

Before toV pneu'ma kaiV toV u{dwr kaiV toV ai|ma, the Textus Receptus reads ejn tw'/ oujranw'/, oJ pathvr, oJ lovgo", kaiV toV a{gion pneu'ma, kaiV ou|toi oiJ trei'" e{n eijsi. 5:8 kaiV trei'" eijsin oiJ marturou'nte" ejn th'/ gh'/ (“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. Our discussion will briefly address the external evidence.1

This longer reading is found only in eight late manuscripts, four of which have the words in a marginal note. Most of these manuscripts (2318, 221, and [with minor variations] 61, 88, 429, 629, 636, and 918) originate from the 16th century; the earliest manuscript, codex 221 (10th century), includes the reading in a marginal note which was added sometime after the original composition. Thus, there is no sure evidence of this reading in any Greek manuscript until the 1500s; each such reading was apparently composed after Erasmus’ Greek NT was published in 1516. Indeed, the reading appears in no Greek witness of any kind (either manuscript, patristic, or Greek translation of some other version) until AD 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.2 The reading seems to have arisen in a fourth 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 (1516), 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 manuscripts that included it. Once one was produced (codex 61, written by one Roy or Froy at Oxford in c. 1520),3 Erasmus apparently felt obliged to include the reading. He became aware of this manuscript 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,4 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 manuscripts he could for the production of his Greek New Testament. 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 Textus Receptus 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 manuscripts lack them. Further, these KJV advocates argue theologically from the position of divine preservation: since this verse is in the TR, it must be original. But this approach is circular, presupposing as it does that the TR = the original text. Further, it puts these Protestant proponents in the awkward and self-contradictory position of having to affirm that the Roman Catholic humanist, Erasmus, was just as inspired as the apostles, for on several occasions he invented readings—due either to carelessness or lack of Greek manuscripts (in particular, for the last six verses of Revelation Erasmus had to back-translate from Latin to Greek).

In reality, the issue is history, not heresy: How can one argue that the Comma Johanneum must go back to the original text when it did not appear until the 16th century in any Greek manuscripts? Such a stance does not do justice to the gospel: faith must be rooted in history. To argue that the Comma must be authentic is Bultmannian in its method, for it ignores history at every level. As such, it has very little to do with biblical Christianity, for a biblical faith is one that is rooted in history.

Significantly, the German translation done by 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.

Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition.5 If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they’d be writhing in their graves.


1 For a detailed discussion, see Metzger, Textual Commentary, 2nd ed., 647-49.

2 Not only the ancient orthodox writers, but also modern orthodox scholars would of course be delighted if this reading were the original one. But the fact is that the evidence simply does not support the Trinitarian formula here—and these orthodox scholars just happen to hold to the reasonable position that it is essential to affirm what the Bible affirms where it affirms it, rather than create such affirmations ex nihilo. That KJV advocates have charged modern translations with heresy because they lack the Comma is a house of cards, for the same translators who have worked on the NIV, NASB, or NET (as well as many other translations) have written several articles and books affirming the Trinity.

3 This manuscript which contains the entire New Testament is now housed in Dublin. It has been examined so often at this one place that the book now reportedly falls open naturally to 1 John 5.

4 That Erasmus made such a protest or that he had explicitly promised to include the Comma is an overstatement of the evidence, though the converse of this can be said to be true: Erasmus refused to put this in his without Greek manuscript support.

5 Thus, TR-KJV advocates subconsciously embrace two diametrically opposed traditions: when it comes to the first 1500 years of church history, they hold to a Bultmannian kind of Christianity (viz., the basis for their belief in the superiority of the Byzantine manuscripts—and in particular, the half dozen that stand behind the TR—has very little empirical substance of historical worth). Once such readings became a part of tradition, however, by way of the TR, the argument shifts to one of tradition rather than non-empirical fideism. Neither basis, of course, resembles Protestantism.

 

[Archlute]

It has been awhile since I've studied the issue, but I have always felt that modern text-critical scholars (with who's methods I am in general agreement) take an approach to this passage that is more prejudicially dismissive than necessary. I remember that Francis Turretin spoke of a number of sources in his Institutes that are not engaged by Metzger. That could be where some of the problem is to be found. If you have older scholars, such as Turretin, arguing from sources that are no longer extant and therefore are unavailable to todays scholars, you will be receiving a skewed picture that is based upon limited resources. I also remember reading that Jerome was aware of a number of Greek mss in his day which included the reading. Do we have all of these resources readily available to us? No. Is that a good reason to dismiss the possibility that modern TC scholarship has made a mistake in their research of the issue? No.

For what it's worth, I've used Metzger extensively, both during and after my seminary exegesis, and once you become familiar with his work you can see more than a few instances in which his (or the committee's) argumentation is flawed/weak/unconvincing. On numerous readings you will find that they don't even agree amongst themselves. So, Metzger isn't really the final say.

 

[JM]

Great thread!

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The following verses are omitted from the ESV Bible in their entirety but are found in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, the text which underlies the New Testament of Reformation-era translations:
Matthew 17.21, 18.11, 23.14
Mark 7.16, 9.44, 9.46, 11.26, 15.28
Luke 17.36, 23.17
John 5.4
Acts 8.37, 15.34, 28.29
Romans 16.24
1 John 5.7 (the famous Trinitarian reading known as the Johannine Comma is omitted
without any footnote to explain its omission)

This is taken from http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org.au/qr/QR563.pdf. Which I got in response to an earlier post.
I am in a quest to find out more about the ESV. I was always a user of the NASB. I am seeing if it is worth changing over.

Well, Back to the original post. There are also a lot of altered verses such as John 3:13 and 1 Timothy 3:16. This issue is much bigger than the 1 John 5:7 passage.

As I said before, there are many other places where the manuscripts do contain versus that are missing or altered in the Alexandrian manuscripts. And these passages in the Majority are usually supported by the writings of the Early church. So it seems there is support for the claims that the Majority may be closer to the original even though the extant copies are older than the Alexandrian. Closer to date or origin is not necessarily the most accurate according to some.

 

[MW]

Recommended reading: Robert L. Dabney, "The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek," in Discussions 1:350-390.

The canon of Scripture -- is it based upon manuscripts or inspiration? If not mss., why are we constantly referred to the age or number of pieces of paper for the foundation of our faith?

 

[KMK]

And also, was it the titles of the books that were canonized, or the books themselves?

 

[SEAGOON]

Hi Martin,

So, just out of interest is this a KJV-Only board that I've waded into? I didn't read the board rules that precisely and I don't want to upset any applecarts. I can still try to make a gracious exit stage right.

No way... just go look at the debates in this forum. Some of them are pretty good. It may lean a bit more toward the Majority text but there are some good men on both sides of the isle.

Thanks, I'm just trying to figure out which end is up in regards to the board at present, and you are far too generous. Carey's epitaph fits me better: "A wretched, poor, and helpless worm. On thy kind arms I fall."

As to the issue of 1 John 5:7b I'm going to let it go, its obviously been argued extensively several times here by better scholars than I and I don't want to be ...

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Hi Martin,

So, just out of interest is this a KJV-Only board that I've waded into? I didn't read the board rules that precisely and I don't want to upset any applecarts. I can still try to make a gracious exit stage right.

No way... just go look at the debates in this forum. Some of them are pretty good. It may lean a bit more toward the Majority text but there are some good men on both sides of the isle.

Thanks, I'm just trying to figure out which end is up in regards to the board at present, and you are far too generous. Carey's epitaph fits me better: "A wretched, poor, and helpless worm. On thy kind arms I fall."

As to the issue of 1 John 5:7b I'm going to let it go, its obviously been argued extensively several times here by better scholars than I and I don't want to be ...

Me either. I like to have a little joy to go to heaven in. And please stay and get your feet feet wet here. We could use another faithful man of your caliber.

 

[Pilgrim]

Since the ESV and the NASB are from the same text I would suspect these verses would be missing from it as well. I know 1 John 5:7 is.

The NASB tends to be a bit more "conservative" in its textual choices than other CT translations. Many of these verses will be in the NASB text but will be bracketed and footnoted as "not being in the best manuscripts" or some such verbiage instead of being relegated to the margin as in the ESV or NIV.

 

[CalvinandHodges]

The following verses are omitted from the ESV Bible in their entirety but are found in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, the text which underlies the New Testament of Reformation-era translations:
Matthew 17.21, 18.11, 23.14
Mark 7.16, 9.44, 9.46, 11.26, 15.28
Luke 17.36, 23.17
John 5.4
Acts 8.37, 15.34, 28.29
Romans 16.24
1 John 5.7 (the famous Trinitarian reading known as the Johannine Comma is omitted
without any footnote to explain its omission)

This is taken from http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org.au/qr/QR563.pdf. Which I got in response to an earlier post.
I am in a quest to find out more about the ESV. I was always a user of the NASB. I am seeing if it is worth changing over.

Well, Back to the original post. There are also a lot of altered verses such as John 3:13 and 1 Timothy 3:16. This issue is much bigger than the 1 John 5:7 passage.

As I said before, there are many other places where the manuscripts do contain versus that are missing or altered in the Alexandrian manuscripts. And these passages in the Majority are usually supported by the writings of the Early church. So it seems there is support for the claims that the Majority may be closer to the original even though the extant copies are older than the Alexandrian. Closer to date or origin is not necessarily the most accurate according to some.

Hi:

My pastor reads portions without comment from both the Old and New Testament during Sunday worship. I follow along in my 1599 Geneva Bible. There are a lot more words and phrases taken out of the verses than is generally understood. Compare the Lord's Prayer in the ESV at Luke 11, for example, with the KJV.

Grace,

-CH

 

[Pilgrim]

Hi:

My pastor reads portions without comment from both the Old and New Testament during Sunday worship. I follow along in my 1599 Geneva Bible. There are a lot more words and phrases taken out of the verses than is generally understood. Compare the Lord's Prayer in the ESV at Luke 11, for example, with the KJV.

Grace,

-CH

Interestingly I attended an OPC church last year that used the ESV and If I recall correctly recited the Lord's Prayer from that version as well. That's the only time I've ever seen that done instead of using the KJV language.

 

[mbj0680]

The following verses are omitted from the ESV Bible in their entirety but are found in the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament, the text which underlies the New Testament of Reformation-era translations:
Matthew 17.21, 18.11, 23.14
Mark 7.16, 9.44, 9.46, 11.26, 15.28
Luke 17.36, 23.17
John 5.4
Acts 8.37, 15.34, 28.29
Romans 16.24
1 John 5.7 (the famous Trinitarian reading known as the Johannine Comma is omitted
without any footnote to explain its omission)

This is taken from http://trinitarianbiblesociety.org.au/qr/QR563.pdf. Which I got in response to an earlier post.
I am in a quest to find out more about the ESV. I was always a user of the NASB. I am seeing if it is worth changing over.

Here are some interesting thoughts in relation to the ESV and why verses are missing. They have a section that makes it sound as if they modeled their work after the KJV, but as we will see below they may have tried make the text sound like the KJV, but they still remove verses not basing Greek off the KJV and the TR, but off the RSV and the Nestle/Aland .

The King James Version (KJV) was the standard Bible used by the English-speaking world for almost four centuries. It was the one Bible that united the Church, strengthened believers, and brought untold millions of souls to Christ. Its literary beauty helped to shape the English language more than any other printed work before or since. Adults and children studied it and committed its verses to memory. It is still among the top-selling Bibles on current bestseller lists.
The translators of the KJV understood the value of the English translation work that had been done before their time, and they wisely referred to the earliest English Bible translations, dating back to William Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament, in addition to the manuscripts in their original languages.
With the greatest respect for the KJV and deep gratitude to its translators for their work, the English Standard Version Translation Team endeavored to carry on the KJV’s historic translation legacy in a way that is fresh and compelling for today and that will endure for generations to come.

http://www.esv.org/translation/KJV

Yet they also have a page that says there starting point was the RSV.

The words and phrases themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy, and most recently out of the RSV, with the 1971 RSV text providing the starting point for our work.

http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts



The RSV is based on the Nestle text as we will see below, inevitably then so is the ESV. This means that these versions remove certain verses based on the idea that they think they have earlier MSS.

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2nd ed., 1983), and on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland.

http://www.esv.org/translation/manuscripts

The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament purported to be a revision of the American Standard Version, although very little of the ASV remains in the RSV. The Greek text usually followed was the 17th edition (1941) of the Nestle text (see Nestle 1927).

http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv.html


This leads us back to preference of which Bibles you wish to read. There are those Bibles who base their text off the TR/Majority or the modern versions who use the Neslte Aland 27/Minority texts. Like the ESV the newer modern versions will remove verses and change things. I am a huge NASB fan and recently have been wondering if I should change to version based off the TR text because of this very reason the ESV has taken verses out. So has the NASB. Both are based off the Nestle/Aland Text.

Hope this helps. Sorry for being so long winded and sounding like a beaker, but this is a subject that has been on my mind latley. Lots to think about. -MJ

 

[AV1611]

The portion of 1 John 5:7 reading "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" in the KJV is only to be found in the Old Latin and Vulgate versions of the bible, it occurs in none of the Greek manuscripts, early or late, major or minor. As such it has almost no attestation and is almost certainly not part of the original autograph. Personally while my daily reader is the NKJV I don't use the end of 1 John 5:7 in witnessing to JWs, especially because this is one of the weak verses they've been trained on.

http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/A102.pdf

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Andy,

You asked if this was a KJVO board....according to this recent poll here -- http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php?t=22500 -- the ESV was preferred over the KJV by 46 to 24% of the respondents. This does not mean that the minority is timid or uneducated regarding the textual issues. You can probably tell there is more light than heat in their arguments.

Although I will use Metzger occasionally, it is with great caution. Consider the info concerning him in this post: http://www.puritanboard.com/showpost.php?p=214595&postcount=20.

Regarding the questions concerning 1 John 5:7, I shall post a little from Frederick Nolan's work examining both it and other CT omissions. (A link to the online version given in the first footnote.)

--------

This is from Frederick Nolan’s book, Inquiry Into the Integrity Of the Greek Vulgate, Or Received Text Of the New Testament, 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 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 it 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.

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.” [Emphasis added] [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). Nolan’s complete book online (minus the Preface): http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/classics/inquiry0.html
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.