Which translation is correct?

[TrustGzus]

Norman, I will respond to everything in your most recent reply.

I have to say that I am very disappointed in this comment from you . . .

You have yet to comment on actual evidence, in contrast to hearsay evidence.

In the year and a half or so that you and I have talked about these issues, I have given lots of manuscript information, quotes from church history books and the church fathers, quotes from scholars, etc.

I have addressed your points with empirical reasoning and little emotional rhetoric. I do find it frustrating that you bring up over and over the same issues. For example, Constantine Simonides again. I gave you a response in prior threads that have since been removed by board leadership. So I will give you my replies again. You didn't like my previous replies. You'll object to them again I imagine.

I have not addressed 1 John 5:6 yet which a recent objection you've brought up. I will address that.

You object to the KJVO label. Maybe you interpret it pejoratively. It's simply a factual label. There is no other version on the bookshelves today that you recommend. You don't even like the NKJV it seems based on the fact that you don't like how they translate παῖς. I don't recall if you have issues with their footnotes. So KJVO fits you. It's descriptive, not pejorative. If we follow your advice, what Bible are we left with but the King James Version only?

Anyway, I have a study at my house in about half an hour. I will get back to all of your comments in the newest post.

[Boo]

I apologize for being seen as attacking you personally. In the name of Jesus, I contest your preferred translation, not you.

I pray that others will accept the gift from God of many thousands of supporting documents that have been discovered and never incorporated into the King James. I celebrate our ability to read God's word in a language that we can now understand and the removal of those "added to and taken away" passages that we have had to deal with for 400 years. God kept his promise, and we really need to accept the gift - not fight against it.

You keep attacking on a personal note, but how about a little substance Boo. You say the first English translations added words to 1 John 5:7 when it was found in the Old Latin. There is no evidence that that the Greek is superior to the Latin, since neither are the originals. Those Greek manuscripts added "and spirit" to 1 John 5:6, but the New translations do not follow the Greek manuscripts. Why? Does "and spirit" belong in 1 John 5:6. The Greek manuscripts have to show themselves superior to the bible that existed prior to their existence, or else by what authority did they change the Bible?

And what are you referring to, when you say 200, not 2,000?

[rejoice44]

I apologize for being seen as attacking you personally. In the name of Jesus, I contest your preferred translation, not you.

Once I think about it, I almost prefer you attack me rather than my Bible. You perhaps feel the same way.

I pray that others will accept the gift from God of many thousands of supporting documents that have been discovered and never incorporated into the King James. I celebrate our ability to read God's word in a language that we can now understand and the removal of those "added to and taken away" passages that we have had to deal with for 400 years. God kept his promise, and we really need to accept the gift - not fight against it.

I accept what is old, what I grew up with, what I learned to love. You have followed the new school of thought, what has been taught in the Universities for the last hundred years. The new school of thought began during the reformation and began with few followers, but gradually gained with every new generation.

The new school of thought was generated by the new found manuscripts, and they were basically four Greek manuscripts, containing both the Old and the New Testament. Throw those four manuscripts out and the movement to change the bible would never would have had a base to start with. What is left after you throw those manuscripts out is mainly fragments of the New Testament, with no history, nor any Old Testament there unto attached.

I have been examining the evidence, and yes with a bias, but examining it no less, and the more I see, the more convinced I am that that a hoax has been perpetrated on us. The new school of thought says we can only understand the truth by picking the words apart; but what if the new words that have been provided were manufactured?

If you were to have a trial on what is the truth of the matter, all heresay evidence would be thrown out. The court system in the US is based on "Federal Rules of Evidence", where heresay evidence would be thrown out, with only a few exceptions.

The theory of the rule excluding hearsay is that assertions made by human beings are often unreliable; such statements are often insincere, subject to flaws in memory and perception, or infected with errors in narration at the time they are given. Furthermore, someone testifying in court regarding another's out-of- court statement may have misheard or misremembered that statement, in addition to possibly having misinterpreted the speaker's sincerity.

Time lapses decays evidence, therefore, the more recent the evidence, the more valuable, or trustworthy it becomes. Four hundred year old evidence cannot compare to hundred year old evidence, etc.

When we look at the new found Greek manuscripts, we find a paradox in regards to the rules of evidence. The evidence is recently found, while at the same time the evidence itself is (supposedly) quite old. The scribes that wrote these manuscripts have long been dead, so they can't testify. So we have specialists in the field of linguistics and paleography that testify for them. How much can we trust these men? While they may be sincere, there knowledge comes from the textbook, because they were not here sixteen hundred years ago, when the evidence was created. Their knowledge is based on premises, some true, some not true.

The evidence that can be examined is the manuscripts themselves, and the men that provided them, as well as their motives.

[TrustGzus]

There is a difference between second, third, and fourth hand speech, and actual evidence. Martin Luther left it out because Erasmus left it out in his first edition. Erasmus later put it back in. Martin Luther isn't here to answer questions about his German translation. Nor is Wycliffe, or Tyndale who put it in the English translation.

Erasmus released five editions. The first two did not include 1 John 5:7. So I agree with your conclusion. What is something that you don't show the unusual circumstance under which he included it. There's no reason to think Erasmus believed it was authentic.

What is amazing is that the majority of the people who took a poll on what bible they used said, by a majority of greater than two to one, they used the KJB. So the majority of the people still have it in their bible, in spite of all the attempts to remove it.

I'm surprised you include this. You know polls don't determine truth. And the number of Bibles in print doesn't determine what Peter, Paul or John or anyone else wrote. Manuscript evidence matters. Early church father quotes matter. Polls don't matter at all. Furthermore, what poll? You know as well as I do that the NIV has been outselling the KJV in dollar amounts and units sold for years. So let's say the KJV leads still. It's only a matter of time before the NIV passes it up. Then 1 John 5:7 won't be in the majority of Bibles people have. Will you jump over to the other side at that point?

I presented evidence that Simonides wrote the Codex Sinaticus in the nineteenth Century, and you never presented any evidence to the contrary.

I commented on this in previous threads. Simonides was a forger. He questioned and challenged scholars all the time. Nothing wrong with questioning them we should. However, some thing it's trendy and intelligent to do so. Scholars are scholars for a reason. They can be wrong, but should we then trust the non-scholar and think they're correct? Henry Bradshaw exposed Simonides claim about Sinaiticus as absured. Simonides lost all credibility after the Sinaiticus hoax. Is using this forger helping the credibility of your case or helping your personal credibility? I own many KJVO books. None of them use him as evidence. This is a smart move on their part.

I presented evidence that one man provided the three main Greek manuscripts, when requested by Hort to find rich material with which to change the Bible.

If there's no dispute on the authenticity of the manuscripts, then it doesn't matter who provided what to whom. Scholars don't question the authenticity of the ancient manuscripts.

I provided evidence that two of the main Greek manuscripts added "and Spirit" in 1 John 5:6. 1 John 5:6 "This is the one having come by water, and blood, and Spirit," You neither said it should, or shouldn't be in the Bible. Just no comment.

You didn't show any difference between Vaticanus and the KJV. You just said we should go with the KJV. Well, modern versions and the KJV agree about 1 John 5:6. You claimed eliminating 1 John 5:7 made them unsure what to do with 5:6. I don't see how a couple scribal errors in verse 6 prove this. What this doesn't do for you is explain the utter lack of 1 John 5:7 in manuscripts for an entire millennium! And the absence of 1 John 5:7 from the church fathers. Oh . . . and don't forget it's almost complete absence in all other ancient translations into other languages. What kind of conspiracy could get such an authentic verse removed from all manuscripts for nearly a millennium and a half and from all of the church fathers? No one in history had that kind of access to the manuscripts of the Bible and the church fathers to doctor all of those. The simplest solution is to admit it's not authentic. It breaks up John's argument anyway. It doesn't fit the context. Why is it only in 8 manuscripts in Greek? Why in 4 of the 8 is it a "correction" in the margin (i.e. 4 of the 8 didn't even have it in the text)? Why is it missing from the church fathers? Why is it missing in the ancient versions? 1 John 5:6 doesn't help you. It makes you look desperate to make anything work towards your presuppositions.

Those Greek manuscripts shouldn't be used to determine anything in the Bible, not when they cannot be trusted.

But the manuscript that was manufactured so that Erasmus would include 1 John 5:7 should be trusted? Norman have you forgotten all the things we've talked about? You don't like John 1:18 in the new versions. However, not only do Sinaiticus and Vaticanus read theos instead of huios, but so do some of the papyri.

And what manuscripts did the KJV come from? Name them. Shouldn't those be scrutinized to the same degree? They have mistakes in them. Every manuscript does.

Take John 9:35 where Jesus said, do you believe on the Son of God. Two of the manuscripts Tischendorf supplied replaced "Son of God" with "son of man". Why would anyone believe on the "son of man"? Codex Alexandrinus, the first Greek manuscript on display said, "Son of God". Even the ERV and the ASV had "Son of God". What do all the new manuscripts have? Son of man.

This is unbelievable to me. I can't believe you make an argument like this. It looks so desperate. Using the KJV, the phrase "Son of God" is used 10 times. "Son of man" is used 12 times and most of those uses are by Jesus of himself. So your first problem is this doesn't do a thing theologically speaking. Both phrases are used as divine titles for Jesus. Secondly, not only does Sinaiticus and Vaticanus have it but so do p66 and p75! This is a slam dunk in the textual criticism field.

Codex Alexandrinus had "God manifested in the flesh" in 1 Timothy 3:16, and because of that it was considered inferior to the manuscripts Tischendorf supplied.

Alexandrinus would probably be considered inferior because it was later, not because of what the words were. If Vaticanus and/or Sinaiticus had it and or something like a p66 or p75, the field would be different. And as I've said to you many times before, we don't lose the deity of Jesus. Our case isn't built on 1 Timothy 3:16. The deity of Jesus is spread across the bandwidth of the New Testament. It's all over the place. Going with the most ancient evidence shows integrity.

Codex Sinaiticus left "the Son of God" out of the first verse in Mark. The TNIV left out "Son of God". The TNIV is the same translation committee that translated the NIV. It doesn't take much for them to remove anything having to do with the Deity of Christ, does it?

The TNIV has "son of God" in Mark 3:11 an 15:39. Then we can look at all the other places it has "son of God". Again, this sounds desperate on your part. Also, the TNIV doesn't hide it. There is a footnote that says it's in many manuscripts.

Norman, God is using new versions. There are multiple believers in this forum that held a view similar to yours and have switched. All of us have the same testimony. We know and understand the Bible better now than when we read only the KJV. We've all grown in our walks. God is using us. God is using the new versions to his glory. You should take up an interest in the Mormons or something and put your time to much better use.

[rejoice44]

Erasmus released five editions. The first two did not include 1 John 5:7. So I agree with your conclusion. What is something that you don't show the unusual circumstance under which he included it. There's no reason to think Erasmus believed it was authentic.

John Wycliffe--born 1328--died 1384. Defied the Catholic Church and translated the bible into English. Catholic Church was so mad at Wycliffe that 44 years after he died they dug up his body and burned it.

John Wycliffe had 1 John 5:7 in his bible.

1 John 5:7 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in hevene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre be oon.

William Tyndale--born 1492--died 1536. Defied the Catholic Church and they burned him at the stake.

William Tyndale had 1 John 5:7 in his Bible. William Tyndale revised the old English.


1 John 5:7 For ther are thre whiche beare record heuen, the father, the worde and the wholly goost. And these thre are one.


Desiderius Erasmus--born 146?--died 1536, (Same year as Tyndale).

Eramus was quoted as saying, “My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god.”

Fact! Erasmus was a homosexual humanist. While that doesn’t make him right or wrong, it does give you insight into his character

Erasmus was a kind of middle of the road guy, having it both ways in his texts.

[rejoice44]

I'm surprised you include this. You know polls don't determine truth. And the number of Bibles in print doesn't determine what Peter, Paul or John or anyone else wrote. Manuscript evidence matters. Early church father quotes matter. Polls don't matter at all. Furthermore, what poll? You know as well as I do that the NIV has been outselling the KJV in dollar amounts and units sold for years. So let's say the KJV leads still. It's only a matter of time before the NIV passes it up. Then 1 John 5:7 won't be in the majority of Bibles people have. Will you jump over to the other side at that point?

Joe, you and I both know the people in this forum read their bibles far more than the general public. So I guess I should have qualified them as readers of the Bible, and not just possessors of the bible.

[rejoice44]

I commented on this in previous threads. Simonides was a forger. He questioned and challenged scholars all the time. Nothing wrong with questioning them we should. However, some thing it's trendy and intelligent to do so. Scholars are scholars for a reason. They can be wrong, but should we then trust the non-scholar and think they're correct? Henry Bradshaw exposed Simonides claim about Sinaiticus as absured. Simonides lost all credibility after the Sinaiticus hoax. Is using this forger helping the credibility of your case or helping your personal credibility? I own many KJVO books. None of them use him as evidence. This is a smart move on their part.

Simonides had no peer in the field of paleography, so how are you defining Scholar?

Joe, again, where is your evidence? You present Henry Bradshaw as evidence? Henry Bradshaw said the Codex Sinaiticus wasn’t a fraud, and so that is your evidence? What evidence did he provide.?

As you read in the archives of “The Guardian Newspaper” you will see that Henry Bradshaw referred to Simonides as Dr. Simonides.

Who was Henry Bradshaw? Besides being the Librarian at the British Library he was a life long friend of Westcott and Hort, starting from school in Cambridge. Here is the evidence from “A memoir of Henry Bradshaw, fellow of Kings College” that Henry Bradshaw was a close friend of Westcott and Hort. (There are letters as well.)

Excerpt from Undergradute Life of Henry Bradshaw.

“In Connection with this phase of feeling, I may mention an anecdote communicated to me by Sir A. Gordon. Towards the end of 1850 great excitement was caused by the so-called “Papal aggression.” The Pope, influenced by the sporadic conversions to Rome, and considering the time ripe for a great stroke, had set up a new Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, conferring on Cardinal Wiseman the title of Archbishop of Westminster. All England was (36 UNDERGRADUATE LIFE.)in arms at once. The University of Cambridge, like other public bodies, addressed the queen on the subject. Some of the hotter heads among the undergraduates, anxious not to be behind their seniors, determined to get up a meeting of those in statu pupillari to denounce the pope and the Puseyites, Sir William Harcourt and Mr. Llevellyn Davies, then a scholar of Trinity, were the chief promoters of this movement. Some of the unpopular High Church party were not unwilling to face the storm, and to figure as martyrs; but the cooler members, perceiving the mischief and bitterness likely to be engendered by such a meeting as was proposed, resolved to put a stop to it. A deputation accordingly waited on the Vice-Chancellor, Dr Corrie of Jesus, and requested him to forbid the meeting. Bradshaw, along with his friends Hort and Westcott, was among those most active in organizing this opposition, which was successful, and the meeting was stopped.”

And then you have to consider that it was Hort who said, Tischendorf will find us rich material. The evidence is from a letter from Hort To the Rev. John Ellerton Umberslade Hall, Birmingham, dated April, 1853. The following is an excerpt from that letter.

“I have not seen anybody that I know except Westcott, whom, being with his wife at his father's at Moseley, close to Birmingham, a fortnight ago, I visited for a few hours. One result of our talk I may as well tell you. He and I are going to edit a Greek text of the N. T. some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials, but not nearly enough.”

Part of that rich material that Tischendor supplied Hort was the Codex Sinaiticus. And it was Hort’s long time friend, Henry Bradshaw, who defended the Codex.

What was Henry Bradshaw’s evidence that Dr. Simonides did not write the Codex Sinaiticus? One was that Dr. Simonides did not have enough time to write the Codex Sinaticus in the time that Dr. Simonides claimed he wrote the Codex. Several months was the time frame in which Simonides claimed he wrote the Codex. Henry Bradshaw’s second point was that Dr. Simonides was too young when he claimed he wrote the Codex. This is all the evidence that I could find that supported Henry Bradshaw. Joe, if you have more please provide it.

The question then becomes, could Simonides have written the Codex within several months, and was Simonides too young? Simonides would have been college age, and there were claims that he was a child progeny in the field of paleography. That would fit his title as greatest forger of the nineteenth Century. When you look at the fourteen thousand plus errors as cited by Tischendorf, and that was only in the New Testament, one could assume the Codex was written in a hurry.

Continued on next post.

[rejoice44]

continued from previous post.

rom: Literary Forgeries, by J.A. Farrer [James Anson Farrer 1849 - 1925], With an Introduction by Andrew Lang, Longmans, Green, and Co., 39 Paternoster Row, London, New York, Bombay, and Calcutta, 1907. [See: 1989].

Introduction

"ANACHRONISMS ARE THE ROCK ON WHICH COUNTERFEIT WORKS ALWAYS RUN MOST RISK OF SHIPWRECK". [2]. [Now, add: Stylometry; Literary forensics].
[Introduction: Andrew Lang] "Mr. Farrer, in a manner unpopular, but scientific, leaves some of his mysteries unsolved. The case of Simonides is the most puzzling of any...." [xvii]. [Andrew Lang was a literary phenomenon].

"Chapter III.

Greek Forgery: Constantine Simonides [1820? - 1867?]
Of all the names which belong to the darker side of literature none is more famous or interesting than that of Constantine Simonides, the Greek, who claims the year 1820 as that of his birth. For with whatever right Simonides is assigned to the forging fraternity, his industry, his learning, and his adventures claim for him a position apart, whilst it may be doubted whether any of his contemporaries in the learned world at all approached him in the art of calligraphy or in his knowledge of palaeography.
And it may be questioned whether the world is yet right as to the truth or falsity of all the claims of Simonides...."

[39].
'The Sinaitic Codex.
["Its date is probably about the middle of the 4th[?] cent." (Ox. Dict. C.C.)]
This fact [lie about father [58-59]] of course throws doubt on all that rests only on the word of Simonides. But it does not absolutely disprove all his assertions, of which by far the most amazing was his claim to have written when at Mount Athos in 1840 the Sinaitic Codex (Codex A), which Tischendorf discovered at Mount Sinai under HIGHLY SINGULAR CIRCUMSTANCES between the years 1844 and 1859. The claim of Simonides to have transcribed this Codex, at the suggestion of his alleged uncle Benedict, as an intended present for the Czar Nicholas I., was first publicly made in the Guardian of 5th September, 1862, and in the Literary Churchman on 16th December of the same year. Nor could anything be more precise and circumstantial in detail, or more temperate in tone than the letters in which this claim was made. The implication that Tischendorf had mistaken a manuscript of the NINETEENTH century for one of the FOURTH naturally roused that irascible theologian to a condition of fury.
That Simonides was a good enough calligrapher, even at an early age, to have written the Codex, is hardly open to doubt, and it is in his favour that the world was first indebted to him in 1856 for the opening chapters in Greek of the Shepherd of Hermas, with a portion of which the Codex Sinaiticus actually terminates. THE COINCIDENCE SEEMS ALMOST MORE SINGULAR THAN CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR BY CHANCE.
PAGE 1888

But the experts in PALAEOGRAPHY were strongly on the side of Tischendorf. Tregelles [Samuel Prideaux Tregelles 1813 - 1875],(My note, “Norman”: Tregelles was a personal friend of Tischendorf who helped Tischendorf collate the Vaticanus at the Vatican) the distinguished scholar and Plymouth Brother, declared that a man might as well pretend that the Alexandrian of the Vatican MS. was a modern work as claim to have written the Sinaitic Codex. And the famous Mr. Henry Bradshaw [1831 - 1886 (My note, “Norman”, Bradshaw was a personal friend of Hort.) (see: Dict. Nat. Bio., Vol. 22, 251-254 (impressive!))], who with Tregelles had inspected the Codex itself at Tischendorf's house at Leipsic in July, 1862, declared himself, in a letter to the Guardian of 23rd January, 1863, as being "as absolutely certain of the genuineness and antiquity of the Codex Sinaiticus as of his own existence". And Mr. Scrivener [probably, Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener 1813 - 1891] who made the Sinaitic Codex his special study, expressed himself equally strongly against the claim of Simonides.

NEVERTHELESS THESE DOGMATIC [see 1736] ASSURANCES ARE NOT QUITE CONVINCING. Simonides' claim was supported on its first appearance by certain letters in the Guardian purporting to come from Alexandria and signed "Kallinikos Hieromonachos". These letters, inspected at a meeting of the Society of Literature, were thought to be in a handwriting identical with that of Simonides and to be written on paper like that used in Simonides' own letters; the inference being that Simonides had written them himself and sent them to Alexandria to be posted back to England (Parthenon, 14th February, 1863). But this alleged similarity of handwriting was never certified by any expert in handwriting.
And the attempt to throw doubt on the existence of Kallinikos failed as completely as the attempt to dispose in the same way of Benedict. Other Greeks besides Simonides had lax ideas of the value of truth. There was Nicolaides, who had been Archdeacon of Salonica from 1839 to 1853; who had visited Mount Athos five times; and who claimed to know all the MSS. existing there intimately; he wrote to the Parthenon that he not only had never heard of Benedict but that he disbelieved in his existence. Yet one has only to refer to Lampros' Catalogue of the Mount Athos MSS. to find Benedict's name appended to several MSS., and to one as late as 1844 (though Simonides gave 1840 as the year of his death). (See Nos. 5999, 6118, 6194, 6360, 6362, 6393.) The same work attests as conclusively the real existence of Kallinikos. A MS. dated March, 1867, is signed with the hand of Kallinikos who is "also the least of the monks of the monastery of Russico" (i.e., Pantelemon) (No. 638). And there is another MS. at Pantelemon, copied by the hand of Constantine Simonides on 27th March 1841 (6405), and two other copies of the same work by Kallinikos Monachos (6406, 6407), which prove that Kallinikos and Simonides were at Pantelemon at the same time and associated in the same work.
Simonides, who was always more precise in his information about real or feigned persons, declares that this Kallinikos was born in 1802, a Thessalian, named originally Kuriakos; on his admission to the Church he took the name of Kallinikos, and for his bravery in the war of the Greek Revolution he received the surname of Keraunos. Whether this was so or not, Kallinikos was a real person, and his intervention in the controversy with his attestation of having seen Simonides write the Codex cannot be brushed aside as the testimony of a fabulous being.
PAGE 1889

continued on next post

[rejoice44]

In fact it is upon Kallinikos that the whole question hinges. For Kallinikos is said to have had lithographed at Moscow in 1853 and at Odessa in 1854 certain letters between himself and Simonides an the patriarch Constantius, wherein repeated allusion is made to the Codex prepared by Simonides for the Czar. One of these collections of lithographed letters is called "Autographa" and the other "Spoudaion hupomnema". They are both at the British Museum, presented apparently by Mr. James Young, the eminent antiquary, who received them as a gift from Simonides. But were these letters really lithographed in the years assigned to them in the frontispiece? May they not have been concocted by Simonides in 1863 and then antedated by ten years in order to support his claim? This has never been satisfactorily settled. Mr. John Eliot Hodgkin set himself the task in 1863 of trying to arrive at the truth, and he was informed by a "correspondent of unquestionable reputation at Odessa" that the foreman of certain lithographing works in that city perfectly remembered the printing of the letters at the time alleged. But in the case of Simonides, who was well skilled in lithography, one would be glad of some stronger proof.
As such proof Simonides showed Mr. Hodgkin a letter to himself at Munich from a friend B. Panchalos in London, dated March, 1858, which refers chiefly to these publications by Kallinikos in 1853. A copy of this letter in the handwriting of Simonides is still in the possession of Mr. Hodgkin, with a note by him, to the effect that the original letter was in a peculiar writing and that the postmarks seemed to be real ones. The writer professes to have brought from Odessa to London the letters and some works by Simonides which Kallinikos had lithographed. But Mr. Hodgkin's note bears the date of 21st July, 1863, and it is conceivable that the original letter had been produced at a later date than its apparent one.
But if these lithographed letters really were produced in the fifties, long before Simonides made his claim, and if they prove the truth of his statements concerning his work on the Codex, it is of course possible to maintain that it was not the Sinaitic Codex which he produced, but another. Simonides claimed to have seen his own work, the Codex, at Mount Sinai, when he was there in 1852, and his most important lithographed letters are dated from Mount Sinai in the March and April of 1852. But was Simonides at Mount Sinai at that time? Stewart says, presumably on the authority of Simonides himself, that he went to Mount Athos for the third time in 8th October, 1851, and that he stayed there a whole year, which of course is wholly incompatible with his writing letters from Mount Sinai in the March and April of 1852. But again Stewart may have made a mistake about the dates, and it would be unfair to press his statement too strongly against Simonides.
It is to be regretted that this matter was never cleared up at the time the claim was made. IT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SETTLED BY THE MERE OPINIONS OF TREGELLES OR BRADSHAW, OR BY THE MORE CRITICAL AND PALAEOGRAPHICAL [see 1990] OBJECTIONS URGED BY MR. SCRIVENER in his Introduction to the Sinaitic Codex (1867). The two former examined the Codex two months before Simonides had made his claim to it as his work, so that they had no reason to examine it with suspicion. And Mr. Scrivener's argument that no mere youth of at most nineteen could in a few months have composed a volume of nearly 4,000,000 uncial letters, though convincing about most youths, is not convincing

PAGE 1890

where that youth was Simonides. On the side of Simonides is his unlimited skill in calligraphy; the very audacity of such a claim if entirely baseless; the remarkable presence in the Codex of a portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, which Simonides was the first scholar ever to have seen in Greek; the very natural allusions to the work in the lithographed letters; the fact that no visitor to the monastery at Mount Sinai before 1844 had ever seen or heard of such a work as belonging to the monks; and the very extraordinary story told by Tischendorf of his discovery and acquisition of the Codex. The question therefore, pending the acquisition of further evidence, must remain among the interesting but unsolved mysteries of literature.

Simonides appears to have left England somewhat hurriedly in 1864, nor is it known what became of him between that date and the year 1867 when he died, or at least is said to have died, at Alexandria (Notes and Queries for 22nd October, 1867, 3rd Series, xii., 339). His literary activity was extraordinary. Besides the works he published in Odessa, in England and in Germany, he wrote many others which were never published. His chief interest was to prove that his method of interpreting Egyptian hieroglyphics was superior to as well as different from that of Champollion and other Egyptologists, and it may be suspected that he was often not above resorting to trickery in support of his theory. His learning was prodigious, but it occasionally failed him, as where he placed the death of Irenaeus [c. 130 - c. 200] in 292 (a full century after the probable or possible date), and where he drew on Demetrius Magnes for information which that writer could by no possibility have supplied. It was from Demetrius (or Dionysius) Magnes that he drew, as from an inexhaustible well, for his extraordinarily minute information about numberless people, many of whom were long posterior in date to their alleged biographer. But Simonides did not always invent or forge or lie; probably these lapses occupied the smaller portion of his activity, and much of his work was honest, laborious and useful. But naturally discrimination in these circumstances was difficult or impossible, and his contemporaries found it the easier course to reject as spurious anything connected with his name. It is probable that scepticism has gone farther than was necessary in this direction, and that literature has lost in consequence some acquisitions that rightfully belong to it. But of all the figures of the nineteenth century that are connected with the shady side of literature, Simonides, with his extensive learning, his knowledge of manuscripts, his miraculous calligraphy, his passionate nature, and above all his claim to the authorship of the Sinaitic Codex, will ever stand out as pre-eminently the first of his order. In literary ability he surpassed all his contemporaries, but unhappily the essential element of truth formed no part of his mental constitution.' [End of: "The Sinaitic Codex."] [59-66].

[TrustGzus]

John Wycliffe--born 1328--died 1384. Defied the Catholic Church and translated the bible into English. Catholic Church was so mad at Wycliffe that 44 years after he died they dug up his body and burned it.

John Wycliffe had 1 John 5:7 in his bible.

1 John 5:7 For thre ben, that yyuen witnessing in hevene, the Fadir, the Sone, and the Hooli Goost; and these thre be oon.

William Tyndale--born 1492--died 1536. Defied the Catholic Church and they burned him at the stake.

William Tyndale had 1 John 5:7 in his Bible. William Tyndale revised the old English.


1 John 5:7 For ther are thre whiche beare record heuen, the father, the worde and the wholly goost. And these thre are one.


Desiderius Erasmus--born 146?--died 1536, (Same year as Tyndale).

Eramus was quoted as saying, “My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god.”

Fact! Erasmus was a homosexual humanist. While that doesn’t make him right or wrong, it does give you insight into his character

Erasmus was a kind of middle of the road guy, having it both ways in his texts.

You didn't address the fact that only eight manuscripts have it, four of those eight in the margin which means they were "corrections" which means really only 4 have it. The four that are left are so late we have a millennium and a half with no Greek manuscripts containing 1 John 5:7. It doesn't matter what Wycliffe or Tyndale have at that point. Their testimony is extremely weak evidence against the Greek manuscripts and the silence.

You didn't address the absence in the church fathers. You would think that if a church father was writing a book called On the Trinity, that he wouldn't fail to include 1 John 5:7 --- but they do. One explanation makes a lot of sense -- the reading did not exist.

And then there are the ancient versions --- you did not address the lack.

Don't quote stuff from the second millennium. It's meaningless with the utter lack of evidence from the first millennium.

I am a Trinitarian for all who might wonder.

[TrustGzus]

Joe, you and I both know the people in this forum read their bibles far more than the general public. So I guess I should have qualified them as readers of the Bible, and not just possessors of the bible.

You ignored the point. It doesn't matter if we poll 7 billion Bible readers. Simply because they have what Erasmus inserted, doesn't prove John wrote it.

1) Manuscript evidence
2) church fathers
3) ancient versions

All count against your view. You didn't address any of those three things.

[TrustGzus]

Norman,

In regard to Simonides, I think you blow right by the problems. He's a documented forger. He was arrested for his work. Yet you trust him to support your view. God forbid he supported new versions. What would you say then?

You point out Roman Catholic "connections" with new versions. But never mind that the most responsible person for the Greek text of the KJV was a Roman Catholic, and according to you, a homosexual (which I had never heard before). You have an amazing amount of double-standards. What counts against the new versions doesn't count against the KJV. I am amazed at how much you do this.

Simonides claimed to write it in 1840. He was that good and could do hands of six correctors at 20 years old and fool the entire scholarly world both then and now? He could make some of it faded? I think your view is very fideistic in regard to him.

Bradshaw becomes your enemy because he goes against Simonides which you need to support your view. So how do you deal with him? Guilt by association. This is a favorite fallacy of KJVO. He's a friend of Hort or whoever you don't like so he's guilty.

Copy and paste all you want from the internet. I searched out some of your sources. I don't find it convincing. No book that I own considers the Simonides claim credible. I find no reason to go against the scholarly books I own and side with your internet copy-and-pastes. I think it's just another example of you appearing desperate to use anything to support your view.

Dan Wallace says that Tischendorf was an Evangelical. Dan Wallace says Metzger was an Evangelical. You still haven't commented on Wallace's article.

[TrustGzus]

You take these three manuscripts away, and 1 John 5:7 would never have been removed in a thousand years.

So if we take away Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus 1 John 5:7 would never have been removed in a thousand years.

Why was it absent for over a thousand years in the Greek manuscripts? When did it get removed in ancient history and by who? What manuscript(s) removed it back in the early days? How come Erasmus was unaware of 1 John 5:7 in any Greek manuscripts?

[rejoice44]

You ignored the point. It doesn't matter if we poll 7 billion Bible readers. Simply because they have what Erasmus inserted, doesn't prove John wrote it.

1) Manuscript evidence
2) church fathers
3) ancient versions

All count against your view. You didn't address any of those three things.

Joe can you name the Greek manuscripts that were around prior to the sixteenth Century that didn't have 1 John 5:7. I am not referring to those found after the sixteenth Century.

You only consider Greek manuscripts, and put aside the Latin and all other tongues. You don't even know if those Greek manuscripts might have been transcribed from the Latin.

The oldest copy of Plato was from 895 AD and it was in Latin.

[rejoice44]

You didn't show any difference between Vaticanus and the KJV. You just said we should go with the KJV. Well, modern versions and the KJV agree about 1 John 5:6. You claimed eliminating 1 John 5:7 made them unsure what to do with 5:6. I don't see how a couple scribal errors in verse 6 prove this. What this doesn't do for you is explain the utter lack of 1 John 5:7 in manuscripts for an entire millennium! And the absence of 1 John 5:7 from the church fathers. Oh . . . and don't forget it's almost complete absence in all other ancient translations into other languages. What kind of conspiracy could get such an authentic verse removed from all manuscripts for nearly a millennium and a half and from all of the church fathers? No one in history had that kind of access to the manuscripts of the Bible and the church fathers to doctor all of those. The simplest solution is to admit it's not authentic. It breaks up John's argument anyway. It doesn't fit the context. Why is it only in 8 manuscripts in Greek? Why in 4 of the 8 is it a "correction" in the margin (i.e. 4 of the 8 didn't even have it in the text)? Why is it missing from the church fathers? Why is it missing in the ancient versions? 1 John 5:6 doesn't help you. It makes you look desperate to make anything work towards your presuppositions.

You have avoided answering the question altogether. If the Greek manuscripts Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus have "by water, and blood, and spirit in 1 John 5:6, should we consider "and Spirit" as spuriously added words, or just a way to fix the problem of 1 John 5:7?