The Theological Illusions of King James Onlyism by Kevin Bauder (part 1)

For the last several years, I have considered One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible to be the best book on the King James Only debate, period.  Kevin Bauder and Roy Beacham, the editors, are fundamentalists.  All the authors were professors at Central Baptist Theological Seminary in Minneapolis, a fundamentalist institution.  They understand the issue from the inside out.  Their circles have been most affected by KJV Onlyism and so their book is extremely helpful.

Perhaps the best chapter in the book, is Kevin Bauder’s conclusion: “An Appeal to Scripture”.  It is full of so many excellent quotes that I plan to share bits and pieces from the chapter over a series of posts.  Of course, you need to get the book to get the full effect, but I hope this whets your appetite for the real thing.

Bauder sets the stage for his discussion of KJV-Onlyists’ appeal to scripture by presenting the quandry that King James onlyists face.

If the preservation of the Word of God depends upon the exact preservation of the words of the original documents, then the situation is dire.  No two manuscripts… [no] two editions of the Masoretic Text… [no] two editions of the Textus Receptus… [no] two modifications of the King James Version contain exactly the same words, and the Bible nowhere tells us which edition, if any, does contain the exact words of the originals.  These are not speculations; these are plain facts.

Confronted with these facts, King James-Only advocates are faced with one of two choices.  Either they may specify, a priori and without biblical evidence, a single manuscript or edition of the Bible in which the exact words are preserved, or they may begin to qualify their insistence upon exact preservation….

If they are pressed, they will admit that they do not have all the words and only the words of the original in a single place.  Instead, they will point out how similar most of the manuscripts are…. most King James-Only advocates are eventually willing to admit the possibility of an acceptable range of variation.

These King James-Only proponents, therefore, wish to have it both ways.  They insist upon condemning the Ben-Asher Hebrew text, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, the contemporary eclectic Greek texts, and the New American Standard Bible because they only contain some (not all) of the words of God.  But they are willing to accept differences in the various editions of the Ben-Chayyim Hebrew text, of the Textus Receptus in Greek, and of the King James Version in English, even though no more than one edition of one of these documents can conceivably contain all of the words and only the words of God….

In other words, if the King James-Only advocates were candid, most of them would have to admit to holding precisely the same theory of those whom they oppose.  They would have to admit that the whole debate is merely an academic quibble over the percentage of acceptable variation.  …they would have to admit that their preference was based on a difference of degree and not a difference of kind.

Of course, such an admission would be fatal to the King James-Only movement.  If its leaders were so candid, people would recognize that the whole debate amounts to a cyclone in a coffee cup….  The movement survives, but only by clouding the issues and distracting people from the main point.  It protects itself with an elaborate structure of theological illusions.

(Bolded emphasis mine. Excerpted from pg. 155-158, One Bible Only? Examining Exclusive Claims for the King James Bible, edited by Roy Beacham and Kevin Bauder; Kregel Publications: Grand Rapids, 2001.)

28 thoughts on “The Theological Illusions of King James Onlyism by Kevin Bauder (part 1)

  1. bibleprotector June 9, 2010 / 10:45 am

    Preservation does not depend on the perfection of any entire set of Canon. Therefore, to find the final perfection, a KJBO should, in line with Providence, consistently with the doctrine of Scripture, and by receiving the correct tradition, be able to point to a single edition — as a formation of a gathering — in which the exact words are presented. Since preservation has within it the gathering of the true readings correctly translated, and ultimately, correctly presented, then there is the acknowledgment of one final standard.

    Variations, whether readings, whether in translations, whether between KJB editions, in themselves pose no problem to the power of God either to preserve sufficiently through time, or to finalise the re-formation of the text, the conveying of the sense perfectly by presentation, and the purification of the presentation.

    Thus, no more than one edition of one of these documents can conceivably contain all of the words and only the words of God in full accuracy, but for all the many editions, translations and versions which are sufficiently able to communicate God’s truth, then God must have suffered it to be so in times past, but now calls all to conform to His final standard, made manifest to the nations (and even to the grand claim of) for the obedience of faith.

    Therefore, the issue of percentage of acceptable variation (though one probably would not reduce it so such mathematical constraints, but to the analysing of the spirit of a thing), is in regards to how much agrees to the perfect standard now manifest (and hithertofore not so full known). Thus, out of hand the modern versions can be condemned. Those laying close to the Received Text, and to traditional translation (thus opposing the NKJV) must have been sufficiently acceptable.

    It is therefore possible to accept that differences existed, and to excuse those who laboured with such imperfect or defective copies, translations or versions, knowing that God’s sufficiency was there with them, and that overall, such things were heading toward or in conjunction with the gathering, or were allowed by God as long as the final form had not yet been so fully manifest, understood and established among them (say, in some far away land).

    Therefore, in knowing of a standard, and the importance associated with it, the issue is no “cyclone in a coffee cup”, but a maelstrom of cosmic proportions akin to the altering of planetary orbits around the sun. Very often it seems that it is those who are so firmly against the King James Bible only as an idea (notwithstanding how various dubious characters have given KJBO such a horrible stigma) who engage in such clouding of issues and distractions from the vital point of the very authority of Scripture, the omnipotence of God, the rule of God over the events of the world, etc.

    The point is this in the positive: The exact words of the originals are now present, extant, in one volume/entity, in English. That exactness is manifest in the immaculate presentation of the Pure Cambridge Edition of the King James Bible. Thus, for all the varying versions, translations, manuscript copies, original language editions, English Bibles, King James Bible editions, and various impressions, there is one form on Earth today which is perfect.

    This perfection is not to go out to condemn the imperfect, but rather, for drawing of all to conformity to the one, by its supersuccession of the others.

    • Bob Hayton June 9, 2010 / 9:38 pm

      Bibleprotector,

      We still await a Biblical basis for the conclusion we should all make that the Pure Cambridge Edition of the KJV is the one true and perfect edition of Scripture. And if God waited 1700+ years after the completion of the canon, and went ahead and used English rather than Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic, who’s to say God isn’t still bringing His Church slowly along to an agreement on something like the ESV as a future standard Bible?

    • Andrew Suttles June 21, 2010 / 9:47 am

      Which Cambridge? The restored text used in the Paragraph Bible? Not too many KJVOs are using that text. Are the Oxford KJVOs using a corrupted Bible in your opinion?

  2. James Snapp, Jr. June 13, 2010 / 1:49 am

    I’m not so sure that one of your claims is reasonable: “They would have to admit that the whole debate is merely an academic quibble over the percentage of acceptable variation.” No; it’s not just the percentage of variation; the *contents* of the variation are the real issue. If three percent of the text varied in ways that did not affect translation, that would not be as troublesome as one percent that affected translation. KJV-Onlyists will acknowledge that the TR is not always supported by the majority of Greek MSS, while maintaining that the TR nevertheless retains the original text in all such places. And having to occasionally discern the translators’ intent by secondary means (i.e., via corrected editions rather than by simply consulting the 1611 AV) does not bother them any more than consulting NA-27 (instead of Hort’s 1881 text) bothers advocates of the modern critical text.

    • Bob Hayton June 13, 2010 / 8:10 am

      James,

      I would contend that many of the differences are significant only in the eye of the beholder. There are several changes where the NA27’s text is more sound in doctrine than the TR. And in a few places the TR reading has so little support, that it can’t but be a well-intended gloss that made its way into the text inadvertantly (1 John 5:7).

      There are plenty of undisputed passages that are very doctrinally robust.

      Again, this is a matter of controversy and I don’t expect you to agree. Stay tuned to the next parts in this series as Dr. Bauder really explains where the problems are in the debate.

      Thanks for interacting with us over here though.

      Blessings in Christ,

      Bob

  3. James Snapp, Jr. June 13, 2010 / 11:24 pm

    Bob,

    I would contend that certain differences, especially in combination, are very significant. For example, put Mt. 5:22 alongside Mk. 1:41 in the TNIV (where an Alexandrian reading is adopted in Mt. and a “Western” reading is adopted in Mk).

    You mentioned, “There are several changes where the NA27’s text is more sound in doctrine than the TR.” Besides Titus 2:13 and II Peter 1:1, could you list a few of these doctrinally superior passages?

    You wrote, “In a few places the TR reading has so little support, that it can’t but be a well-intended gloss that made its way into the text inadvertantly (1 John 5:7).”

    Regarding, as you put it, “a few places in the TR,” I agree. But can’t the same quantitative observation — i.e., that the reading in the text has very little manuscript support — be made in *many* places regarding readings in NA-27? Maurice Robinson has identified dozens of places in NA-27’s text that imply that no copyist of any extant MS managed to correctly write a few simple lines of the text. If the quantity of extant MSS matters — and that is clearly a premise of what you enunciated above — doesn’t that tend to preclude the accuracy of NA-27 in those instances?

    I look forward to reading more of what Dr. Bauder has to say.

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Andrew Suttles June 21, 2010 / 10:07 am

      James –

      Thank for injecting Dr. Robinson’s name into the conversation. I really hope that Bob can get an interview with him at some point, or, perhaps the moderators would tackle his appendix to his GNT at some point. I think that would add a lot to the discussion.

  4. Steven Avery June 14, 2010 / 4:54 pm

    Hi Folks,

    Nice points, James. One question.

    “Besides Titus 2:13 and II Peter 1:1, could you list a few of these doctrinally superior passages?”

    Aren’t you mixing a translational question (the so-called Granville Sharp Rule, which opens up its own pandoras box of worms) with the textual issues ?

    Shalom,
    Steven

    • Bob Hayton June 15, 2010 / 10:16 pm

      Steven,

      Good question. This topic would make a good future post around here. I just got back from a trip so I’m late in responding.

      You are correct about Tit. 2:13 and 2 Pet. 1:1 being translational. But there are a few textual readings which come to mind as well: 1 John 3:1 “and so we are”, and John 14:14 “ask me anything in my name” are a few which come to me just now off the top of my head. If leaving off “Christ” or “Lord” in titles of Jesus is to be considered a diminishing of doctrine, then there are several places where the TR/KJV does not have as full a title as the NA27/ESV does, too.

  5. James Snapp, Jr. June 16, 2010 / 3:30 pm

    Bob,

    Okay; I John 3:1 has a very slightly fuller doctrinal message with “KAI ESMEN” than without it. (And KAI ESMEN would be vulnerable to parablepsis.) And John 14:14’s meaning is different, at least, with “ME” included, although this reading raises a question of how to doctrinally interlock with Jn 16:23.

    Is that, plus a smattering of name-expansions, all the doctrinal gains of the NA-27 text?

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Bob Hayton June 16, 2010 / 3:52 pm

      James,

      We can’t use this method to prove which text is right, however. Just as easily as a doctrine could be excised, it could also be expanded. 1 John 5:7 is expressly such a doctrinal expansion. The question is which text is the most accurate expression of the original.

      I’ll admit that some of the tendencies of the NA27 worry me in that each reading is treated as an insular unit independent of every other reading and so the end product seems likely to in several places be to piecemeal for it to have existed in actuality in the past. But I think that many of the readings in the NA27 are better than the Majority Text or TR because they are better attested by the evidence.

      I’m sure there are other “doctrinal gains” in the NA27 over the TR, but my point in discussing them is showing that “doctrinal losses” are in the eye of the beholder.

      Incidentally Rev. 22:14 in the KJV appears to affirm works-based salvation, just as much as 1 Pet. 2:2 in the NIV appears to affirm works-based salvation. If KJV Only advocates appeal to 1 Pet. 2:2 and its reading in the NIV as a doctrinal deficiency, then to be fair they must call Rev. 22:14 a doctrinal deficiency in the KJV.

  6. Steven Avery June 16, 2010 / 4:39 pm

    Hi Folks,

    > Bob Hayton – And in a few places the TR reading has so little support, that it can’t but be a well-intended gloss that made its way into the text inadvertantly … . 1 John 5:7 is expressly such a doctrinal expansion.

    This concept that there is one doctrinal expansion in the Received Text, the heavenly witnesses, has a great many difficulties. Unlike other contested words and verses, the heavenly witnesses has strong and consitent support through early church writers (and this will only scratch the surface) like Cyprian, Priscillian, Fulgentius and many more, including direct use in the Council of Carthage in 481 AD contra hundreds of Arian bishops. The verse, also has something like 95% support in the Vulgate Latin manuscripts and 75%+ support in the Old Latin manuscripts, and the Vulgate Prologue reference in corroborative to these evidences. And the verse plus phrase (in verse 8] has multiple very compelling internal evidences.

    1 John 5:7-8
    For there are three that bear record in heaven,
    the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
    and these three are one.
    And there are three that bear witness in earth,
    the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
    and these three agree in one.

    Now I grant that you can have a difficult theory that one major doctrinal gloss was inserted in the whole Bible, I would say the Ockham understanding is much simpler, a combination of accidental and deliberate omission.

    Omissions are virtually invisible once they occur, and happen very easily under almost any scribal conditions. While additions of phrases and verses and sections are all extremely unlikely, they will glare out to the very next copyist in the same scriptorium, or the neighboring church or village. Unless you have are stuck in modern textual critism theory, it is easy to see that additions to Bible texts are extremely unlikely.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

    • Bob Hayton June 16, 2010 / 9:17 pm

      The problem, Steven is almost complete absence of any testimony to this reading outside the Latin language until 1200 or so. And even then the earliest Old Latin didn’t have the reading. The Vulgate / Latin texts are not virtually unanimous.

      The Cyprian quote is not a quote at all but a comment that could as easily be from 1 John 5:8 as 5:7. Furthermore, when Cyprian quoted Scripture he made it expressly clear that he did quote Scripture.

      In the trinitarian controversy of Nicea and Chalcedon and the like, the verse was not mentioned. In the Greek copies of Scripture of the thousands we have, only 8 manuscripts bear witness to this reading. 4 in the margin, 4 in the text. The earliest of those is from the 1200s or so.

    • Bill Brown June 19, 2010 / 1:20 pm

      STEVEN:
      This concept that there is one doctrinal expansion in the Received Text, the heavenly witnesses, has a great many difficulties.

      BILL:

      The only difficulty is that those who argue for plenary verbal preservation have to come up with some way to explain the complete absence of this in any Greek manuscript in over 1,000 years.

      STEVEN:
      Unlike other contested words and verses, the heavenly witnesses has strong and consitent support through early church writers (and this will only scratch the surface)

      BILL:

      No, it doesn’t. Cyprian did not quote the passage and the only part in his ‘quote’ is about the three being one, which isn’t the issue anyway.

      STEVEN:
      like Cyprian, Priscillian, Fulgentius and many more, including direct use in the Council of Carthage in 481 AD contra hundreds of Arian bishops.

      BILL:

      Again, what you have is a Latin corruption. This has been explained to you NUMEROUS times on NUMEROUS boards by NUMEROUS people. Besides, didn’t Burgon say “all readings are old?” So even a corrupt reading can be old.

      STEVEN:
      The verse, also has something like 95% support in the Vulgate Latin manuscripts and 75%+ support in the Old Latin manuscripts, and the Vulgate Prologue reference in corroborative to these evidences. And the verse plus phrase (in verse 8] has multiple very compelling internal evidences.

      BILL:
      Even assuming this is true – and you do not list which mss have it and I suspect you have never independently verified this but are merely passing on Scrivener’s words – all you have shown so far is that we have an early Latin reading. At some point rather than acting like each of these constitutes a separate witness (rather than Curly quoting Moe) you have to explain the utter absence in Greek. Ironically, you have the perfect solution in your own words.

      STEVEN:
      Now I grant that you can have a difficult theory that one major doctrinal gloss was inserted in the whole Bible, I would say the Ockham understanding is much simpler, a combination of accidental and deliberate omission.

      BILL:
      So it happened both on accident and on purpose? In EVERY single early mss. of John? Sure, Steven.

      STEVEN:
      Omissions are virtually invisible once they occur,

      BILL:
      This would explain its COMPLETE absence, wouldn’t it? John omitted it – iow he didn’t write it – and consequently it was not in the mss. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I trust you will now apply this argument consistently and abandon the defense of such a poorly attested interpolation.

      STEVEN:
      and happen very easily under almost any scribal conditions.

      BILL:
      Yes, omissions CAN happen easy under almost any scribal conditions. However, you are asking me to believe that every single scribe for how many years in the early stage made the exact same mistake in the exact same place. And it vanished without a trace.

      STEVEN:
      While additions of phrases and verses and sections are all extremely unlikely,

      BILL:

      Uh, no, additions are actually quite likely as well as transpositions. I can only assume from this comment that you’ve never actually collated a single MSS. If you had then you would know this claim is absolutely 100% wrong.

      STEVEN:
      they will glare out to the very next copyist in the same scriptorium, or the neighboring church or village.

      BILL:

      You are ASSUMING in this scenario that another scribe is necessarily familiar with all other textual variants in a given region. What if the scribe is transcribing his FIRST mss? Ironically this is another point where you assume what you must have evidence to prove.

      STEVE:
      Unless you have are stuck in modern textual critism theory, it is easy to see that additions to Bible texts are extremely unlikely.

      BILL:

      Additions are extremely unlikely? In point of fact once an addition is made in many cases it can become the later majority reading. If you think additions are unlikely, I’d advise you to collate some late Byzantine mss. and see what exactly you get.

      Finally, all of us a text critical theory. Mine sees the text in history while yours starts with the KJV as “the perfect Bible” and then discards evidence at a whim as necessary – which is why you are arguing in favor of an alleged Latin majority for I John 5:7 and REJECT that same early Latin majority at I Tim. 3:16.

  7. Phil June 16, 2010 / 11:48 pm

    Can you provide The Cyprian quote or point to what volume in the early church father’s it is? I think I have then ECF somewhere on PDF.

    • Bill Brown June 19, 2010 / 1:23 pm

      No, he cannot. He has been challenged on this before and his only recourse is to link Martin Shue’s article where Shue lamely says something along the lines of “Cyprian never said he was putting a spin on I John 5:7” (I forget the exact quote, but that’s what he said).

      Cyprian didn’t quote it. Period and end of discussion.

    • Phil June 19, 2010 / 5:41 pm

      Actually Bill I should have been more clear but, I was talking to Bob and I wanted the quote whether Cyprian quoted it or made a comment about it as Bob asserted. I wanted the quote or at least where I could find it. Thanks

  8. James Snapp, Jr. June 17, 2010 / 1:45 am

    Bob,

    You wrote, “We can’t use this method to prove which text is right.” I agree, and this point about doctrinal aspects of some variants was tangential to my main comment, which is that Bauder’s depiction of the view of the KJV-Onlyists is not valid.

    It seems obvious that the content of the N-A text yields a net loss of doctrinally significant statements. When asked for examples of improved doctrinal clarity in the N-A text, you’ve listed . . . three. (I don’t count “etc.” as an example.)

    B: “Incidentally Rev. 22:14 in the KJV appears to affirm works-based salvation, just as much as 1 Pet. 2:2 in the NIV appears to affirm works-based salvation.”

    Seriously?? This is your third-best example? One could similarly claim that there’s a doctrinal deficiency in Mt. 7:19 and 7:21.

    That’s not my main point, though. It’s that Bauder’s characterization of the KJV-Onlyists’ approach is inaccurate: his claim that “the whole debate is merely an academic quibble over the percentage of acceptable variation” is simply false. The issue, or the primary issue involving a comparison of the Greek NT texts, is *content.”

    Yours in Christ,

    James Snapp, Jr.

    • Bob Hayton June 17, 2010 / 8:09 am

      James,

      Certainly the whole story isn’t percentage of acceptable variation. But that is an important element. Simply having a doctrinally preferred text doesn’t make it the correct text. Allowing variations in principle is the issue when the debate is framed in a theological light as it is. Stay tuned for the next posts in this series before you give up on Bauder just yet. He may be overreaching a bit on this point but on some others he is dead on.

    • Bill Brown June 19, 2010 / 1:25 pm

      James,

      Bauder is dead on right. This goes back to whether one holds to plenary verbal preservation or not. To simplify his argument, he is saying that the KJVOs START with the plenary verbal preservation and eventually (unless they are Ruckmanites) come around to “this variation is ok.” D.A. Waite did it in his debate with James White. He started with this having to be completely 100% perfect and when White challenged him on some readings without any support at all, Waite actually said, “I don’t think we should quibble over a couple of words here and there” – and then went back to his prepared statement about the KJV being the Word of God. So – iow – Waite was now saying that all but a few of the words matter.

  9. Steven Avery July 22, 2010 / 11:42 am

    Hi Folks,

    Returning to the strong Cyprian reference, and the humorous attempt to belligerently declare this was “a comment that could as easily be from 1 John 5:8 as 5:7.” even though Cyprian specifically said “again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” and that matches verse 7, not verse 8.

    Those who look at the reference without a textual precondition against the heavenly witnesses generally have no difficulty at all with the reference. Like James Bennett in The Theology of the Early Christian Church, or Cyprian expert Enzo Gallicet. Even Joel C. Elowsky in the ACCS series.
    O
    thers make it clear that the reference looks sound, they just want to reject it because there was not supposed to be a heavenly witnesses verse in the Bible at the time (e.g. Michael Ferrebee Sadler and even Isaac Newton).

    Others speak very clearly, like Arthur Cleveland Coxe who talks of the “usual explainings away” or Scrivener’s “it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver. 7 in his copies “.

    You have to go through hoops to deny the Cyprian citation, in the manner of Daniel Wallace, ably answered by Marty Shue. Such is very weak, however even if someone wants to go that route they should avoid looking silly with dogmatic nonsense like the quotes from Bill Brown on this issue above.

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery

  10. Steven Avery July 22, 2010 / 12:15 pm

    Hi Folks,

    Phil:
    “Can you provide The Cyprian quote or point to what volume in the early church father’s”

    Bill Brown..
    “No, he cannot. He has been challenged on this before.. Bill Brown”

    No quotes from Bill about this “before” .. so we will start fresh.

    =============================

    Here is what Cyprian specifically says. btw.. Cyprian is complimented for his fealty to scripture by analysts of early church writers, he is also knowledgeable in Greek and Latin.

    Here I will quote from the textual criticism forum.
    And we have the actual citation, Latin and English.

    ====================================

    John Lupia
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/420

    St. Cyprian (Second revised edition c. AD 256),
    De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215)

    The LORD says “I and the Father are one” and likewise it is
    written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.
    “And these three are one.”

    This is a virtually a direct quote of the Comma Johanneum, where only the Word is changed to Son.

    =============

    Malcolm Robertson
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/425

    Speaking strictly along text critical lines, Cyprian’s words

    dicit dominus: ego et pater unum sumus (Joan.x,30). et iterum de patre et filio et spiritu sancto scriptum est: et hi tres unum sunt (1 Joan. v,7)

    “and these three are one” – is doubtless your and text critical science’s most telling and tangible evidence for an Itala reading of 1 Jn 5:7. There is no way it could be mistakenly construed as coming from vs 8.

    =============

    Now I grant not everybody will have as strong a position as these two writers, however the handwaving claims above by Bill and Bob are humorous if you simply read the Cyprian reference and and know the scriptures.

    1 John 5:7-8
    For there are three that bear record in heaven,
    the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
    and these three are one.
    And there are three that bear witness in earth,
    the spirit, and the water, and the blood:
    and these three agree in one.

    Incidentally there are a large number of evidences that are corroborative to one another, this is not an isolated quote, and there are a number of fascinating details of internal evidences. For now I will just mention the Jubaianus reference from Cyprian, the Tertullian reference, the rebaptism wording, the fascinating Athenagoras wording — and the simple and clear and indisputable fact that the Old Latin manuscripts very solidly, almost unanimously, favor the heavenly witnesses (mentioned in the John Lupia post above as well).

    This is why anybody who reads the above, the hand-wavings, etc .. should have a bit of herb tea and a 🙂 .

    Shalom,
    Steven Avery
    Queens, NY

    • Bob Hayton July 22, 2010 / 9:51 pm

      Steven,

      I was going by this statement of Wallace in his article about the Cyprian quote: “The quotation from Kenyon is true, but quite beside the point, for Cyprian’s quoted material from 1 John 5 is only the clause, “and these three are one”—the wording of which occurs in the Greek text, regardless of how one views the Comma.” Perhaps he’s wrong, and the words “and these three are one” does not appear in the text outside of 1 John 5:7. I’ll do some double checking now. Still Cyprian wrote in Latin and we know the verse has support in Latin. Granted Cyprian is early, but where is the Greek support for the Comma?

  11. Steven Avery July 27, 2010 / 6:56 pm

    Hi Folks,

    I would like to discuss these questions more, however since the thread is more than two weeks old, I cannot respond substantively here, since it may get erased.

    Folks who want to discuss Cyprian, early evidences, the Wallace strained claimed (which Bob rightfully wonders about) should find another forum or current blog post where it is appropriate and we can continue there. Tim Dunkin’s revised article will, I understand, address the Cyprian issues a bit more.

    Shalom,
    Steven

Comments are closed.