The Comman Johanneum for Reformed Baptists

Textual Criticism and the Comma Johanneum

So this morning at Confessing Baptist one of the first things I got in in Twitter when I got up this morning was a link To an article an audio that was posted to Confessing Baptist this morning. Jeff Riddle interacts with James White's answers to issues related to textual criticism.

It's an audio file Along with just a brief summary that's been posted here. There's there's a lot that could be said in in response to this. I was I was Disappointed very disappointed. Instead of interacting with a book that I wrote What 19 years ago?

It's been out at least that long. I wrote it. I actually wrote it 20 years ago. It took a while to get out, but That's been used as a textbook for all that time. That has all the references hundreds of footnotes and instead of interacting with my actual presentation, which was fairly lengthy it's only about a snippet that Todd Freel posted where he's asking me a single question about King James only and a lot of the you know, Pastor Riddle Says I'm trying to undercut people's confidence in the traditional text and all the stuff.

Well, if you want to make that argument, how about going for my real stuff rather than the cheap shot? Because that's that's really how it felt it was. I mean, I've discussed this stuff for decades now.

Why go for you know a few snippets? Hurriedly answered at the end of a longer presentation. You know, for example, Pastor Riddle says and I'm just following after Metzger and stuff. If you go to the book, you'll find all these references to Erasmus biographies and histories and articles and stuff like that.

So, you know, it was it put me off along those lines, but be that as it may I realize there are reformed Baptists That are TR only I think It's primarily because they've been reading Turretin of lots of folks like that great men of God but when it comes to textual criticism.

If anyone wrote before the discovery of the papyri What they had to say Isn't all that relevant anymore to be perfect honest with you. I mean sure theology things like that. That's great fine wonderful.

But as far as the actual state of the question if you're writing before the discovery of the papyri You're you're writing on the basis of Minimal information and it's very difficult to really Be consistent at that point.

So, you know, I understand they're reformed Baptists take that perspective. Okay, I don't think it's consistent. And the reason I'm doing this is one of the things that came up is something I feel very strongly about.

Defending the Reformed Baptist View of Scripture in Public Debate

I.

Take The reformed Baptist belief in the inerrancy of Scripture into battle around the world. And there's a big difference when you do that then the theory in the in the nice quiet of the study. What might work real well in the study doesn't work in front of Bart Ehrman or John Dominic Crossan or Marcus Borg Or Shabbir Ali or all my Muslim friends.

It's real easy to you know, armchair quarterback things, but I have to take this stuff into the into the battle place of ideas.

And.

One of the things I feel very strongly about is the Kami Ohanian. I think anyone Who demands that the Kami Ohanian as found in the text of Septus not in the Byzantine text It's not a majority reading you have to for some I think primarily theological reason invest and there isn't any just one text but You know the 1633 Elsevier or the or the you know, a Scrivener's text or whatever.

You get to pick and choose which one you want because there's variations but for theological reasons this authority is given to the textus receptus, but Inconsistently so because the the Kami Ohanian is not a Byzantine reading.

It's not a Greek reading and So if you defend the Kami Ohanian first John 5 7 in the King James version of the Bible If you defend that as original I do not believe that you could ever defend the concept of the accurate transmission of the text in the New Testament against any meaningful opponent Atheist Muslim, whatever you couldn't do it To defend that text as original is to abandon all Meaningful apologetics of the New Testament.

Just just admit it. Just just give it up. I If you can defend a reading that arises in the Latin tradition enters into the later Latin versions is Not a part of the Greek manuscript tradition is not a part of the manuscripts from which any of the early versions were translated if if a vitally.

Theological.

Assertion like that can disappear wholesale. From the New Testament, then we have absolutely no reason to believe the New Testament's accurate none. Just give it up. Just just throw in the towel. And I just don't think most of the people who have a traditional Dedication to this recognize that they are in essence Destroying any meaningful Apologetic for the defense of the New Testament by holding this position.

I don't think they realize that I just don't think they've ever been in a position to have to actually defend it in that kind of a context. It's one thing debating your fellow Baptist friends about it's another thing to take it up against a Bart Ehrman.

So I feel strongly about this. I I know the background of the TR and I know the background of the Kami Ohanian and Pastor riddle even reads from Metzger's commentary on this, but he didn't actually read Everything from Metzger's commentary on first John 5 as we'll see.

But I want to address what was said here because I think it's very very important for us to give a meaningful defense for the accuracy of the transmission of the text in New Testament and If you hold the comma, I just don't think you can so let's listen to what's what's found here and I hope this will come through.

I'm playing it just a little bit quicker. I listened to it at two times speed, but Let's let's listen to this section here and I'll make some some comments. Let me address this for a second. He says.

That the TR Has the Komi Ohanian and again, this is this is accurate. This is a place where the TR would diverge from the so-called majority text or Byzantine text. He he mentions that The Komi Ohanian doesn't appear in Greek manuscripts until the 14th century.

Let me address a couple things related to that.

I.

Haven't gone to check the apparatus To see when exactly the first. The earliest Greek manuscript that it includes the Komi Ohanian is. It may be late. But again, but the date of the manuscript should be less important it a late manuscript may contain a tradition That is goes back to the various very earliest sources.

So just because a document is late doesn't mean that it is invalid now. This is very important. There are.

Certain.

Minuscule.

Manuscripts that have been identified by scholars as having been copied from very early much much earlier sources than they themselves are 1739 1881 are the two most famous minuscule texts that clearly are copied from.

From magiscule texts that go way back. None of the manuscripts that contain the Kami Ohanian in Greek have.

Any.

Meaningful claim to be a Much later copy of a much earlier source. None none here here on the screen. Taking out the manuscripts that only contain the reading in a like 18th century. Hand in the margin.

We have.

The list here. We have one from the 14th 15th century number 629. Which is a Greek Latin diglot and the Greek is taken from the Latin text now. No one is arguing that by the 6th century as Metzger pointed out That the comma is a part of the Latin Vulgate.

It's not a part of the other translations. It's not a part of the Greek. It has entered in via a gloss. Similar to how John 5 for did into the Greek manuscript tradition, etc, etc. Into the Latin at that point now, we are Baptists and so we do not invest the Latin Vulgate with infallibility.

We got rid of that long time ago.

So.

Here the reading is in a Greek Latin diglot. It's in the Latin. So it ends up in the Greek. There's no reason to think that there is a Greek manuscript behind that that there's any earlier Transmission in the in the Tradition there.

Behind that it's coming from the Latin then 1520 we have Codex Monforteanus and Here by the way, since we're doing this live. There's lots actually my friend Doug. He's a lot smaller now, but all you can see is my Part of my arm right there, but there I am examining Codex Monforteanus in the library at Trinidad College, Dublin a number of years ago.

And.

So we have Codex Monforteanus. That's the one that Actually differs in reading from the text in the Texas Receptus. But that is that is the one that many feel was actually written to refute Erasmus and that caused him because remember Erasmus did Not have this reading in his first two editions of his Greek New Testament.

Something that I don't think unless I missed it because I was listening to it quickly. So maybe I did miss it, but I don't think Pastor Riddle mentioned that. But anyway that this was the the manuscript that Evidently forced Erasmus to insert in the third edition.

It's remained there ever since that we have one of the 16th century code number 918 16th century codice Codex 110 Codex Ravianus and the 18th century number 2318 those are all original and they are all after the invention of printing.

What this means is that? Functionally the Kami Ohanian is not a part of the Greek manuscript tradition if you cannot find the earliest references until Almost a millennium and a half. After the original writing.

There's no reason whatsoever to think that that's original none. And so there you have the evidence it was right there in Metzger, I'm not sure. Why the pastor didn't didn't actually give us everything in Metzger's because when we look at Metzger I can't blow it up large enough for you to really see it here.

I'm sorry, but if we look at Metzger, he actually under external evidence gives us the manuscripts I just gave you plus the others with the Readings and the margins then he also points out number two.

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. Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the Latin acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

So it's not even a biblical manuscript and it's coming from the Latin once again. Then it points out the passages absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions Syriac Coptic Armenian Ethiopic Arabic Slavonic.

Except the Latin and it is not found in the old Latin in its earliest form. So why not mention those things he goes on to to read the Libra apologeticus reference. Which only demonstrates that it was part of the Latin reading.

But all this material was right there. So when he says I didn't bother to look it up. I'm not sure why it's right there. He's holding the book in his hand and and could take a look at it if he wanted to if he wanted to do so.

So there's there's some of the the information right there. Let's let's continue listening here.

Latin Origins and the Limits of the Textus Receptus

The other thing to take into consideration is that the Koma Yohaneum? There is evidence that that reading has been around for a lot longer than.

Nearly the 14th century and this is where he goes into what Metzger says. It's funny in one place. He called basically says I'm just slavishly following Metzger and now seemingly doesn't think that I read Metzger.

Obviously what Metzger is pointing out here is that it was it originated in Latin and I'm all those people that believes that the key question in textual criticism is what did the original author write and John did not write in Latin and.

So.

Doesn't matter to me when something arises in Latin. It's relevant to historical studies. But as far as the original readings in the New Testament We need to stick with what the original authors wrote and not what came about at a later point in.

Time.

We continue on a little bit farther along.

Contrary to what James White implies when he says that it doesn't appear in Greek manuscripts until the 14th century now first I've said just because it doesn't appear until in a Greek manuscript until late doesn't mean it doesn't come from much earlier source.

Secondly now, we've got Metzger telling us that it's being quoted As early as the fourth century in Latin works and then by the fifth and sixth century in the Western Church. It was it was automatically accepted as part of the scriptures.

Now if there were Latin versions of it in the fourth century There were probably Greek versions of it. Even if we don't have manuscript evidence of that until the 14th century. If you follow me.

No, I don't follow you. First of all, nothing that Metzger said is in any way contrary to what I said.

And again.

If you had looked at my published work on this subject, you would see that There's a little bit of tilting at windmills going on here, but no I do not follow you here. Are you saying that every Latin reading has a Greek origin or source?

Do you really want to go there? Because this again I Find I do not believe there is such a thing as a consistent TR defender doesn't exist. Can't There are too many errors in the TR and he talked about going to the Percocet adultery conference with dr. Robinson.

Dr. Robinson is not a TR guy. He's a Byzantine guy and Dr. Robinson would not say that his own principles Would contradict the insertion of the Kama Johannium. He's a majority text guy in the sense of the Byzantine text platform because that's the majority text.

Not majority in the sense of the Hodges-Farstad they have a methodological difference as to how to work that out. That's we're not getting that right now. I Appreciate dr. Robinson. I disagree. But anyone can tell that when I have addressed dr. Robinson's position even in the second edition the King James only controversy.

I I've done so very fairly and have bent over backwards to even allow his position to speak for itself, but That's not the point here because dr. Robinson is consistent here. His consistent textual principles would require him to defend the Percocet adultery.

No question about it but not the Kama Johannium just the opposite and so I Do not follow here because if pastor riddle were to follow this methodology There'd be all sorts of readings. So you have to be changing in the TR on the basis of the Latin Vulgate.

But he doesn't even go there probably doesn't even know they exist. Probably isn't even aware of the textual tradition of the Latin Vulgate. And where it differs and if you make if you if you make this leap just to defend this one why not all the rest where the Latin Vulgate would require us to Make insertions and changes in the Texas Receptus whatever version of that you happen to be working with so.

That is a totally unwarranted leap a totally unwarranted leap then we go off in there of something.

Conjectural Emendations in the Modern Critical Text and the TR

That's I think relevant if you read the nestle on 28th edition. Which I'm starting to do. There are places in the nestle on 28th edition where there are complete. What are called conjectural inundations.

That is there are places in the new modern critical text? Where the editors have given a reading that doesn't appear in any extant Greek Manuscript that we have. I was talking about this when I was at the periphery adults right conference at Southeastern with Maurice Robinson.

And he said if you look at Acts 16 12, and I think it's 2nd Peter 3 10. It might be 1st Peter 3 10, but anyways you track 1st Peter 3 10 or 2nd Peter 3 10. Those are places. We're in the new nestle on 28th edition.

They offer a conjecture. That isn't that doesn't have any extant Greek manuscript that supports the reading.

If.

James White and other people are So upset about the coma yohaneum not appearing in a Greek manuscript until the 14th century. What do they say about the current modern critical Greek New Testament that has readings that have absolutely no Greek manuscript support.

Are they going to say we're not going to use this modern critical text and Translations that are going to be made from it and by the way in the future all the modern major Translations will come up with new editions that will adjust to the nestle on 28th edition.

My point here is that that those who support the modern critical texts are sort of caught in a conundrum. They want to criticize on the TR for readings that have less solid support. But then they're willing to accept a modern critical text that has readings that have in some places at least no support.

But let's listen to a little bit more about James now. I am especially Sensitive to allegations of inconsistency and that's what we just got. I'm being inconsistent. Am I if what pastor Riddle just said was true?

I am but of course what pastor Riddle just said isn't true and Let's take a look at the screen. What was ironic here is that pastor Riddle has it backwards. Well a couple things first of all the Here we have the second Peter 3 reference and.

Second.

Peter chapter 3. Now I it probably would be a little bit easier if I had the These these two windows switched back and forth. I apologize for that.

But.

Here is. The ne27 right here. Here's the ne28 above it and the ne28 apparatus is down here. So this should be over here. But anyways, I've just told you what it is. Here is right here. Let me see if how.

See how big I can get that there. There we go. You're you're given that little thing right there. CJ conjecture conjecture Bradshaw conjecture is the read the reading. Argo. All right, that that's what called a conjectural emendation.

Now. That's not in the text. It's in the apparatus. Translations are made from the text almost never from the apparatus. I don't know of anyone who has made a translation based upon a conjectural emendation an apparatus at least not a.

Not a major translation not one done by a committee or anything like that. So let's first compare the level here we have a central doctrinal affirmation in the Kamiohane the Trinity itself sort of. It's not how anyone your early church defended the Trinity, but that's another issue.

Vitally important this. I don't think anybody could even tell you what it's about. The other one over an axe is about how you express the first in Macedonia and. It's whether you have a Sigma. Wow, hmm.

Okay. These in other words, these are.

Utterly.

Irrelevant.

Issues.

There's another what no Chi is another Enoch and okay is another possible conjectural emendation there's very very very very very few of them and Nowhere, does any of the modern text make the text reading the conjectural emendation?

Certainly doesn't hear but the point is The conjecture emendation was in the previous editions of the Nessie Alan. He's got it backwards. Look at the na -28. Let me let me. Well, if I blow this up, it's good.

It's just sort of disappear for you, but I'll just scroll through the whole thing here and you will notice. Go to verse 11 and that which is in the 27 is no longer in the 28. That's because Nessie Alan 28 took out all the conjectural emendations even from the apparatus.

So the exact opposite of what pastor riddle said Is what actually takes place in the in the text? So I'm not being Inconsistent by any stretch the imagination there is no meaningful parallel between any of the conjectural emendations, but may I now sort of wrap things up with.

Erasmus, Beza, and the Inconsistency of TR-Onlyism

Now I've got one of the section here. Color coded let's listen to it real quick.

So he's saying James what just said the manuscripts that were used in the TR Did not come till 1 ,200 years after the time of Jesus. Well, perhaps some of the manuscripts that Erasmus used dated from the 12th century.

But that doesn't mean the content of those manuscripts just sort of magically appeared in the 12th century. They include Copies of copies of copies that go back We could say to the very beginning of the Christian movement.

Now, what was I saying? What was I saying to Todd Friel? I was comparing the manuscript foundation of the TR to that of the modern text. What's the manuscript foundation of the TR the manuscripts that Erasmus had?

Because Stephanos and Beza aren't well Beza did a little expansion, but very very little. The primary manuscript foundation of the TR are the manuscripts that Erasmus had and we we know the character of those manuscripts and we know he had a 10th century manuscript that he didn't trust and That the primary manuscript that he did trust was from the 12th century.

That's all I was saying. Now if you want to argue, well every reading in that 12th century manuscript goes back to the beginning. Well congrats, you know. If you want to do that You gotta have a lot of work to explain some of the odd readings in the TR some of the readings that have Absolutely, no manuscript support which are discussed rather fully in a book that I wrote about 20 years ago 15 years ago.

Whatever 20 years ago 1994 came out in 1995. That discusses all these things but that didn't get discussed here, but I want to. I want to wrap up.

By.

Asking Pastor Riddle. Maybe the inconsistency isn't on my part.

Because.

You just objected to conjectural inundations, even though they've all been taken out of the apparatus of the na -28, which is interesting. I'll see what kind of commentary you have on that. Um, what about the conjectural inundations in the TR?

Now again my book on this subject documents this rather fully so I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on it. But Revelation 16 5. Let's take a rebel look at Revelation 16 5. And I heard the angel of the water is saying righteous.

Are you ha own Kai ha ain ha ha see us. Because you have judged us Righteous, are you the one being and who was the Holy One? Now this is the Nessie Allen 28th and Here is the Greek Byzantine the Byzantine platform.

Since you mentioned dr. Robinson, there's there's his work and what does it say? Ha own Kai ha ain ha ha see us the Holy One the Holy One, right?

Well.

Here the Byzantine manuscripts and then the modern text line up. They all say the Holy One, but let me add The TRM and let's blow the text up here. Oh, I don't look up so much bigger. There we go. Oh, wait a minute.

Ha own. Kai ha ain. Kai ha esaminosh. Who was who is and was and is to come. Well, look at that that is a text elimination. Yeah, that's a text elimination done by Theodore Beza. I've actually had some folks man.

I'll tell you people will I really wish my reformed brethren would put as much effort into Doing research in reaching Muslims or dealing with Roman Catholicism stuff as they do in defending TR only ism the few that do it.

I Actually heard of somebody I think on the Puritan board who speculated that there was a That that there once had been Greek manuscripts at the time of the Reformation it had a Samanath's and There was a reference to one in a Latin commentary somewhere, but they've all been destroyed since then.

The reality is that Theodore Beza Felt that.

The.

Poetic parallel. Who is and it was and who is to come? Which has other parallels in the book of Revelation? Fit better than ha ha see us and that sense as Samanath's and ha see us. Look enough alike in Magiscule text that he could make the change and that's where it is.

It's not in. It's not in Erasmus as far as I know. I have Stephanos and I if I recall correctly even I even provided the Stephanos 1550 graphic for the second edition of my book. But Beza made the change Conjectural inundation.

He didn't have any manuscripts that said it. Do you defend it pastor riddle? Is there anything in the TR that should be changed? Should this be ha ha see us? What's your standard? Because if you say this should be a ha ha see us then you need to get rid of the Kami Ohanian on the very same textual basis, right so consistency requires, but I've never met and will never meet a Consistent TR onlyist because I don't think it's possible.

I don't think it's possible. Let me reiterate one more time. Why is this important? It's important because we have to be able to defend The text of the New Testament in the midst of a tremendous number of tax today and we have to do so with Consistency and if you hold the TR onlyism if you defend the Kami Ohanian Don't even go into battle.

Don't even go into battle. You're not armed. You're not armed. The fatality rate will be very high and it won't be good for those who follow you into battle and it won't be good for the war as a whole.

So that's why it's important to address these subjects, so there you go. Ended up being a lot longer than I expected to be. Sorry about that Pastor Riddle. I appreciate the opportunity of responding to you.

I hope you hear my heart. And I hope this is helpful that everybody's watched. Thanks.