1 John 2:23 - ECW demonstrates Greek Majority omission

Steven Avery

Administrator
Future studies may include:
1 John 5:6 - 1 John 5:8 and 1 John 3:1 1 John 3:16
Showing light usage in the Ante-Nicene era, like the heavenly witnesses.

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

1 John 2:23 (AV)
Whosoever denieth the Son,
the same hath not the Father:
[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Clement - CCEL Scrivener
Cyprian - CCEL FULL x2 - yes (Clarke, in substance)
Origen - CCEL allusion - (3x Scrivener)

Ambrose -CCEL
Athanasius CCEL
Augustine CCEL (Clarke, in substance)
Bede - ACCS Allusion - (Clarke, in substance)
Cassian - CCEL
Cerealis
Cyril of Alexandria
Cyril of Jerusalem - CCEL
Eusebius
Euthalius (Clarke, in substance)
Epiphanius (Clarke, in substance)
Faustinus (Clarke, in substance)
Hilary of Poitiers (Clarke, in substance)

Lactantius
https://books.google.com/books?id=kUQVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA191

Lucifer of Cagliari (Clarke, in substance)
Meletius
Pelagius
Theophylact
Vigilius of Tapsum (De Trinitate?)

ACCS

Catena -

Scrivener
1660250416355.png


Six Lectures
1660250665288.png


Adam Clarke
1660250780218.png


David Robert Palmer
1660331907112.png


Peter Gurry
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...7QZL55ntXav3FnJ_xr8n3NyAgKTlUER4wEi82oaR35jho
1660251367131.png


Horne
https://books.google.com/books?id=O21AAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA280
1660262797661.png


e-Catena
1660299295514.png

Laparola
1660300569031.png


Church Fathers Scripture Search Engine (using the CCEL Early Church Fathers digital edition of the Philip Schaff collection)
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/1 john 2:23
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Cyprian

Cyprian - Treatise XI Exhortation to Martyrdom Addressed to Fortunatus
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/1 john 2:23
John too: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath both the Son and the Father.”


Cyprian - Treatise XII Three Books Of Testimonies Against The Jews
Also in the Epistle of John:
“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same also hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath both the Son and the Father.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=wrwPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA285

This might be a different verse.

Cyprian - Treatise 13 - Exortations unto Martyrdom, Addressed to Fortunatus
https://books.google.com/books?id=wrwPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA285

For this cause in the Gospel lie utters threat, and says, Whosoever shall confess Me before men, him will I confess also before My Father which is in heaven ; but whosoever shall deny Me before men, him will I also deny before My Father which is in heaven.

1660251628283.png


1 John 2:23 (AV)
Whosoever denieth the Son,
the same hath not the Father:
[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Matthew 10:32-33 (AV)
Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 10:40 (AV)
He that receiveth you receiveth me,
and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

John 14:9 (AV)
Jesus saith unto him,
Have I been so long time with you,
and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?
he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;
and how sayest thou then,
Shew us the Father?

Origen
As he who in these times does not know the Son has not the Father either,
https://books.google.com/books?id=uSsRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA343
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/fathers/origen/john-commentary.asp?pg=107

Clement of Alexandria
The Stromata, or Miscellanies
Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus

1 John 2:23
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/1 john 2:23
“He who denies the Son,” by ignoring Him, “has not the Father, nor does he know Him.” But he who knoweth the Son and the Father, knows according to knowledge, and when the Lord shall be manifested at His second advent, shall have confidence and not be confounded. Which confusion is heavy punishment.

Augustine: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies
Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John.
10. These things are now manifest, my brethren. Let no man say, I do not worship Christ, but I worship God His Father. “Every one that denieth the Son, hath neither the Son nor the Father; and he that confesseth the Son, hath both the Son and the Father.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=CAcNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA480
And footnote

Athanasius
‘For he who hath the Son,’ saith He, ‘hath the Father also;’ and ‘he that receiveth Me, receiveth Him that sent Me 1 John ii. 23; Matt. x. 40..’

as the Lord Himself has said, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father,’ and as John writes, ‘He who acknowledgeth the Son, hath the Father also John xiv. 9; 1 John ii. 23. and so Cyril in Joan. p. 864. vid. Wetstein in loc..’

Cyril of Alexandria
https://www.elpenor.org/cyril-alexandria/john-commentary-5.asp?pg=27
And to prove that we are right in saying this, the God-beloved John will come forward as a trustworthy witness on our side, for he wrote thus: He that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.


Cyril of Jerusalem
We bow our knees unto the Father from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth is named980980 Eph. iii. 14, 15.: glorifying Him with the Only-begotten: for he that denieth the Father, denieth the Son also981981 1 John ii. 22: “This is the Antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son” (R.V.).: and again, He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also knowing that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father983983 Phil. ii. 11..

1. They who have been taught to believe “In One God the Father Almighty,” ought also to believe in His Only-begotten Son. For he that denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father111

For he that denies the Son, the same has not the Father.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310110.htm

Ambrose
s. And thus he who saith that Jesus is not the Christ, the same is Antichrist; he who denies the Saviour of the world, denies Jesus; he who denies the Son, denies the Father also, for it is written; “Every one which denieth the Son, denieth the Father likewise.”
CCEL
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.iv.iv.xvi.html

Thus, He has explained what He had spoken earlier, that he who confesses the Father believes on the Son. For he who knows not the Son, neither knows the Father. For every one that denies the Son has not the Father, but he that confesses the Son has both the Father and the Son.

The Perfection of the Godhead does not admit of inequality. Love, then, Him Whom the Father loves, honour Him Whom the Father honours, for “he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father,” S. John v. 23. and “whoso denieth the Son, hath not the Father.” 1 John ii. 23.

John Cassian
“For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men may honour the Son as they honour the Father.” S. John v. 22, 23. For whoever denies the Father denies the Son also. “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.”

And so if you deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, the result is that in denying the Son of God you deny the Father also. For as St. John says: “He who hath not the Son hath not the Father; but he who hath the Son hath the Father also.” 1 John ii. 23.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Cyprian - direct x2
Origen - unclear
Augustine - yes
Athanasius - uses b
Cyril of Alexandria - yes not allusion
Cyril of Jerusalem - not full
Ambrose - yes
John Cassian - yes

check my ECW
Euthalius - Scrivener
Theophylact - Scrivener
Lactanius - allusion (Lardner)

Bede
Cerealis
Eusebius
Epiphanius
Faustinus
Hilary of Poitiers - de Trin. vi. 42.

Lucifer of Cagliari (Clarke, in substance)
Meletius
Pelagius
Vigilius of Tapsum (De Trinitate?)

Andreas Catena - ACCS
https://books.google.com/books?id=fC41DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA190
1660295642485.png
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Full Quotes show Greek Majority blunder

Cyprian
Augustine
Cyril of Alexandria
Ambrose
John Cassian

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

Cyprian
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/1 john 2:23
Cyprian Treatise XI Exhortation to Martyrdom Addressed to Fortunatus
John too: “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; he that acknowledgeth the Son, hath both the Son and the Father.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=wrwPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA285
1660299617934.png


Treatise XII Three Books Of Testimonies Against The Jews
Also in the Epistle of John:
“Whosoever denieth the Son, the same also hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath both the Son and the Father.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=wrwPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA60

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

Augustine:
Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John.
Homily III Chapter 10
10. These things are now manifest, my brethren. Let no man say, I do not worship Christ, but I worship God His Father. “Every one that denieth the Son, hath neither the Son nor the Father; and he that confesseth the Son, hath both the Son and the Father.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=zc0lAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1134
https://books.google.com/books?id=CAcNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA480
1660298748865.png



And footnote -
and just so S. Hilar, de Trin. vi. 42.

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

Cyril of Alexandria
https://www.elpenor.org/cyril-alexandria/john-commentary-5.asp?pg=27
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_on_john_09_book9.htm
https://sites.google.com/site/aquin...-commentary/cyril-on-john-13/cyril-on-john-14


CYRIL
Archbishop of Alexandria
COMMENT ON THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN.
BOOK IX.
CHAPTER I. That by reason of the identity of Their nature, the Son is in the Father, and the Father again is in the Son.

And to prove that we are right in saying this, the God-beloved John will come forward as a trustworthy witness on our side, for he wrote thus: He that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father; he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also.

1660298084912.png


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

Ambrose

Book 2 - Chapter XV - (not full verse)

And thus he who saith that Jesus is not the Christ, the same is Antichrist; he who denies the Saviour of the world, denies Jesus; he who denies the Son, denies the Father also, for it is written; “Every one which denieth the Son, denieth the Father likewise.”
CCEL
https://books.google.com/books?id=SzhbIcbRxewC&pg=PA241
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.iv.iv.xvi.html
1660297695158.png


Thus, He has explained what He had spoken earlier, that he who confesses the Father believes on the Son. For he who knows not the Son, neither knows the Father. For every one that denies the Son has not the Father, but he that confesses the Son has both the Father and the Son.
https://books.google.com/books?id=sc49DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA320

Book V Chapter X - (slight paraphrase)
1660297086941.png


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

John Cassian -
For whoever denies the Father denies the Son also. “Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=LjafWkK9O3QC&pg=PA567

Book III - Chapter VII

1660296867067.png


And so if you deny that the Lord Jesus Christ is God, the result is that in denying the Son of God you deny the Father also. For as St. John says: “He who hath not the Son hath not the Father; but he who hath the Son hath the Father.

Book VI - Chapter XVII
https://books.google.com/books?id=LjafWkK9O3QC&pg=PA600
1660296434597.png


============================
 

Attachments

  • 1660298713172.png
    1660298713172.png
    63.2 KB · Views: 119
  • 1660299900824.png
    1660299900824.png
    33.9 KB · Views: 119
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
ETC
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/04/two-important-shorter-byzantine.html

Hi, good info!

Always be suspicious of a modern Critical Text apparatus on the early church writers.. Even when supporting their variant, they can be grossly deficient.

it looks like the ECW (early church writers) from Text und Textwert is Ath. Cyr. CyrH. Or.
Maybe alphabetical order.

CyrH is Cyril of Jerusalem so Cyr is Cyril of Alexandria, Or is likely Origen . And I am not sure if Origen or Cyril of Jerusalem or Athanasius are more than allusions. One source says that Origen uses the verse 3 times.

** MIA:**
Cyprian has this full verse twice,
Augustine,
Ambrose and
John Cassian
have the full verse as well. How could they be missed?

I put those four and and Cyril of Alexandria, confirmed full verses, at:

Pure Bible Forum:
1 John 2:23 - ECW demonstrates Greek Majority omission
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ek-majority-omission-blunder.2613/#post-10715

There are many more possibilities.that are given as support but I have not tracked down the references, including Bede, Cerealis, Epiphanius, Eusebius, Hilary of Poitiers, Lucifer of Cagliari, Meletius, Pelagius, Theophylact and Vigilius of Tapsum, which would likely be De Trinitate,

In some cases Matthew 10:32-33, or 10:40 or John 14:9 can be part of the quote.

All this should help us see just how textually incorrect is the Greek Byzantine (Majority) text reading is when it omits 1 John 2:23b. As in the Robinson-Pierpoint text.

Thanks!
Any feedback and additions appreciated.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
English translations
https://books.google.com/books?id=UK4GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA318

Hexaglot
https://books.google.com/books?id=hBJPAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA777

Calvin
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom45.v.iii.vii.html
Many copies have the opposite sentence, “He who confesses the Son,” etc. But as I think that a note by some copyist has crept into the text, I hesitated not to omit it. 72 But if its insertion be approved, the meaning would be, that there is no right confession of God except the Father be acknowledged in the Son.

Michaelis and Bengel
https://books.google.com/books?id=tH89AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA273

Turton refutes Burgess error on 1 John 2:23 - also Porson on tria later refuted by Charles Forster
https://books.google.com/books?id=ut07AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA41

Burgess responds - what is received text - post on Facebook Timothy Berg discussion
https://books.google.com/books?id=w-EtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA67

Brackets -1850
https://books.google.com/books?id=cakGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA25

Presbyterian Review - 1857 - brackets and italics
https://books.google.com/books?id=o2vUAAAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA544

Baptist Magazine - 1861
https://books.google.com/books?id=9FUEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA329

Barnes - contra
https://books.google.com/books?id=qvXCoSQ1y0EC&pg=PA93

Ladd - homeoteleuton 1883
https://books.google.com/books?id=KIRJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA714

Glenn Conjurske

Nazaroo
http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2011/07/1st-jn-223-and-31.html

Contra - Kohlenberger
https://books.google.com/books?id=l8ZO1RryaLoC&pg=PA51
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://www.facebook.com/timothy.be...rRGu3Y5jhngpe4QRl?comment_id=1714046125613650

This is in another thread with the Timothy Berg Facebook and MMR about identifying TR editions.

Greek New Testament printed editions depart from Textus Receptus
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ed-editions-depart-from-textus-receptus.2601/

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

This issue of "what is as TR edition" played out in a discussion in the early 1800s on 1 John 2:23, between Thomas Burgess and Thomas Turton.

1 John 2:23 (AV)
Whosoever denieth the Son,
the same hath not the Father:
but he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

Turton disputes Burgess on TR and 1 John 2:23 -

A Vindication of the Literary Character of the Late Professor Porson: From the Animadversions of the Right Reverend Thomas Burgess ... in Various Publications on 1 John V. 7 (1827)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ut07AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA41

Burgess responds - what is the received text -

A Letter to the Reverend Thomas Beynon, (1829)
https://books.google.com/books?id=w-EtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA67

Burgess takes even Beza out of Received Text, however.

It is singular enough, that the first edition, to which I referred,—that of Beza in 1582, in constant use,—should "have preserved in the text the clause under consideration.” Crito also notices the editions of 1582, 1642, 1664, and Dr. Harwood’s of 1776, besides Colinaeus’s of 1534. But he has not informed his readers that none of these are editions of the received text, which descended from Stephens’s text through the Elzevirs to the edition of Bishop Fell, and from that through Mill’s and Wetstein’s to the last Oxford edition in 1827, by Bishop Lloyd. The clause was first printed in the text by Colinaeus in 1534, but was omitted in all Erasmus’s editions before and after that date, and by R. Stephens in his editions. Beza, therefore, when he inserted it in his third edition of 1582, said, Restitui en quatuor codicibus, without any reference to Colinaeus. It was contained in the text of editions which were propagated from Beza’s ; but continued to be uniformly omitted in all editions of the textus receptus. The editions, therefore, which Crito has brought to contradict Matthaei’s apparent claim of priority in the restoration of the last clause of 1 John, ii. 23, affords no contradiction to the argument which is founded on the passage.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - Textus Receptus Academy
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1176864979826029/

Analogy to heavenly witnesses:

There is a heavenly witnesses analogy.

The dropping of the text from the Greek manuscripts is incredibly easy in both cases. Homoeoteleuton in both cases, in the heavenly witnesses also doctrinal preferences and the disciplina arcani.

The addition theories are super-difficult. Why would it happen? How? When? Why would it take over the Latin line?
It could (wrongly) be considered a Latin line addition
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
1 John 2:23 Why the italics?
Will Kinney
https://brandplucked.webs.com/1john223italics.htm
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1230621447783715/?comment_id=1230622634450263

According to Reuss, 1 John 2:23(b) appears in Colinaeus 1534 Greek NT, and in Beza's 1582 Greek NT, and a 1587 edition published in London by Wautrallerius (sp?).
https://forums.carm.org/threads/kjv...derlying-tr-editions.10878/page-6#post-874534

A Collation of the Principal English Translations of the Sacred Scriptures: The Old Testament from the Translations of John Rogers, the Bishops, the Genevan, and Present Authorised Version : the New Testament from Wiclif, Rogers, the Rhemes, Or Roman Catholic Version, the Genevan, the Present Authorised, and the Version by Gilbert Wakefield : with an Historical Account of the English Versions, and of the More Ancient Mss. and Editions : with Memoirs of the Principal Translators (1847)
https://books.google.com/books?id=UK4GAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA318
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Christopher Reyes

1706334984786.png

1706335037304.png

1706335121530.png

1706335157178.png

1706335197024.png
 
Top