The Greek Manuscripts - Elijah Hixson (& David Robert Palmer & Grantley McDonald)

Steven Avery

Administrator
This post is only about the ms. 635 error, however, with the Elijah Hixson article and the Timothy Berg thread, and the Jeffrey Riddle response, we really have a fine starting point.

Evangelical Textual Criticism
The Greek Manuscripts of the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8)
Elijah Hixson - January 7, 2019
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2020/01/the-greek-manuscripts-of-comma.html

Timothy Berg wall - (fascinating discussion on many topics)

WM 149: Hixson, the CJ, and Roman Catholic Provenance
Jeffrey Riddle - January 18, 2020
http://www.jeffriddle.net/2020/01/wm-149-hixson-cj-and-roman-catholic.html

Facebook - PureBible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2721156727976199/

Pure Bible Forum (this post)
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-greek-manuscripts-elijah-hixson.1301/#post-5235

1 John 5:7 and Modern Criticism
Taylor DeSoto - January 16, 2020
https://youngtextlessreformed.com/2020/01/16/1-john-57-and-modern-criticism/

First John 5:7 and Greek Manuscripts
James Snapp - January 19, 2020
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2020/01/first-john-57-and-greek-manuscripts.html

Those are the main discussion spots so far!

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

Evangelical Textual Criticism - post in queue (the on in queue has Rodrigo with the wrong spelling)
1/22/2019

Great post and discussion!

Over the years I have been making a major point on the accuracy of Greek ms. representation on the heavenly witnesses. My emphasis was often the Stephanus manuscript issue as well as placing the c. 10 extant mss in proper context.

So I really appreciate this blog post and possible future paper from Elijah Hixson, which can help clarify issues. . .
While I would like to add a few notes here, the most important in terms of the scholastic element follows:

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

MS 635
Here is what Elijah says about ms 635:

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

Elijah Hixson
“... I want to mention that sometimes an eleventh Greek manuscript is cited. GA 635 is sometimes cited as having the CJ in the margin … I’m happy to update the post if someone has a better image or can make more sense of it. …

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

This “635mg” likely traces to a Bruce Metzger and UBS-1 error (likely a typo) and then Ian Howard Marshall had a note.

Metzger in 1968, the second edition, p. 101, did not include 635 or 636
http://www26.us.archive.org/stream/TheTextOfTheNewTestament2ndEdit#page/n101/mode/2up/search/comma

Metzger 1971, corrected 1975, p. 716-717 – definitely in 1975, apparently same p. in 1971
“and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.”
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/FirstJohnCh5v7.pdf
https://www.christianforums.com/threads/does-1-john-5-7-belong-in-the-bible.7766479/page-7

Metzger-Ehrman 2005 (updated, no error)
https://books.google.com/books?id=lA4WAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA147

======

The question is described here by Rodrigo Galiza in 2018

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8): The Status of Its Textual History and Theological Usage in English, Greek and Latin (2018)
Rodrigo Galiza and John W. Reeve
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3617&context=auss

Please note that “635mg” was apparently a typographical error in Metzger’s first edition (635, without mg) that in his later work (idem, 2nd ed., 1994) is corrected to “636v.r.."

=======

Here we have the mention of UBS-1, which I have not confirmed.

Rick Henwood
“635mg XI cited by Metzger and UBS-1, but not N-A”

"The Attempts Throughout History to Corrupt and Counterfeit the Word of God”

=======

The Ian Howard Marshall text can be seen here:
(citing The Text of the New Testament, Metzger 1971, p. 717)

The Epistles of John (1978)
Ian Howard Marshall
https://books.google.com/books?id=gby-zhPba2AC&pg=PA236

“635mg -- so Metzger, 717; but UBS gives ... 636mg”

As pointed out by Galiza, Metzger was 635 not 635mg

=====

Clearly this section from Elijah Hixson on 635 should be “updated” to reflect the history. There is no need for a pic, or to talk about the text of the ms. And the blame for the errors in the books, Bruce Metzger followed by Ian Howard Marshall, and possibly UBS-1, can be assigned.

Note:
The paper from Rodrigo Galiza has an error about the 1582 Douay-Rheims and later simply the Douay-Rheims not having the verse. Four references total.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The ETC blog and Elijah Hixson seems to be hiding the info about the Metzger and Marshall error on 635, so I placed it here:

Facebook - ETC - 1/22/2019

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

Then I put in another post in the blog queue to answer to Matthew B, who asked about John Gill and other early evidences here:

And I did not copy the post, but it was fairly short, using the John Gill paragraph about Stephanus on this forum, and then explaining about how the Lateran Council should be related to 629, and giving the dates for Manual Calecas and Joseph Bryennios. Also mentioning the 100+ commentaries in Latin.

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

The Elijah Hixson paper has numerous problems, one of the most absurd is his obsession with "RC provenance" (dreaded, he says in the Timothy Berg thread.) It is quite laughable. Taylor DeSoto and/or Jeffrey Riddle bring it up.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Elijah finally responded, lots of dancing, but still has done nothing:

Here is the post with the latest up-to-date info.
(I will remove the detail in the earlier posts that is above on this thread.)

Facebook

Elijah I found your response on ms. 635 perplexing.

However, rather than commenting, allow me to make sure you have the pertinent info in one spot, as I have been able to make some improvements:

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

MS 635
Here is what Elijah says about ms 635:

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

Elijah Hixson

"... I want to mention that sometimes an eleventh Greek manuscript is cited. GA 635 is sometimes cited as having the CJ in the margin … I’m happy to update the post if someone has a better image or can make more sense of it. …"


So let's make more sense of it! 🙂

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

This “635” and “635mg” errors can be seen in Bruce Metzger and likely UBS-1 (likely a typo) and then Ian Howard Marshall had a note. Let us first follow the Metzger history:

=====

Metzger in 1968, the second edition, p. 101, did not include 635 or 636
http://www26.us.archive.org/.../TheTextOfTheNewTestament2...

Metzger 1971, corrected 1975, p. 716-717
“and ms. 635, an eleventh century manuscript which has the passage written in the margin by a seventeenth century hand.”

David Robert Palmer quoting Metzger
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/FirstJohnCh5v7.pdf

Note that David is the only person I know who had the full ms. list properly before your paper.

Metzger-Ehrman 2005 (updated, no error)
https://books.google.com/books?id=lA4WAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA147

======

The question of 635 is described here by Rodriquo Galiza in 2018:

The Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7–8): The Status of Its Textual History and Theological Usage in English, Greek and Latin (2018)
Rodriquo Galiza and John W. Reeve
https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi...

Please note that “635mg” was apparently a typographical error in Metzger’s first edition (635, without mg) that in his later work (idem, 2nd ed., 1994) is corrected to “636v.r..

=======

Here we have the mention of UBS-1, which I have not confirmed.

Rick Henwood
“635mg XI cited by Metzger and UBS-1, but not N-A”

"The Attempts Throughout History to Corrupt and Counterfeit the Word of God”
http://lookingforthelosttruthsofjesus.org/.../THE...

=======

The Ian Howard Marshall text can be seen here:

(citing The Text of the New Testament, Metzger 1971, p. 717)
The Epistles of John (1978-published 1984 or later)
Ian Howard Marshall
https://books.google.com/books?id=gby-zhPba2AC&pg=PA236

“635mg -- so Metzger, 717; but UBS gives ... 636mg”

As pointed out by Rodrigo Galiza, Metzger was 635 not 635mg, so Marshall was partially right.

=====

Elijah Hixson
"happy to update the post if someone ... can make more sense of it"

Clearly this section from Elijah Hixson on 635 should have an update to reflect the history. There is no need for a pic, or to talk about the text and margin of the ms. And the errors in the books, Bruce Metzger followed by Ian Howard Marshall, and possibly UBS-1, can be noted.

Does this go against your idea of emphasizing the scholarship of some writers who defend the heavenly witnesses in their Reformation Bible?

=====

Note:
The paper from Rodrigo Galiza has an error about the 1582 Douay-Rheims and later simply the Douay-Rheims not having the verse. Four references total.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
We have a couple of new posts in 2021 that I have put through that cover important issues.

First One
Elijah, thanks for the note saying I use my name and stand by what I write.

Elijah Hixson
"See Ulrich Schmid's articles on reader's notes for examples of marginal notes that were not supposed to be brought into the main text."

Do you have the specific reference? Can you give some examples?

Remember, if Ulrich Schmid is presupposing the originality of the short Critical Text, his argument will tend to be circular. So specifics are needed.

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

Beyond that, there are incredible difficulties with the theory that heavenly witnesses was a Latin note that came into the text. To start, it is essentially more Johannine than John as in its usage of the Word, it develops a beautiful parallelism, it fixes a textual redundancy of v. 6 and 8, and, most incredibly, the supposedly interpolated Latin fixes the Greek grammar when translated over.

Whew! All that from a margin note from an unknown Clunk the Interpolator.

Also how did this take over the line so completely and so quickly? Look at the Council of Carthage. And how did it get in before Cyprian? Without his noticing?


Elijah Response

Elijah Hixson3/02/2021 10:37 pm
Steven,

Credit to whom credit is due.

Schmid, Ulrich. “Conceptualizing ‘Scribal’ Performances: Reader’s Notes.” In The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research, edited by Klaus Wachtel and Michael W. Holmes, 49–64. TCSt 8. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011.

Schmid, Ulrich. “Scribes and Variants – Sociology and Typology.” In Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Papers from the Fifth Birmingham Colloquium on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, edited by H. A. G. Houghton and D. C. Parker, 1–23. TS, Third Series 6. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008.

Since you are aware of circular reasoning, have you considered any circularity of your own arguments built on presupposing the originality of these words (e.g. 'how did it get in before Cyprian' when it has not been demonstrated that Cyprian was quoting this passage)?

It's also good to keep the intention of this post in mind as well. It's almost always impossible to cover every single detail of an issue, no matter how tiny. But, since textual criticism of the Greek New Testament is so often concerned with Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, I decided to focus on Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Obviously there are more things that could be considered, and readers of this blog probably all know that and know where to find them anyway.

Looking back though, I think this post had an effect, even if 'contras' claim bad things about it. I rarely see anyone appealing to Greek manuscripts for the originality of the Comma Johanneum anymore—the arguments made in its favor seem to have shifted to put a greater emphasis on grammar (though that it didn't seem to be a problem for the Greek copyists who produced the manuscripts that lack it) or to undermine the overall reliability of the New Testament text by claiming we don't have enough to go on here.




Second One

https://evangelicaltextualcriticism...MxXAWPlWoPhb7Yv1FIqu3aTE#c7383124969140300005

Hi Elijah,

The Ulrich Schmid papers:

Scribes and Variants
https://www.academia.edu/13313267/Scribes_and_Variants_Sociology_and_Typology

Conceptualizing Scribal Variants
https://www.academia.edu/13312981/Conceptualizing_Scribal_Performances_Readers_Notes

are fun, especially his shredding of the Ehrman non-methodology, in Scribes and Variants.

Schmid's Marcion page was very informative, albeit irrelevant to our discussion here.

Clearly there is a circularity problem, look at the section on the Mark ending in Conceptualizing. At least Schmid recognizes that scribal creation there would involve a rather "serious and conscious rewriting".

Overall, there is little to do with our heavenly witnesses verse, any attempted analogies are thin.

The closest consideration is theorizing how Matthew 27:49 got into Vaticanus and Ephraemi, and the theory that it might have been a margin note involving John 19:34 (without any hard textual evidence.) Reasonable speculation, but only speculation.

Plus Schmid goes into the Fee-Payne Corinthians interpolation theory (sans textual evidence) and Romans doxology variants. Hard to relate to our Johannine heavenly witnesses.

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

My Cyprian reference was deliberate, to allow you to counter-challenge on circularity. Since I believe that anyone who sincerely looks at his references, including Unity of the Church, will reach the same conclusion as Scrivener (contra) and Franz Pieper (pro-authenticity) .. the heavenly witnesses verse was in the Bible of Cyprian.

(Note to Lee Van Cliff above: my Bible position was sharply changed by this Cyprian heavenly witnesses discussion c. 20 years ago, when I was leaving critical text usage.)

Btw, I have been fighting the Greek manuscripts issue on the heavenly witnesses for a decade plus. The Drexler double-counting error as put in Michael Maynard's book, the Stephanus crochet misplacement, errors by David Martin, John Gill and especially George Travers. And the overall importance of only putting the extant mss as part of the restoration that began at the Lateran Council, not trying to paint them as ancient transmission.

On the other hand, there are few early Greek mss with 1 John so our church writer evidences are far more significant, in order to get a window into the 50 AD to 700 AD era.

Your paper was overall fine, and helpful. Makes it easier for me to place issues in balance with heavenly witnesses supporters who do not know well the history.

Except for some major lacks that I have indicated in other posts, such as not including the Latin and Greek in the Lateran Council, clearly a precursor to 629, Codex Ottobonianus. And your not including Joseph Bryennius and Emanuel Calecas, all before Erasmus. And the ms. 635 history, which I helped unravel above and really should be part of the paper, or at least any future editions.

Thanks!

Steven
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
David Robert Palmer - DRP
https://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/FirstJohnCh5v7.pdf

Here are their dates and contents, if they are Gregory numbers, according to the Kurzgefaßte Liste(Aland, Kurt, Editor; Kurzgefaßte Liste,Der Griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments; (Berlin & New York, de Gruyter, 1994). Then I resolve them to what the Gregory number would be if they are Tischendorf numbers.

88 - XII - contains the passage only in margin; Neapel, Bibl. Naz., Ms. II. A. 7; is Greg #88, Scriv # 173

110 - XII -What is now called #110 contains 1 John, but OMITS the comma; KJV advocates when they refer to MS 110, are referring to a Codex Ravianus, also called Codex Berolinensis, which has been proven to be a forgery, a copy made in the 1500’s, many parts from the Greek text of the Stunica printed Edition, reproducing every typographical error thereof, and other parts from the TR editions. See discussion re Georgius Gottlieb Pappelbaum’s examination of it in “The Monthly Review” Volume 22, January to April 1797, Pages 493-497; downloadable from my website at
http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/MonthlyReview.pdf. (PDF, 37 MB) Georgius Pappelbaum collated Codex Berolinensis, and published his collation in 1785. F.H.A. Scrivener, in "A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament," Vol 2, 4th Ed., Wipf & Stock Publishers, on
Page 401, calls Evan 110 (Codex Ravianus), "a mere worthless copy from printed books."

429 - XIV - contains the passage only in margin; Wolfenbiittel, Herzog August Bibliothek 16.7 A0; is Greg #

636 - XV - contains the passage only in margin by a corrector; Neapel, Bibl. Naz., Ms. II. A. 9; is Greg #636

918 - XVI - does contain 1 John and the disputed passage; Escorial, Z. I. 5; is Greg #918 below

According to the footnotes of the UBS4 Greek New Testament, and Text und Textwert Vol. 3, there are only 5 Greek mss that contain the passage in the text itself:

61 - XVI Century - Dublin, Trinity College, Ms. 30 (see 34 above)
629 - XIV Century - Vatican Library, Ottob, Gr. 298 (see 162 above)
918 - XVI Century - Escorial, Z. I. 5
2318 - XVIII Century - Bucharest, Romania. Akad., 318 (234).
2473 - XVII Century - Athens, National Library, Taphu 545

Greek mss that contain the comma in the margin:

88 - XII Century, but written in the margin by a modern hand; Naples, National Library, Ms. II. A. 7
177 - XVII - XVIII hand; Bayerische Staatsbibliothek (Bavarian State Library); Cod. graec, 211
221 - X Century; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Canon. Gr. 110. I suspect the margin writing is a modern hand.
429 - XIV Century; Wolfenbuttel, Herzog August Bibliothek 16,7 A0
636 - XV Century; Naples, National Library, Ms. II. A. 9

Following is a critical apparatus, gathered from Text und Textwert vol. 3; and the UBS4 Greek New Testament:

Omit (skip mss)
Lect it-ar vg-st,ww syr-p,h cop-sa, bo arm-mss eth geo slav
Clement-lat (Origen-lat) Cyril Dam Ps-Oec Ps-Dionysius-vid (John-Damascus); Rebaptism, Ambrose, Augustine Quodvultdeus Facundus
Erasmus Eds. 1,2 HF RP NA27 {A}

testimonium dicunt in caelo, pater, verbum (filius id vgmss) et spiritus, et hi tres unum sunt
(+ in Christo Iesu it-l,r vg-mss) it-l vg-mss; Speculum Varimadum Ps-Vigilius (Fulgentius) (Priscillian) (Cyprian)
SA Is it-l in there twice?

MORE TO BE ADDED -
And the APPARATUS IS GROSSLY DEFICIENT

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


Raising the Ghost of Arius

One of the issues discussed at the Fourth Lateran Council was a
rapprochement between the Roman and Byzantine churches; as part of this
process, the Acts of the Council were translated into Greek. The section in which
Joachim’s propositions are condemned is the first documented occurrence of the
comma in Greek.113

The first Greek bible to contain the comma was copied in 1362-1363 by a
certain brother Bartholomew of the monastery of St John on the Mount of Olives
(now Rome, BAV cod. Ottob. gr. 298, GA 629ap). Bartholomew gives the Greek
and Latin texts in parallel columns, accommodating the Greek in many unusual
ways to the Latin.116 Cardinal Basil Bessarion (c. 1403-1472) added the comma
in Latin to the margin of his bible (now Venice, Biblioteca Marciana ms. gr. Z. 10
(394) (GA 209), indicating that he was aware of the discrepancy between the
Latin and the Greek text: iv xw Tuxxivw- sicuti tres sunt qui testimonium dant in ccelo:
pater, verbum et spiritus sanctus.117 The next Greek manuscript containing the
comma can be dated securely to the first two decades of the sixteenth century;
this is the text used by Erasmus (Dublin, Trinity College ms gr. 30 = GA 6leapr), a
manuscript we will examine in considerable detail.

Another two sixteenth-century Greek manuscripts contain the comma in
the text, but both take their readings from printed editions: Madrid, Escorial ms
Z. I. 5. (GA 918apK+) gives the comma precisely as it occurs in Erasmus’ 1522
edition; while Berlin, Staatsbibliothek ms gr. fol. 1. 2 (Tischendorf to 110, “Codex
Ravianus”) is a transcript of the Complutensian edition, with some variants
introduced from the 1550 edition of Robert Estienne (Stephanus) the Elder.118
Athens, Ethnike Bibliotheke ms Taphu 545 (GA 2473a), copied in 1634, and
Bucharest, Bibl. Academiei Romane ms 318 [234] (GA 2318aplc+), copied in the
eighteenth century, both give the comma in the text, but this is simply because
both are copied from printed texts in the textus receptus tradition. None of these
four manuscripts therefore has any independent critical value.

In addition, five Greek manuscripts have the comma entered in the margin
more recently than the body text, but the readings of the comma in four are all
derived from sixteenth-century printed editions, and the fifth appears to be cited
from memory.119 Since almost all the Greek manuscripts lack verse 7, they
consequently also lack the phrase “on earth” in verse 8, since there is no need to
contrast the witness of the water, the Spirit and the blood with three witnesses in
heaven. There is therefore no trace of the comma in any Greek bible written
before the fourteenth century. When the comma is quoted in Greek, it is always
under the influence of the Latin Vulgate, or of printed editions such as the
Complutensian bible, Erasmus’ editions, or their descendant, the textus receptus.

113 The passage from the Greek translation of the Acta is given in Martin, 1717, 138; Martin,
1722, 170; Horne, 1821, 4:505; Seiler, 1835, 616: oxi xpel? dcriv oi papxupouvxe:; iv oupavw, o
Ttaxqp, koyog, Kai rrveupa ayiov, Kai xotixoi [sc. ouxoi] oi xpeu; sv eicriv. This reading resembles
that in Codex Montfortianus (except for the omission ofxw before oupavcp and the insertion of
the article o, which apparently does duty for all three persons) so closely that we might suspect
that the scribe of Montfortianus had consulted this document. There is a fifteenth-century
Greek ms of the Acta of the Lateran Council in the Bodleian Library, but it is one of the
Codices Barocciani, brought from Venice and given to the University in 1629 by Lord
Pembroke (Cod. Barocc. 71, 84-87); see Coxe, 1853,114.

116 See Capecelatro, 1893, 161, for a description. For a discussion of the comma in this
manuscript, see Westcott, 1892, 207; Westcott mistakenly gives the shelfmark as Cod. Vat.
Ottob. 162, an error arising from the fact that Scholz assigned this ms the numbers a162 and p200.
This manuscript has a unique reading of the comma, which strongly suggests that it is not an
original part of the Greek text: "Oxi xpd<; dcriv ol papxupouvxe? drib xou oupavou, xraxqp, koyo<;,
Kai Ttvcupa ayiov, Kai oi xpd$ d<; xo £v eicnv. Kai xpei? dcriv oi papxupouvx£? ari [Editio critica
maior gives arto] xfjs yrjq, xo rrveupa xo iSSwp Kai xo aipa. Ei xf|v papxupiav [...]. The reading
given by Brooke, 1912, 165, lacks ayiov after Ttveupa in verse 7. See the facsimile in Horne,
1854,4:217, and the transcriptions in Aland, Behnduhn-Mertz and Mink, 1987,1:165, and the
Editio critica maior IV.1.3:350 for confirmation.

117 Griesbach, 1810, 2:686.

118 Delitzsch, 1871,10-12; Wachtel, 1995,318-319.

119 The following readings are all later marginal additions in the margins of the respective
manuscripts: l) Naples Bibl. Naz., II. A. 7 (GA 88apr), a twelfth-century ms: oxi xpel^ dcriv oi
papxupouvxei; [add. in margine: tv xco oupavw, o rraxf|p, Kai o i\.oyo<;, Kai xo ayiov rrveupa, Kai
ouxoi oi xpdi; sv dm. Kai xpdi; dor oi papxupouvxei; iv xfj yfj] xo Trvsupa, Kai xo uSwp, Kai xo aipa,
Kai oi xpdi; d<; xo A dcriv. This reading is taken from the Beza-Estienne edition of 1590. 2)
Oxford, Bodleian Library ms Canonici gr. 110 (GA 221lp), a tenth-century ms: oxi xpd<; dcriv oi
papxupouvxei; ev xw oupavw, o mnr|p, oXoyoi;, Kai xo ayiov rrveupa, Kai ouxoi oi xpdi; ev dor. Kai
xpdi; dcriv oi papxupouvx£<; ev xfj yfj, xo 7rv£t>pa, Kai xo uSwp, Kai xo aipa, Kai oi xpd<; ei<; to iv
dcriv. This reading, taken verbatim from Estienne’s 1550 edition, was apparently made after
1854, when the catalogue of the Bodleian manuscripts remarked that the comma is not found
in this codex. 3) Wolfenbiittel, Herzog August Bibliothek cod. 16.7.4° (GA 429apr), ms of the
fourteenth (ap) and fifteenth (r) centuries: oxi xpdi; dcriv oi papxupouvx£<; ev xw oupavw, jtaxqp,
Aoyoi;, Kai rrvsupa ayiov, Kai ouxoi oi xpd? ev dm. Kai xpdi; dcriv oi papxupouvx£<; £v xfj yfj, xo
rrveupa, xo uSwp, Kai to alpa, Kai oi xpd<; d<; xo ev dcriv. The comma is taken verbatim from
Erasmus’ 1522 edition; the rest of verse 8 follows the reading in the body text of the ms
" — 1 —~ ~ —- — & - / ~
[ 1 /2B]. The fact that the person who entered the comma into the margin of this codex used
Erasmus’ edition is evident from three other marginal annotations which remark that Erasmus’
Latin renderings depart from those ordinarily found in the Vulgate: 176v (ljn 2:18):
“yeyovacnv: coeperunt esse Eras.”; 178v (ljn 4:18): “KO/Vacriv: cruciatum Eras.”; 170r (2 Pt
1:15): “pexa xf)v spfpi e^oSov: post exitum meum Eras.” 4) Naples, Bib. Naz. ms II. A, 9 (GA
636ap), a fifteenth-century ms: oxi xpeu; dcriv ol papxupotivxec; ev xw oupavw, 7raxr|p, Aoyoi;, Kai
rrveupa ayiov, Kai oi xpd<; ev eiou Kai xpeic; eiaiv oi papxupouvxec; ev xfj yfj, xo rrveupa, Kai xo iSSwp,
Kai xo aipa, Kai oi xpei^ d<; xo ev eicriv. The comma is taken from Erasmus’ 1522 text, though
omitting ouxoi before oi, possibly by haplography, or perhaps on the strength of the
Complutensian reading; the rest of verse 8 follows the reading in the body text of the ms [1/2].
This is precisely the procedure followed in GA 429; clearly these annotators wanted to change
as little of the text in the manuscripts before them as possible. The fact that all these readings of
the comma are taken from printed editions discounts their status as independent attestations.
Aland, Behnduhn-Mertz and Mink, 1987, 1:165-166; Metzger, 1994, 647-649; Wachtel, 1995,
318-320, identifies the sources of the readings in each of these manuscripts with great acuity.
On 7 February 2010, Daniel Wallace published online his discovery of a fifth Greek codex with
the comma recorded in the margin: the eleventh-century codex Munich, Bayerische
Staatsbibliothek Cod. graec. 211 (GA 177apr). The comma is added in the upper margin.
Wallace dates the addition to the seventeenth or eighteenth century; in any case it clearly
postdates the publication of Estienne’s 1551 edition, since it specifies that the comma is found
in verse 7. The text of the addition (oxi xpdi; dcriv oi papxupotivxsc; ev oupavw [sic], nair\p,
Aoyoc;, Kai nveupa ayiov, Kai oi xpdi; d<; xo ev eicri) corresponds closely, but not perfectly, to that
in Erasmus’ third edition, and may have been made from memory. Wallace suggests that the
addition was not noted by the Munster Institut because of the faintness of the ink, which may
not have shown up on the microfilm. See http://www.csntm.org/tcnotes/archive/
TheCommaJohanneumlnAnOverlooked Manuscript, accessed 17July 2010.



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

18 http://ww.biblefortoday.org/articIes/metzger.litm, accessed 5 March 2010. Khoo defends the comma here (http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/johannine.htm, accessed 10 March 2010), employing half-truths such as the following: “The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636).” Although all these manuscripts date from before the sixteenth century, the comma occurs as part of the body text only in 629. In all the others the comma has been added in the margin from printed editions at some time since the appearance of Erasmus’ third edition of the Greek text; see chapter 1.7 above for further details. Even less accurate are the claims made by Timothy W. Dunkin (http://www.
studytoanswer.net/bibleversions/ljohn5n7.html, accessed 6 March 2010: “Metzger and the
UBS have slighted [sic] the actual number of Greek manuscripts which contain the verse. In
addition to the ones listed above, D. A. Waite is reported to have identified manuscripts #634
and Omega 110 as containing the Comma, and Holland notes that the Comma appears in the
margin of #635. Additionally, Waite also identifies at least ten other manuscripts as possibly
containing the Comma, though this is currently unconfirmed. Most interesting of all is the
appearance of this verse in the text of an 8th-century manuscript, Codex Wizanburgensis, as
reported by Dabney. Finally, there are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts
usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries
#60 and #173).”

It is to be applauded when professional critics intervene to correct such errors,
such as Jan Krans’ explanation in an online bulletin-board that the eighth-century “Codex
Wizanburgensis,” cited by defenders of the comma as evidence of a conspiracy to conceal early
Greek manuscripts containing the comma, is actually the Latin manuscript Wolfenbiittel, HAJB
cod. Guelf. 99 Weissenburgensis; see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/textualcriticism/message/3976. The strange orthography of
the name of this Codex goes back to Lachmann.

19 http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/resource/wallace.htm, accessed 7 August 2010.


p. 302
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
DRP


UNIMPORTANT - ONLY TO COUNTER MISTAKEN DOUBLE-COUNTS

34 - X century, contains only gospels; Paris, Bibl. Nat., Coislin Gr. 199; is Tisch. #34, so is Greg #61 below

99 - XV-XVI century - contains only parts of the gospels; Leipzig, Univ. Bibl., Cod. Gr. 8; if Tisch # is Greg 102 for Catholic epistles; date 1444, Moscow, and 102 contains 1 John but OMITS the comma.

105 - XII - contains only gospels, Acts, and Paulines; Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Auct. T. inf. 1.10; if Tisch # is Greg 242 for Catholic epistles; XII, Moscow; Scrivener #48; von Soden 5206; and I have no definite information whether it contains 1 John at all. Try Matthaei (as I); Treu pp. 258-60; von Soden 138, 401,450, 524.

162 - 1153 - contains only the gospels; Vatican City, Bibl. Vat,, Barb. Gr. 449; BUT, is Tisch. #, is Greg 629 below

173 - XII - contains only the gospels; Vatican City, Bibl. Vat„ Barb. Gr. 1983; if Tisch. #, is Greg 635, XI, Naples; and 635 contains 1 John, but OMITS the comma.

181 - X -contains 1 John, but OMITS the comma; Vatican City, Bibl. Vat,, Reg. gr. 179; if Tisch. #, is Greg 400, XV, Berlin, and 400 contains 1 John but OMITS the comma.

190 - XIII - contains only gospels; Florenz, Bibl. Medicea Laura, Plutei VI. 28; if Tisch. #, Greg 517, Xl/XII, Oxford, and 517 contains 1 John but OMITS the comma.

193 - XII - contains only gospels; Florenz, Bibl. Medicea Laura, Plutei VI. 32; if Tisch. #, Greg 479, XIII, Birmingham, and 479 contains 1 John but OMITS the comma.

219 - XIII - contains only gospels; Wien, Osterr. Nat. Bibl,, Theol, gr. 321; if Tisch. #, Greg 643, XIV, Brit Libr; and 643 contains 1 John but OMITS the comma.

220 - XIII - contains only gospels; Wien, Osterr. Nat. Bibl,, Theol. gr. 337; if Tisch. #, Greg 644, XIV, Brit Libr; and 644 contains 1 John, but has a lacuna here.

221 - X -contains 1 John but OMITS the comma; Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Canon. Gr. 110; this is Greg #221, X, Oxford, and 221 OMITS the comma as stated previously.

298 - XII - contains only gospels; Paris, Bibl. Nat., Suppl. Gr. 175; if Tich. #, Greg formerly 1249 which contains 1 John but OMITS the comma; now Lectionaiy 1436, XV, St. Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai]

635 - XI -contains 1 John but OMITS the comma; Neapel, Bibl. Naz., Ms. II. A. 8; ; is Greg #635, but see 173 above
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The latest from Elijah Hixson, his normal somewhat tedious style.
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism....howComment=1614956920744#c4483766841232191681

the comedian Bill Brown thinks this is some incredible riposte
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bib...he-authenticity-of-1-john-5-7-t6020-s370.html

Steven,

Thanks for this. Two comments:

1. Simply declaring something (e.g. "any attempted analogies are thin") doesn't automatically make it so. I am reminded of the episode of The Office when Michael Scott 'declares' bankruptcy.

2. Unfortunately, I can't give you credit for helping to unravel the problem with 635 because your conclusion is not necessarily correct—it is not complete. Yes, it is a typo in the 1st edition of Metzger's Textual Commentary and corrected in his 2nd edition, but (as far as you let us know here), you did not attempt to identify the source of the error to see if Metzger was the one who made the mistake or if he simply copied the mistake from someone else who made it prior to his Textual Commentary. And that is the case with the Galiza/Reeve article to which you linked as well (in fact, they seem to have mistaken Metzger's Textual Commentary with his book Text of the New Testament when identifying the source of error—in footnote 37, in the first paragraph they claim that Marshall's source for 635mg was the Textual Commentary, but in the second paragraph, they claim it was his Text of the New Testament). However, in The UBS3 (1975, the same year as the corrected edition of Metzger's 1st edition of the Textual Commentary, which ironically does not correct this typo) does not make that mistake. However, the apparatus of the UBS2 (1968—three years before Metzger's Textual Commentary, 1st ed. was first published in its 1971 uncorrected ed.) does list 635mg there. This demonstrates that "635mg" was being cited for the CJ in a critical apparatus three years before Metzger's Textual Commentary was published. Additionally, as you mention, Metzger's own Text of the New Testament, also published in 1968, does not mention 635mg.

Unfortunately, I don't currently have access to the UBS1 (1966) to see if 635mg is listed in its apparatus (though I expect to have one within a week).

And admittedly, Metzger was on the UBS Committee, so it's still possible that he was responsible for the typo, but because the UBS edition was the work of the committee, we cannot prove that the error was Metzger's, and since Metzger didn't give the passage a full discussion in his 1968 2nd ed. of Text of the New Testament, it's difficult to call it "Metzger's typo" though impossible from the sources I checked to exclude that possibility.

In order to identify the source of an error, we must make a good effort to identify the earliest instance of it. We can't just find a single early instance of the error, conclude that it is the source and move on. At the end of the day, the 635mg typo was already in the UBS2 a few years before Metzger had it in his Textual Commentary.

As far as an update to reflect this history, if I were to publish it, I would probably include a note if I left the part about 635 in (but I would still need to check the UBS1, etc. to try to identify the source). If I mention that Metzger's perpetuation fo the typo likely influenced others to make the mistake, do you think I should also mention TR/KJV defenders who too have made the mistake, thus leading other TR/KJV defenders to perpetuate the error (e.g. Holland, Pappas, Kinney)?

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

Hi Elijah,

Lets take some substantive additions first.

Along with Grantley, and your paper, the other deep-dive English writing (not on your reference list):

1 John
Supplement on the "Comma"
David Robert Palmer

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

While your article emphasizes the Latinization issue of

1) article lack,

Along the same line the following two textual issues point to Latin sources:

2. no "three are/agree in one" in the earthly witnesses (Lateran Council, Bryennius, Complutensian)

3. Christ is truth in v. 6
matt13weedhacker

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

On the heavenly witnesses defender side, you mention Thomas Holland, Will Kinney and Chris H. Pappas. So I checked .. all are basically correct in the ms. identification of the five margin mss and five in text mss. Granted, they do not deep dive, and Holland's material goes way back. And I mention this in case you were implying that they have the basic ms. information wrong.

Clearly, I believe it is very helpful if the defender understands and explains the restoration of the heavenly witnesses in the period from the Lateran Council to the Reformation Bible. (A lack also in your writing, and most those contra authenticity.)

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

Steven Avery on Ulrich Schmid
1. "any attempted analogies are thin"
This was not "simply declaring something", this was after a careful review of the two Schmid papers.
The burden of evidence is on you:
Elijah Hixson
"See Ulrich Schmid's articles on reader's notes for examples of marginal notes that were not supposed to be brought into the main text."
What examples? Matthew 27:49 ??
Do you have even one that is not ultra-thin.?
You made the claim, you should give an example (or a retraction of the claim.)

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

Euthymius from BVDB
... , Metzger's first edition of his Textual Commentary appeared in print in 1975 due to typesetting problems. The full manuscript of the commentary actually was ready before, with intended publication in 1971 (this from a printed note insert from the UBS in my copy of the first edition). And yes, the UBS first edition erroneously lists 635mg in support of the Comma.

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

On 635 please try to write better.
As I did not claim any definite "Metzger typo" and I do not request your recognition. I just suggested that you should improve your paper, especially in a new edition. This condescending absurdity about recognition if every T is crossed and I dotted is tacky. My interest is the actual scholarship being presented to the readers fairly and strongly.
Here is what I actually wrote, quite accurately.
"This “635mg” likely traces to a Bruce Metzger and UBS-1 error (likely a typo) and then Ian Howard Marshall had a note."

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

btw, you should remove all that RCC provenance nonsense in any future edition.
As also pointed out by Jeffrey Riddle.

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

Steven


And I carefully went through the Schmid paper, and showed that they did not really relate to the dynamic of the heavenly witnesses. The burden of proof is on you. You do not really think there is a Matthew 27:49 analogy. Please give the examples!
Where does Schmid give any examples?
Especially any that might be similar to your claim on the heavenly witnesses?

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

" 2. Unfortunately, I can't give you credit for helping to unravel the problem with 635 because your conclusion is not necessarily correct—it is not complete. "

Somewhat snarky.
Elijah Hixson, here is the accurate quote I gave, with lots of background analysis:


And I never called it a "Metzger typo" and my analysis stands very strong. And I never claimed it was complete. If you can get more information, fine, but that is no reason to try to diss the labours that gave so much information above.



Plus wild reactive drivel from Bill Brown.

==


btw, I consider this one of the most productive two-sided discussions on the heavenly witnesses on the net! Kudos now to the mods.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Grantley RGA p. 66 -
matching on margin note mss

1615092984899.png

1615093049840.png
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Elijah,

Lets take some substantive additions first.

Along with Grantley, and your paper, the other deep-dive English writing (not on your reference list):

1 John
Supplement on the "Comma"
David Robert Palmer

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

While your article emphasizes the Latinization issue of:

1) article lack,

Along the same line the following two textual issues point to Latin sources:

2. no "three are/agree in one" in the earthly witnesses, as in the Lateran Council, Bryennius, Complutensian

3. Christ is truth in v. 6
matt13weedhacker

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

Euthymius from BVDB

... Metzger's first edition of his Textual Commentary appeared in print in 1975 due to typesetting problems. The full manuscript of the commentary actually was ready before, with intended publication in 1971 (this from a printed note insert from the UBS in my copy of the first edition). And yes, the UBS first edition erroneously lists 635mg in support of the Comma.

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

Steven Avery on Ulrich Schmid

1. "any attempted analogies are thin"

This was not "simply declaring something", this was after a careful review of the two Schmid papers.

The burden of evidence is on you:
Elijah Hixson
"See Ulrich Schmid's articles on reader's notes for examples of marginal notes that were not supposed to be brought into the main text."

What examples? Matthew 27:49 ??
Do you have even one that is not ultra-thin.?
You made the claim, you should give examples.

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

On 635 please try to write better.
As I did not claim any definite "Metzger typo" and I do not request your recognition. I just suggested that you should improve your paper, especially in a new edition.

This absurdity about recognition if every T is crossed and I dotted is a bit tacky. My interest is the actual scholarship being presented to the readers fairly and strongly.

Here is what I actually wrote, quite accurately.

"This “635mg” likely traces to a Bruce Metzger and UBS-1 error (likely a typo) and then Ian Howard Marshall had a note."

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

btw, suggestions
You should remove all that RCC provenance stuff in any future edition. As also pointed out by Jeffrey Riddle. And you should add the Lateran Council and Joseph Bryennius, at least.

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

Overall one of the most informative and educational threads.

Steven Avery
 
Top