[Steven Avery]

Hi Folks,

Originally Posted by MC1171611

any "Bible" that doesn't have it or throws doubt upon it is a perversion without equivocation.

My language on the pre-Geneva & Bishops English Bibles would be softer . Simply that their qualification was errant, wrong, and then corrected in the Geneva and King James Bible.

Originally Posted by MC1171611

I just thought that since it was a minority clause at the time, it might have been placed in italics,

Remember the quintessential Greek minority clause is Acts 8:37, never, afaik, placed in italics in the pure English Bible line. So the issue is not really "minority" (that would more likely be a margin note, if anything). However if preservation was almost entirely in the Latin line italics might be possible, but not mandated, and in fact the Johannine Comma preservation was primarily Latin. So overall you would have to do a bit of an italics study. Clearly the King James Bible translators correctly did not think either special print or a margin note about manuscripts was warranted.

Originally Posted by MC1171611

but from what I remember, they pulled it from the Vulgate (forgive me if I'm off here again ) so there was an explanation for its inclusion. Again, sorry for the confusion.

The King James Bible translators were principally following the Greek Received Text manuscripts of Beza and Stephanus, which had the Johannine Comma fully included. The claim might be made that Erasmus "pulled it from the Vulgate and Old Latin" but that would have all sorts of nuances in analysis as to the actual words in the text, something that Michael Maynard addresses.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

There is a lot of history and evidence behind the inclusion of this verse.

We hope to make a lot more clearly available in the near future, including my fav, more about the history of the Vulgate Prologue to the Canonical Epistles, one of the more fascinating evidences. You can learn a ton about Bible history simply by researching the Johannine Comma.

One of the ironies you will find is that the Reformation textual giants (including Erasmus, Stephanus and Beza) had a lot more respect for Latin writers and sources (early church writers, confessions, the Speculum, the Old Latin and the Vulgate) than comes forth today. Both from TR/KJB attackers and even from many KJB defenders. Even while holding the Greek as the fountainhead they were well aware that some deficiencies, especially omissions, had occurred within the Greek line. Their work was a beautiful synthesis of God's Scriptural sources brought into the pure Reformation Bible, which itself was purified throughout the early 1500's by men of great skill and insight.

Personally I do not think you can have a full-orbed exposition of King James Bible history without learning and teaching about the Reformation Bible. From that standpoint you begin to understand the victory over the Vulgate, which had a number of Latin errors and corruptions partially inspired by the wrong decisions made in 380 AD, and also the counter-reformation efforts to try to deceive with the far more corrupt alexandrian text in the late 1800s. This modern version text is so deficient and corrupt (even more so in its Greek sources than the smoothed-over English available) that it makes the Vulgate shine by comparison ! Thus it helps the King James Bible defender to seek a fuller view than simply "2 lines" and really try to understand the beautiful and powerful and accurate scholarship brought forth in the Reformation. Amazing stuff.

Shalom,
Steven Avery