[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

the Vaudois valley in northern Italy. The Waldensian Church has been dated back to
about A.D. 120. Their Old Itala Bible dates back to the early second century. The
Waldensians were severely persecuted by the Roman Catholic Church between the fourth
and thirteenth centuries. As Jack Moorman argues,  Research into the text and history of
the Waldensian Bible has shown that it is a literal descendant of the Old Itala. In other
words, the Itala has come down to us in Waldensian form, and firmly supports the
Traditional Text. 158 Gail Riplinger, goes on to promulgate,  It [the Waldensian Bible]
was a translation of the true text into the rather rude Low Latin of the second century . . .
the Bible of the Waldensians was used to carry the true text throughout Europe. 159 The
translators of the AV 1611 King James Bible had four Waldensian Bibles on the table as
they translated.160 All four contained the Johannine Comma as contained in the Textus
Receptus. Fuller argues:
This later edition of the Received Text [the Textus Receptus] is in reality a Greek New Testament
brought out under Waldensian influence. Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation --
German, French, and English--were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New
Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it
157
Maynard, 62.
158
Jack Moorman, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. (Collingswood, NJ: Bible for Today,
n.d.), 29.
159
Gail Riplinger, Which Bible is God s Word (Ararat, VA: AV Publications, 1995), 53.
160
Benjamin Wilkinson,  Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, in Which Bible? Ed. by David Otis Fuller
(Grand Rapids, MI: Grand Rapids International Publications, 1975), 212.
Corruption Unveiled 66
matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the
apostles [emphasis mine].161
In relation to the Old Latin, Waldensians, and the Johannine Comma, it is only
appropriate to summarize a rather lengthy discourse by Frederick Nolan. In Integrity of
the Greek Vulgate, he argues that the Old Latin derived its name from the Italick Church
(distinguished from Roman Catholic). The principal copies of this version have been
preserved in that diocese, the metropolitan church of which was situated at Milan.
Remains of the primitive Old Latin version can be found in the early translations made by
the Waldensians, who were the lineal descendants of the Italick church. They asserted
their independence against the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and consequently,
enjoyed the free use of the Scriptures. All of this provided Nolan  with abundant proof
on that point to which his inquiry was chiefly directed; as it has supplied him with the
unequivocal testimony of a truly apostolical branch of the primitive church, that the
celebrated text of the heavenly witnesses was adopted in the version which prevailed in
the Latin Church, previously to the introduction of the modern Vulgate. 162
The Old Latin was translated in the second century, but from what? Seeing as the
New Testament was originally written in Greek, the translators had to have copies of
Greek papyri not too far descended from the original autographs. It is interesting to note
every single one of the papyrus manuscripts are silent with regards to I John 5:7-8. The
passage has been lost from every one of them. There is no way to know if they contained
the Comma, but the translators of the Old Latin had to get it from somewhere.163 Studies
show that the principal papyrus manuscripts used by modern textual critics as allies of the
161
David Otis Fuller, Which Bible?, 210.
162
Frederick Nolan, Integrity of the Greek Vulgate (n.p., 1815), xvii-xviii.
163
For a complete listing of Old Latin manuscripts which contain the Comma, one should consult
Michael Maynard s A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8 (332-348).
Corruption Unveiled 67
minority text of Aleph and B (P45, P66, and P75 in particular) agree with the Textus
Receptus to a greater extent. Together, these three papyri agree with the TR in 20 places
as opposed to 18 places with B and 4 places with Aleph.164 It is conceivable that these
manuscripts once contained the Comma. Besides, Maynard shows that at least 6000 Old
Latin manuscripts have been neglected and consequently remained unexamined. It is
very probable that many of these also contain the Comma.165
Metzger s presentation of the evidence from the Latin Vulgate is misleading.
The next statement that Metzger makes is that the Johannine Comma is not found in
the earliest form of the Vulgate as issued by Jerome.166 True, it does not appear in Codex
Fuldensis (A.D. 546), one of the oldest extant Vulgate manuscripts, but Jerome, the
author of the Vulgate, died a little over a century before this codex was copied. How can
Metzger legitimately argue that this codex is the exact text that came from Jerome? In
fact, Jerome himself, in the fourth century, claimed that irresponsible transcribers left out
I John 5:7-8 in the Greek codices.167 If they were cutting it out in the Greek manuscripts,
what would stop them from doing it in the Latin Vulgate manuscripts? Seeing as Jerome
views such an omission as irresponsible, it is only logical to believe that he included it in
his translation. Later, it was cut out as is evidenced by Codex Fuldensis, but reappears
again in well-known Vulgate manuscripts such as Ulmensis (ca. 850) and Toletanus
(988).
As has been adduced, Bruce Metzger s external evidence for the omission of I John
5:7-8 in the UBS4 is extremely misleading and deceptive in almost every point. This
164
Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, 482.
165
Maynard, 343-348.
166
Metzger, Textual Commentary of the New Testament, 648.
167
Jerome, The Canonical Epistles. Translated by Michael Maynard in A History of the Debate Over 1
John 5:7-8 (Tempe, AZ: Comma Publications, 1995), 41.
Corruption Unveiled 68
being the case, one is forced to wonder how much more deception underlines the UBS
text. Besides what has been mentioned in this excursus, there is a lot more evidence for
the authenticity of I John 5:7-8 as retained in the Textus Receptus of the AV 1611 King
James Bible, although the UBS s misrepresentation of information is enough proof for
anyone. One should not be so hasty to dismiss it as Metzger and the UBS editors are.
For a far more extensive discussion on the Johannine Comma, one should consult
Michael Maynard s astounding work, A History of the Debate Over 1 John 5:7-8.
If I John 5:7-8 is genuine, why is it missing from so many Greek manuscripts? Better
yet, does its absence constitute disproof? No, it does not, for no modern textual critic
argues that a majority of manuscripts is the sole sufficient proof. In fact, there are
readings accepted in the UBS4 that are accepted on far less evidence than that of I John
5:7-8 (cf. Matthew 1:19; II Corinthians 5:3; James 4:14). Even Aland admits that the true
text can hypothetically exist in one manuscript.168 The majority, however, is not as
extensive as most people think. Oftentimes, the statement is made to the effect that there
are only four Greek manuscripts out of 5000 that contain the text of the Comma.169 Such
a statement implies that 5000 manuscripts contain I John 5. This is most definitely not
the case, for less than 525 even contain this chapter. Of these, only 496 are hostile to the
Comma. This is quite a significant difference from 5000. Of those 498 manuscripts, only
14 of them predate the ninth century.170 These same scholars that reject the Comma
criticize the Textus Receptus for following so-called  late manuscripts when they use
168
Aland and Aland, 281.
169
Stewart Custer made such claim in The Truth About the King James Version Controversy.
(Greenville, SC: BJU University Press, 1981). He, however, argued that only 2 manuscripts contained the
Comma out of 5000. Similar claims have been made in the classrooms of many colleges and universities [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]