Johannine Comma and James White

From Textus Receptus

On pp. 60-2 of his book The King James Only Controversy 1995 edition, James White does not mention any of the patristic testimonies; instead, he makes the following amazing statements:

. . . If indeed the Comma was a part of the original writing of the apostle John, we are forced to conclude that entire passages, rich in theological meaning, can disappear from the Greek manuscript tradition without leaving a single trace. In reality, the KJV Only advocate is arguing for a radical viewpoint on the New Testament text, a viewpoint that utterly denies the very tenacity that we discussed in chapter 3. Even "liberal" scholars will admit the outstanding purity of the NT text and the validity of the belief in the tenacity of that text . . . . ^{(p. 62;)}

But clearly we can see the traces of the Comma, even as early as the 3rd century in the church fathers. But because White already knows this, he restricts evidence for the witness in this passage to "the Greek manuscript tradition," glossing over the fact that we have a reading at 1 John 5:7 attested to by Cyprian in the third century, and many other witnesses. That some of these variants are the result of deliberate alterations is evident from certain citations of the church fathers (especially Tertullian, who went so far as to say that the Marcionites "are daily retouching their work, as daily they are convicted by us" [Against Marcion, Book IV, ch. 5]). Given that the "Comma," whether or not it is authentic, is the clearest notice in the New Testament of the Oneness of the Three Persons of the Trinity, it would not be hard to envision a scenario in which this passage was authentic but was removed by those who disbelieved in the Trinity.

White considers this a "radical viewpoint" on this verse, but it was clearly embraced by the translators of the reformation period. For, although Tyndale had placed the debated passage in italics and parentheses, both Geneva and the KJV offer not a shred of doubt in their presentations of this passage (either in the main text or the margin) that it was in the original manuscript of the apostle John. In doing so, one surmises that they felt that, in the words of Thomas Scott, it was:

. . . somewhat more likely that the Arians or Anti-Trinitarians [in the early church] should silently omit in their copies a testimony which was so decisive against them, or that it should be left out by the mistake of some ancient transcriber, than that the Trinitarians should directly forge and insert it. The Trinitarian, in fact, would be deprived only of one argument out of very many, with which he might attempt the conviction of his opponent, if this text were wholly regarded as spurious; for his doctrine is supported by other Scriptures: but if this testimony were admitted as the unerring word of GOD; all the ingenuity and diligence of opponents, would scarcely suffice to explain it away, or to avoid the inference, which must naturally be drawn from it.

In other words, the Geneva and KJV men presumably felt that such an omission was made to grind a "doctrinal axe" in the early days of the church, and that the original text read with the passage included. In fact, John Wesley accused the Roman Emperor Julian ("the Apostate") of "erasing this text out of as many copies as fell into his hands" in order to promote Arianism (Sermon 55, "On the Trinity"). Whatever we may think of Wesley's identification of the culprit, a clear motive for the "erasing this text" appears from Scott's remarks above.

James White made this claim in 2006:

"[W]hile I disagree with Byzantine priority, etc., at least that position can put together some form of defense of its position. But I draw the line with the Comma. Anyone who defends the insertion of the Comma is, to me, outside the realm of meaningful scholarship... This brand of TR Onlyism/KJV Onlyism is defenseless apologetically..." ^[1]

In this statement, White is saying that John Calvin, Theodore Beza, the Westminster Assembly, Francis Turretin, Matthew Poole, the 1689 Baptist Assembly, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, Robert L. Dabney, and Edward F. Hills are all to be considered "outside the realm of meaningful scholarship."

Johannine Comma and James White

From Textus Receptus

References

External links

Views

Personal tools

Navigation

Search

Toolbox