One hears
much criticism of the attitudes of those holding to a KJV-only
position, and the attitude of some of us isn't proper in some cases.
However, a worse attitude of the critics of our position is common,
and they call us "ignoramuses" or other such names, which
reveals their ignorance & non-Christian attitudes. The
unscholarly and uncivil aspects of such attacks are illustrated in a
few cases below; then we concentrate on the aspect of inaccurate
scholarship in various attacks by internet commentators.
A
rancor against those who hold a KJV-only position is illustrated in
regard to my own essay on the authenticity of the Johannine Comma. An
internet critic calling himself Maestroh
claims to have shredded the validity of my claim of the authenticity,
but the only thing he shreds is his credibility as a judge of textual
matters. He lacks objectivity in his support of the humanism of
modern scholarship, and he doesn't seem to realize he is supporting
scholarship that presents itself as the hope of mankind for recovery
of a supposedly-lost or scattered scripture text. Such "scholarship"
ignores God's power to preserve His Word for His people. Our Savior
taught us the preservation principle in saying, "Man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of God." (Mt.4:4) Every word from God is inerrant,
and if we are to live by all of them, they must all be preserved for
us, in an inerrant form, in our language and free from tinkering of
men. A logical result of God's preservation of
His true Word for all His people throughout the centuries is
confinement of it to traditional texts, which in the case of the
English language justifies a KJV- only position and a similar
position for authorized translations in other languages of
God's people.
The
Lower end of the Spectrum of Criticism of the KJV-Only
position
Maestroh's comments
illustrate that people who just parrot the commentary of today's
indoctrinated scholars, have no business at all criticizing the
outstanding scholarship of the KJV translators.
Maestroh's
internet site: forum.carm.org - Shredding Another Pro-Comma
Site
Maestroh says:
At another KJV Only site
(http://www.kjvtextualtechnology.com/a--1-john-5--authenticity-of-the-johannine-comma.php) (aren't there enough of
those), a guy who goes by the name of "Dr L Bednar" gives
us a recapitulation of the entire pro-Comma charade:
(He
immediately sets a tone of derision, in lieu of objectivity, which
tells you to expect a lack of Christian civility and objectivity in
his commentary)
What appears below is published comment of
mine in the Comma essay, followed by Maestroh's response, which in
turn is followed by my response to Maestroh.
1.
The Johannine Comma is a highly discredited Received-Text passage,
due to minor manuscript support,
This is almost the only TRUE
thing said in this argument.
Maestroh begins with uncivil bias
& judgmentalism, and he deals only with the brief essay
introduction, not commenting on ~95% of the essay that is at the
heart of all the technical internal evidence for authenticity.
2.
but overwhelming textual proof establishes its authenticity.
So
"minor manuscript support" and "overwhelming textual
proof" are now considered synonyms. <Removed the comparison because who really
cares?
That's just Maestroh's interpretation. They are not
considered synonyms, the whole point being that internal evidence can
trump external manuscript evidence, a point that Maestroh might
understand better if he explored the internal evidence
presented in the bulk of the essay. Further, he doesn't explain what he's talking about specifically in regard to removing a
comparison, but continues to display a basic poor attitude and a lack
of objectivity.
3.
The Comma is in just ten 10th-18th century Greek manuscripts, in the
margins of some.
Why do I suspect that if any pro-Hort writer
said this that we'd get the usual fluff about "Metzger misleads
his audience?" "In the margins of some" actually means
"in the margins of MOST of these ten."
Why does
Maestro employ a distraction here? Is he just trying to get past the
fact that the Westcott/Hort type of text often offers nothing but 2
or 3 manuscripts supporting a critical text reading, making the 10
manuscripts supporting the Johannine Comma look relatively good in
terms of external evidence. He could be accused of dishonesty here,
which is what he accuses me of in the item #5 below. Regarding
margin readings, there are 5 of these, as I pointed out in
the body of the essay, and 5 out of 10 isn't most,
indicating he didn't bother to read the bulk of the essay, and is not
qualified to criticize it His attitude in regard to the
presence of the Comma in margins indicates he views this as evidence
of a lack of authenticity, but it can just as easily be a part of a
process of restoration of an authentic reading. Evidently, he just
can't admit this is a possibility, or it never occurred to
him.
4. It’s
said Erasmus adopted it on the basis of a falsified Greek manuscript,
which is mere speculation.
No, that's actually true as
well.
Maestroh ignores, or is unaware of, more recent evidence
revealing that the falsified-manuscript theory has been refuted by an
expert on textual matters of Erasmus. The scholar B. Metzger,
who invented this theory, has admitted that he had no hard facts to
support his position. Enclosed below is an excerpt from one of the
various sources that comment on this matter
(av1611.com/kjbp/faq/holland_1jo5_7.html)
"The first and second editions of Erasmus' Greek text did not contain the Comma. It is generally reported that Erasmus promised to include the Comma in his third edition if a single manuscript containing the Comma could be produced. A Franciscan friar, Froy, (or Roy) forged a Greek text containing it by translating the Comma from the Latin into Greek. Erasmus was then presented with this falsified manuscript and, being faithful to his word, reluctantly included the Comma in the 1522 edition. However, as has now been admitted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, this story is apocryphal (The Text Of The New Testament, 291). Metzger notes that H. J. de Jonge, a respected specialist on Erasmus, established that there is no evidence of such events occurring. Therefore, opponents of the Comma in light of the historical facts should no longer affirm this report."
5.
Latin texts notably support the Comma,
Actually, he means
Latin MANUSCRIPTS, not TEXTS, but since when are KJVOs honest?
I explained what I was referring to with the term texts in the very same sentence in which texts appears, yet Maestroh refers to this as dishonesty, and one wonders, not only about his objectivity, but also his grasp of English language. This latter aspect of his criticism is indicated in that he doesn't seem to realize that texts is a correct term to use when referring collectively to manuscripts (that each present a text) plus notes, as seen below in item 6. Does he think notes are better classified as manuscripts?
6.
the oldest extant being 5th-8th century Old Latin manuscripts &
3rd–4th century notes.
Which 5th and 6th century OL
manuscripts contain it? He doesn't list any.
The point was
simply to show that Old Latin manuscript support, while ancient, does
not extend all the way back. The references from which this
information was taken are listed in the website essay for anyone to
check on, but Maestroh neglects to mention the references. He could
be accused of dishonesty in this matter.
7.
Priscillian quoted it ~385 A.D, Cyprian in 250 A.D. said the Father,
the Son and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one (Word is Son),
and Tertullian in 215 A.D. said of the Father, Son and Comforter,
which three are one essence, which is a reference to the Comma.
Two of
these three are wrong. Neither Cyprian nor Tertullian QUOTES the
Comma. Priscillian does then adds a phrase that even the KJVOs
reject, proof if any were need- ed of their selective
evidence.
Maestroh doesn't seem to read very well, or he could
be accused of misrepresentation. First, I didn't say that Tertullian
quoted the Johannine Comma, but that he referenced it, which is
proper since the content of his statement closely reflects the
subject matter of the Comma. The content of Cyprian's statement is
even closer to that of the Comma, and again I didn't say anything
about a verbatim quote. That these two historic figures described the
content of the Comma so well is evidence that they were familiar with
scripture texts containing it.
8.
The earliest known Latin text is a mid-2nd century Old-Latin
Italic.
But there are no second century manuscripts in the OL
that contain it, either - and ZERO evidence it was ever there.
I
didn't say anything about the Comma being in the Italic, and again
Maestroh could be accused of misrepresentation. I simply introduced
this version into the discussion, and if Maestroh had bothered to
read the bulk of the essay with some comprehension, he could have
seen how the Old Latin version enters into the discussion.
9.
A 17th-century scholar, Allix, said the Waldensen Bible was the
ancient version called the Italic, and Kenyon said the Italic New
Testament had a Traditional-Text basis (Received-Text ancestor).
Tepl & Romaunt Waldensen and Vulgate New Testaments all reflect
the Italic, but the two refute the Vulgate at places, likely at
Jerome’s 4th-century variance from the Traditional Text.
Wild-eyed speculation. It was Professor Plum in the library
with the candlestick.
My comments about statements of scholars
are all backed-up by stated references, and again Maestroh never
mentions the references, and he could be accused of dishonesty. The
note about variance in the Vulgate is a reasonable likelihood, and
it is Maestroh who seems to have a penchant for wild-eyed speculation
in the language he uses as he criticizes support for the authenticity
of the Comma.
10.
Italic history links the Received Text, and potentially the Comma, to
the 2nd century.
In other words, we just ignore all them there
vast majority of MSS all throughout the world that don't have it and
make an imaginary line connecting it to the autograph.
Maestroh
misses the point: If a known historic version contained the Comma, it
would not likely be an invention, but should derive from a Greek
source early in text history, and I spoke of this matter simply as a
potential one. Maestroh reveals a likelihood that he
hurriedly passed judgment upon my essay in that his language is
notably foolish (all them
there vast majority of MSS...).
Perhaps he was trying to imitate what he considers to be a lack of
erudition in those who dare to oppose his views, or maybe he again
displays serious difficulty with the English language.
11.
Actually the Comma proves to be authentic, tying it to the
1st-century autograph, to the Italic of the 2nd century &
medieval era, to the Received Text, to the KJV.
This is
simply a dogmatic statement with zero evidence to support
it.
Maestroh doesn't realize this statement is introductory to
the internal proof of Comma authenticity that I offered in the 95% of
the essay that he evidently ignored. I guess it's necessary to make
the intent of a statement read very plainly for a reader like
him.
12.
Censorship marks Comma history, even in the Latin west.
It was
a conspiracy!!!!!!
This is the typical comment aimed at making
an argument seem silly when you can't defeat it any other way. It's a
response of those who ignore the history of movements that sought to
overthrow the biblical basis of the early church, Gnosticism &
Arianism being notable in this regard. Scholars today must scoff at
such concepts if they are to promote supposedly-superior critical
texts based upon Alexandrian-type manuscripts produced in Alexandria,
Egypt, a very notable center of early Gnostic activity. Why does
Satan's influence on the history of texts seem incredible to Maestroh
and those who think like him? Don't they see that this world is heavily influenced by Satan, as seen by all the unending warfare,
gross immorality and gross political dishonesty? Perhaps they just
accept such behavior as normal, and view Satan as the boogey man.
13. A Vulgate
prologue notes its removal in 4th-century manuscripts.
Which
will never overturn the fact Jerome didn't include it....
The
point is that Jerome verified the reality of the Comma in texts of
his day, and he might very well have included it originally, removal
being the later work of others. If he did exclude it, this could
easily be the result of an adverse religious-type influence.
14.
In a 5th century council of Carthage, 400 North African bishops
affirmed its authenticity, despite anti-Comma Arian threats,
But
what about those multiple councils before that affirmed the Deity of
Christ AND
the Trinity but never mention it?
The point is
that this is more evidence of the historical authenticity of the
Comma, and absence of its mention in earlier councils may only
relate to the fact that the Arian controversy did not reach the peak
of its influence until the 4th century, and its wide popularity at
that time could easily delay reaction against it for a substantial
time. It appears that Maestroh has no ability to grasp what a textual
statement really means.
15.
so it was a holy standard under attack then.
No, it just
means a bunch of ignoramuses who had it in their in-hand Bible
declared it true, just like the ignorant KJVOs do today.
The
ignorance here relates entirely to Maestroh and his ignorant speaking
of valiant men of the early centuries who risked their lives to
defend biblical truth. What has he done that in any way compares with
their devotion to truth? He seems concerned only with defending the
humanism of modern scholarship.
16.
Facundus, 6th-century Latin bishop, censored it, claiming that
Cyprian quoted the 1 Jn.5:8 three agree in one.
He did quote
what is now verse eight. The only part Cyprian quoted is in there.
Maestroh
just buys into the modern position on this matter as if it were
proven fact; it is merely an opinion of those who refute Comma
authenticity. Cyprian's statement, which I referred to in item 7
above, differs substantially from the language of verse 8, and is
decidedly closer to the language of the Comma in verse 7, as readers
can plainly see. If Maestroh had bothered to read the bulk of my
essay, and if he had done so in a spirit of objectivity, he would
have seen evidence that verse 8 is complementary to Comma
language in verse 7, and thus is meant to read in a related, but
different, fashion, further supporting the authenticity of the
Comma.
The Middle of the Spectrum of Criticism of the
KJV-Only Position
invarfjeld.com/2011/King-James-Only
Here a fellow who rightly
criticizes serious cultic/blasphemous/insane human error, carries
this type of thinking to an erroneous ridiculous extreme by calling
KJV-only people a "dangerous sect of false Christians." He
offers nothing but some encounters with unknowledgeable parties to
support his characterization of all of us. He evidently has no
knowledge that modern English versions have removed the standard
historical Greek text of the New Testament, substituting their own
preference based mainly on a few manuscripts lost to churches for
~1400 years. Thus they deny the preservation of God's Word throughout
most of the church age, which would leave His people without His
New-Testament Word of guidance throughout that long period. Further,
modern scholars impose their opinions in translation, which results
in a hodge-podge of private interpretation. Is that what God ordained
to guide His people? Does "scholarship" like that promote
God's true Word, or does it illustrate self-exaltation of
today's scholars? And we are supposed to be a dangerous sect of false
Christians? Who is the dangerous sect? Is it we who oppose modern
"scholarship," and advocate God's preserved Word as our
guide into eternity, which can only be an unchanged historic
Hebrew/Aramaic & Greek text, culminating in English form in the
traditional KJV? Or is it scholars of this modern day & their
followers who would replace God's preserved Word with their preferences & opinions as our guide into eternity?
This fellow needs to be reminded that true 1st-century Christians
were branded as a dangerous sect since they converted people from a
false worship of Caesar and other errors of the Roman empire. In the
case of Rome, the branding was due to a desire to preserve the
popular views that kept the empire in its position of final
authority, and in our case, scholars seem bent on establishing
themselves as the final authority. This fellow classifying us as a
dangerous sect of false Christians should study scholarship issues
supporting the KJV-only position, and he might discover that we
advocate an orthodox view of text history based on God's providential
preservation of His Word of inerrant guidance for His people, rather
than on preferences & opinions of modern scholars. Scholars today
seem to want everyone to rely totally on them, which would make their
role more important than that of God. That is dangerous in the
extreme.
The Upper End of
the Spectrum of Criticism of the KJV-Only Position
www.kjvonly.org/james/may_great_inconsistency.htm
Supposed
mistranslation in the KJV
Here we
encounter a fellow characteristic of critics devoted to attacking the
KJV-Only position through discussions of textual matters slanted
toward their own viewpoints. He is civil in his overall tone, and
does concentrate on real textual issues, but he shows no convincing
evidence of a good grasp of translation scholarship. He seems to rely
on lexicons & interlinears and the indoctrinated views of modern
scholars. As is the case with modern scholars, he relies fully upon
manuscript evidence in his criticism, while admitting to the fact of
unavoidable error in copying of hand-written manuscripts. He concurs
with the modern view of inerrancy as being exclusive to autograph
originals, which if true, would lead us to believe that error may
abound in texts of today so that our only guide to God's will would
be unreliable to some unknown degree. He doesn't discuss the many
limitations & errors that characterize Alexandrian-type texts
favored by modern scholars. He never shows any effort to understand
elements of the KJV text that are open to interpretation different
from his own. Some examples of what he calls error in the KJV are
noted below.
1.
The critic calls The Spirit itself
in the KJV Rom.8:16 a "disastrous mistranslation." Here he
ignores his own advice on translating in accord with the context, and
itself is contextually
correct here in Romans, as noted below in a portion of text taken
from essay 5c of the present website.
Natural
masculine gender of the Holy Spirit is veiled, and the natural
neuter-gender it applies
in His identity or persona roles.
It applies in His
salvation-peace identity role of a dove, it
(Jn.1:32). It applies
in His persona role as part of Jesus’ person in 1 Pet.1: 11, as our
spirit is it, part
of our person, not the whole, so Romans says Spirit
of Christ in 8:9 and Spirit
itself in 8:16,26, and in Jn.3:34 Jesus has
the Spirit without measure, or the Spirit as an integral unlimited power in His person. Spirit
is inherently He, as
is evident at times (Acts 8:29, 10:19, 13:2). But at times He has
identity or persona roles veiling His natural masculine gender (in
Acts 2:17,18 the Spirit is poured out,
which cannot relate to He),
and in 4 such cases the roles invoke pronoun use, requiring
it or itself.
The KJV has
the correct renderings in these 4 verses,
while other versions have some incorrect ones there.
2.
John 2:4, KJV Jesus
saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee?
mine hour is not yet come.
The critic thinks the KJV Woman
here is improper because the reference is to Mary, the mother of
Jesus, requiring more respect. Actually, the critic again fails to
follow his own point on the need to follow context. The contextual
key begins with Mary telling Jesus that there is no wine for guests
at the wedding feast in Galilee. The context relates to what
have I to do with thee, which tells readers
that the role of Mary as the mother of the earthly form of Jesus
is not involved here; mine hour is not yet
come refers to the Crucifixion, and wine
signifies His shed blood. Here there is a subtle reference to the
wedding feast as signifying the marriage Supper of the Lamb, where
Mary is not recognized as the mother of Jesus, but simply as a
Redeemed one, a woman who will participate in the Supper made
possible by shedding of the blood of the Lamb of God. Scripture at
times links a subtle contextual factor to a simple one. The critic
says the KJV follows the denotative sense, and ignores a
connotative sense requiring more respect for Mary, but he misses the
true connotative sense. He seems unable to grasp the unique nature of
passage wording here.
This critic speaks of John 4:27 where
the Greek refers to the woman
at the well; here woman
is the obvious correct term in a simple context involving a stranger.
Contrary to his assertion, use of woman
here does not in any way indicate error in the KJV use of woman
in John 2:4, John 4:27 context being simplistic &
straightforward. Further, his suggestion that the
woman in the KJV John 4:27 is incorrect,
since here there is not a definite article in the Greek, is silly.
This use of the definite article is a common type of translation
practice in that once a woman
has been introduced in 4:7, readers tend to think of the
woman from that point on. Indeed, all other
references after a woman
in verse 7 have the definite article in the Greek. Either the
or a can apply in
verse 27, and the latter is okay since the
woman is a woman
to the disciples entering the context at this verse, even though the
Greek itself never utilizes the indefinite article. This is just
normal lattitude in use of the article in translation, and here there
is a valid translator choice between two alternatives, one focusing
on the reader, and the other focusing on the disciples. This dual
possible focus allowing either choice should be the very reason why
the Greek text has no definite article here, despite its usage
elsewhere throughout the rest of the entire passage, after the
initial a woman
appears in verse 4:7.
3.
1 Peter 3:1, KJV Likewise ye wives,, be
in subjection to your own husbands; that if any obey not the word,
they also may without the word
be won by the conversation (or conduct) of
the wives; the critic says the
underlined phrase should read without a word,
due to the absence of the definite article in the Greek here, which
is the reading of most modern versions, but that is nonsense since
conversation/conduct necessarily includes what we speak (we don't
behave like mutes in any part of life), and our words, as well as our
behavior, are required to be seasoned in speaking to unredeemed ones.
The only sense implied by absence of a definite article in the Greek,
in this context, is that of not speaking a
word of the word (scripture) since that would
stifle any response by the unredeemed who hate the very high moral
standards of the word. However, it is quite possible that the
unredeemed husband will eventually be impressed by his wife's brand
new submission to him, that he knows can only be due to the brand new
effect of the word upon her, and this can begin to stir in him an
interest in the word that can lead to his salvation.
The
critic doesn't reason properly since he suggests the KJV is teaching
the opposite of what God desires of a godly woman, supposedly saying
her speaking (conversation), without the word (scripture) can lead to
her husband's salvation, yet he says that most readers will know that
conversation in the
KJV means conduct. He does not grasp the fact that the conduct of a
wife, which includes her speaking, is that which can lead her husband
to consider the word that has the power of salvation. Actually, her
submissive manner of speaking alone
is the main factor that is likely to impress her husband, and cause
him to consider the word, so even the modern sense of conversation
makes the primary point of 1 Peter 3:1 teaching, and thus correctly
leads the reader. Yet the critic actually suggests the KJV reading
might cause an unsaved husband to remain without Christ, which
illustrates how unqualified the critic is to judge textual/linguistic
issues, and illustrates the fact that he should never operate a
website criticizing the KJV.
