Replies

All very interesting. I find it interesting that you found so many translations that give a more literal translation of the "ti emoi kai soi" passage in St. John.

The KJV certainly doesn't stand or fall by the Johannine Comma, or by the "kick against the pricks" line from Acts, which I also think is not Majority Byzantine text, as I recall. As you say, these are motes in the figurative eye of the KJV, compared with the beams in the eyes of the Alexandrian-based critical texts that are au courant.

"While the Orthodox are not Protestants, they do not practice popery and therefore textual authority is higher and the treatment of scripture is a far more serious responsibility."

Your terminology isn't politically correct, but your basic point is dead-on. Because we Orthodox believe that no man (and even no Council) has the authority to change the faith, the written word is *very* important in the conveying of the apostolic succession, which is, first and foremost, a succession of the passing on of *right doctrine* from bishop to bishop, and only secondarily a succession of sacramental laying on of hands of bishops.

When the Patriarchate of Constantinople decided to standardize the Greek liturgical texts of the NT at the turn of the 19th/20th c., there was, according to a Greek Biblical scholar, rioting in the streets of Athens, and people died. The exact wording of the Scriptures *did* matter to a lot of Orthodox Christians! Same thing with the Nikonian reforms of the liturgical/Biblical texts in Russia in the 17th c.

Most of this aspect of Orthodoxy is not readily apparent to the outside observer, since much of it has always taken place within the ranks of the clergy and within monasteries (the Muslims took over before the printing press really came around.) Also, our spiritual tradition is that Holy Tradition, of which Scripture is the most important and most central part, is first and foremost something spiritual -- not printed words. It is the living presence of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

When St. Zosimas met St. Mary of Egypt in the desert, she had been there essentially all of her adult life, and had never learned to read. Yet she quoted Scriptures verbatim to him as they spoke. The Holy Spirit had not left her without the Word, even though she didn't have a Bible, and couldn't have read it had she been given one...

I find it interesting that you found so many translations that give a more literal translation of the "ti emoi kai soi" passage in St. John.

I was surprised myself. But that is the reason we consult references and varying translations, a tradition that goes back to Jerome or earlier. I also found it interesting how the commentaries which supported the KJV reading reached their conclusions.

I like a variety of commentaries and perspectives. It's helps a person to see how various persons in varying circumstances in different eras read scripture, their approach to it, the focus of their exposition. While we are all creatures of our own times and circumstance, we should try to avoid using scripture in a bigoted or tendentious way. We should strive for neutrality, to let the text speak to us and not to use the text to impose our opinions on others for temporary goals, however worthy we consider them to be.

You mentioned the Douay's readings earlier. I was curious if you're familiar with the Jesuit Bible of 1582, generally considered the primary ancestor of the Douay. I've wondered about its readings before but I'm not sure if copies of it are available online. At least, I've never found it. Google does reveal some tidbits though, such as this page which compares KJV, Jesuit 1582, and American Revised 1901. There appears to be a revival of interest in the Jesuit version in the last ten years whereas it was previously virtually unknown to laymen. Apparently, it is KJVer's who are reviving the interest in it. ; ) I find that interesting. Here is an interesting sample from that page:

XIII. COLOSSIANS 1:14
(1) KING JAMES BIBLE. "In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins."

(2) JESUIT VERSION. "In whom we have redemption the remission of sins."

(3) AMERICAN REVISED. "In whom we have our redemption, the forgiveness of our sins."

The phrase "through His blood" is not found in either the Jesuit or American Revised Versions; its omission can be traced to Origen (200 A.D.), who expressly denies that either the body or soul of our Lord was offered as the price of our redemption. Eusebius was a devoted follower of Origen; and Eusebius edited the Vatican Manuscript. The omission is in that MS and hence in the American Revised Version. Moreover, Jerome was a devoted follower of both Origen and Eusebius. The phrase "through His blood" is not in the Vulgate and hence not in the Jesuit Bible.

Here is the fatal parallel between the Jesuit Version and the American Revised Version. This omission of the atonement through blood is in full accord with modern liberalism, and strikes at the very heart of the gospel.

Your terminology isn't politically correct, but your basic point is dead-on.

You are kind because I was probably unintentionally offensive (not that Baptists worry over offending popes, not even this current one who is, as I've said, far more acceptable than his predecessors). But when the Protestants and others in the West turned against Rome, this term of popery used by Protestants and Baptists was not an objection to an orderly transfer of authority through a succession of leaders. It was to radical changes of doctrine and the use of superstitious tricks and mummery to fleece the flock of funds or to compel their obedience. It was Rome, not the Orthodox, who instituted practices like the sale of indulgences or the sale of high clerical office. And these practices were rooted directly in the authority of various popes. Hence, the term popery. The Orthodox appear to be far more conservative, to have institutional safeguards against unscrupulous or ignorant individuals. It's a pity that attempts in the West to reform Rome's abuses and arrogance failed for centuries prior to the Reformation. Although Rome eventually curbed some of the worst abuses, the institutional flaws remain and cause mischief up through the present era.

When the Patriarchate of Constantinople decided to standardize the Greek liturgical texts of the NT at the turn of the 19th/20th c., there was, according to a Greek Biblical scholar, rioting in the streets of Athens, and people died. The exact wording of the Scriptures *did* matter to a lot of Orthodox Christians! Same thing with the Nikonian reforms of the liturgical/Biblical texts in Russia in the 17th c.

And I thought us KJVers were the only troublemaking textual 'nitpickers' in Christendom! Looks like you Orthodox beat us to the punch. But it tells us something of the longstanding instinct among the Orthodox for textual preservation. Your laity has to care pretty deeply about their text to riot over it.