Why in the KJV 1 John 2:23b is in italics.

[bgwilkinson]

Well it was in the Latin Vulgate, but was missing from the Byzantine text used by Erasmus.
I'm glad we don't have to depend on the Byzantine text type and the Textus Receptus subtext alone.
Here is a nice succinct explanation of the missing verse section from my NET Bible.

50 tc The Byzantine text, almost alone, lacks the last eight words of this verse, "The person who confesses the Son has the Father also" (ὁ ὁμολογῶν τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸν πατέρα ἔχει, ho homologon ton huion kai ton patera echei). Although shorter readings are often preferred (since scribes would tend to add material rather than delete it), if an unintentional error is likely, shorter readings are generally considered secondary. This is a classic example of such an unintentional omission: The τὸν πατέρα ἔχει of the preceding clause occasioned the haplography, with the scribe's eye skipping from one τὸν πατέρα ἔχει to the other. (Readings such as this also suggest that the Byzantine text may have originated [at least for 1 John and probably the general epistles] in a single archetype.)

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

1 John 2:23
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

And note, there is a lot of similarity between the dropping of 1 John 2:23b and the dropping of the heavenly witnesses, with homoeoteleuton being one likely factor, at least for the initial drop.

The Received Text process involved the excellent sense of Theodore Beza, beyond the fine labours of Erasmus and Stephanus, and thus the verse is pure scripture in the AV.

Note there is a solid minority of Byzantine manuscripts that have the verse.  The variant a good example of the deficiencies of the Byzantine textual theory, a one-dimensional approach.

The italics were placed in the 1611 showing that the verse was not in some significant Received Text editions available to the learned men.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi,

1 John 2:23
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:
(but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

And note, there is a lot of similarity between the dropping of 1 John 2:23b and the dropping of the heavenly witnesses, with homoeoteleuton being one likely factor, at least for the initial drop.

The Received Text process involved the excellent sense of Theodore Beza, beyond the fine labours of Erasmus and Stephanus, and thus the verse is pure scripture in the AV.

Note there is a solid minority of Byzantine manuscripts that have the verse.  The variant a good example of the deficiencies of the Byzantine textual theory, a one-dimensional approach.

The italics were placed in the 1611 showing that the verse was not in some significant Received Text editions available to the learned men.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery.

Steven said

And note, there is a lot of similarity between the dropping of 1 John 2:23b and the dropping of the heavenly witnesses, with homoeoteleuton being one likely factor, at least for the initial drop.

Yes both the Comma Johanneum and 1 John 2:23b are missing in the majority of byzantine manuscripts as is Lk 17:36 which the KJV translators noted in the margin of their work.

Link to LK 17:36 KJV 1611

http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=1306

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Yes both the Comma Johanneum and 1 John 2:23b are missing in the majority of byzantine manuscripts

And the initial dropping was very likely similarly homoeoteleuton.

And both are truly scripture.

Your in Jesus,
Steven

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi,

Yes both the Comma Johanneum and 1 John 2:23b are missing in the majority of byzantine manuscripts

And the initial dropping was very likely similarly homoeoteleuton.

And both are truly scripture.

Your in Jesus,
Steven

Agreed for 1 John 2:23b while the Comma Johanneum was brought into the Greek from Latin.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

...the Comma Johanneum was brought into the Greek from Latin.

Do you accept that the heavenly witnesses was in the Bible read by Cyprian?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[bgwilkinson]

Hi,

...the Comma Johanneum was brought into the Greek from Latin.

Do you accept that the heavenly witnesses was in the Bible read by Cyprian?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

I will need to see a copy of the Bible or Bibles he read to answer that question.

I suspect you have never seen the Bible or Bibles he read.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Do you accept that Cyprian had Acts 8:37 in his Bible? 

(Based on the quote in his writings, not based on seeing his physical Bible.)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

Do you accept that Cyprian had Acts 8:37 in his Bible? 

(Based on the quote in his writings, not based on seeing his physical Bible.)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

More obfuscation.....

By the way. Cyprian didn't quote Acts 8:37 found in any TR. Again. To make such a claim, you must compare the TR's rendering of Acts 8:37 with exactly what Cyprian wrote. It doesn't exactly match the TR. The KJVOist use of the quote is deceptive and misleading. To claim that the TR rendering is exactly what Cyprian referenced is total nonsense.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

My question is for bgwilkinson.
The thread on Acts 8:37 has the Cyprian quote. 

(I know cud's view, and reject it on the thread, I am interested in bg's position.)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery