Superiority of the KJV and the Johannine Comma

[WolfBitn]

This is the result of much study i have done in the area of biblical manuscripts making up the textus receptus, fomr which we get the KJV, and the Alexandrian Texts from which we get all the newere versions

Let me begin by making the statement that I'm not a kjv onliest , though i feel the other versions are based on fraudulent and inferior material, and that yes the comma was there before it wasnt... There's even testimony form Jerome around 390 ad, that it was there and then removed.

I find it ludacris as well that newer versions such as the niv claim to be based on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts when both claims are blatantly false, and just a little study into the subject proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The Westcott Hort New Greek version, translated by Westcott and Hort, make the claim that they based their translation on the oldest and most reliable manuscripts extant. The OLDEST manuscripts however, are the latin, not the greek, and the latin contained the comma, not to mention the fact that they also contained the entire passages contained in the textus receptus, but which are also left out of the Sinaticus and Vaticanus (The 2 manuscripts making up the newer translation by Westcott and Hort). The comma is also quoted by early fathers despite the claim to the contrary. The basis for the newer versions are mainly the 2 old greek manuscripts, incomplete, tons of hand written reviosions, the ink had even disappeared nearly, a few hundred years ago and it was copied over... SEVERAL SCRIBES were instrumental in the revisions, and one scribe even remarked in the text itself that past scribes were changing the text. So much for most reliable... Then when we add to the fact that the Western texts PREDATE the Alexandrian texts, and that they agree with the texts making up the textus receptus, and disagree with the alexandrian texts, so much for oldest... The latin ALSO predated the Alexandrian.

Horrible scholarship, horribly false claims

Here is some very interesting information concerning the comma that just isnt taught in seminary...

1 John 5:7 was QUOTED before the alexandrian manuscripts were even in existance... and the WESTERN Texts precede the alexandrian... .. it WAS in the latin texts

the absolute proof that it predated the alexandrian manuscripts is this... it was quoted by Cyprian BEFORE 250 AD

Manuscript Evidence: Lesson Ten, Dr. Thomas Holland

(Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 101.) This statement, however, is in question. Others have shown that Erasmus did not add the verse aversly, but was in fact searching for a Greek text which supported what was already in the Old Latin texts.(Donald L. Brake indicates this in his thesis present to Dallas Theological Seminary and reprinted in the book Counterfeit Or Genuine, edited by Dr. David Otis Fuller [Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publication, 1978], 205. This is futher varified by both Dr. Fuller and by Dr. Edward F. Hills in his book The King James Version Defended, 209.)

The first Greek manuscript found which contained the verse was minuscule 61 which dates to the late fifteenth century. However, three other Greek minuscules contain the verse, 88 (twelfth century), 629 (fourteenth century), and 635 (eleventh century). It is, nonetheless, supported by the Old Latin manuscripts which read, "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt."(verses 7-8). This Latin wording (which matches the English of the KJV) is important because of the like wording made by Cyprian (250 AD). Cyprian writes "Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unim sunt.'" (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). Thus we see that the reading is found not only in the Old Latin manuscripts, but was also cited by Cyprian sometime before 250 AD. All of which disproves the popular myth that the reading is without textual support until sometime in the fifthteenth or sixteenth century.

Also in a study on textural criticism, we have this...

http://www.wilderness-cry.net/bible_.....;/lesson10.html

...However, it should be remembered that there are not a large number of Greek manuscripts containing 1 John. Our final authority for this verse, or any other verse, does not rest in the hands of textual critics or the number of manuscripts, but in the promise of God to keep and preserve His words.

The Comma did not appear in the first two editions of Erasmus' Receptus but was added to his third. Some have stated that Erasmus added the Comma reluctantly. Erasmus had been criticized for his earlier editions which did not contain the passage. Metzger writes, "In an unguarded moment Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comman Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or was made to order!" (Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 101.) This statement, however, is in question. Others have shown that Erasmus did not add the verse aversly, but was in fact searching for a Greek text which supported what was already in the Old Latin texts.(Donald L. Brake indicates this in his thesis present to Dallas Theological Seminary and reprinted in the book Counterfeit Or Genuine, edited by Dr. David Otis Fuller [Grand Rapids: Grand Rapids International Publication, 1978], 205. This is futher varified by both Dr. Fuller and by Dr. Edward F. Hills in his book The King James Version Defended, 209.)

The first Greek manuscript found which contained the verse was minuscule 61 which dates to the late fifteenth century. However, three other Greek minuscules contain the verse, 88 (twelfth century), 629 (fourteenth century), and 635 (eleventh century). It is, nonetheless, supported by the Old Latin manuscripts which read, "Quoniam tres sunt, gui testimonium dant in coelo: Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus sanctus: et hi tres unum sunt. Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in terra: Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis: et hi tres unum sunt."(verses 7-8). This Latin wording (which matches the English of the KJB) is important because of the like wording made by Cyprian (250 AD). Cyprian writes "Dicit Dominus: 'Ego et Pater unum sumus,' et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: 'Et tres unim sunt.'" (The Lord says, "I and the Father are One," and again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One."). Thus we see that the reading is found not only in the Old Latin manuscripts, but was also cited by Cyprian sometime before 250 AD. All of which disproves the popular myth that the reading is without textual support until sometime in the fifthteenth or sixteenth century.

[WolfBitn]

Also it is stated that no other church Fathers referred to 1 jn 6:7... other than Cyprian...

let me correct this...

The history of 1 john 5:7 is clearly documented, though suppressed. The following, all contain either the quote or a referance to the comma

1john57

177 A.D. A writing in Greek---Anti-Nicene Fathers Apologia of Athenagoras presented to Roman emperors. "Who, then, would not be ashamed to hear men speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their distinction in order."

215 A.D. (25:1; CC2, 1195) Tertullian. Adversus Praxean per RB "And so the connection of the Father, and the Son, and of the Paraclete makes three cohering entities, one cohering from the other, which three are one entity" refers to the unity of their substance, not to the oneness of their number.

250 A.D. The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Translation of the Writings of the Church Fathers down to A.D. 325 CYPRIAN. De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215) The LORD says "I and the Father are one" and likewise it is written of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one." NOTE: Cyprian is regarded as one "who quotes copiously and textually." Further, the interpolation "In Christo Jesu" does not yet appear. note: Cyprian also quoted Acts 8:37

380A.D. PRISCILLIAN verify here Liber Apologeticus As John says "and there are three which give testimony on earth, the water, the flesh the blood, and these three are in one, and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

390A.D. JEROME prologue to the Canonical Epistles "si ab interpretibus fideliter in latinum eloquium verterentur nec ambiguitatem legentibus facerent nec trinitatis unitate in prima joannis epistola positum legimus, in qua etiam, trium tantummodo vocabula hoc est aquae, sanguinis et spiritus in ipsa sua editione ponentes et patris verbique ac aspiritus testimoninum omittentes, in quo maxime et fides catholica roboratur, et patris et filii et spirtus sancti una divinitatis substantia comprobatur." note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37 (The latin here says that revisioners of the texts had REMOVED 1 Jn 5:7... the comma)

450 A.D. Anchor Bible; Epistle of John, 782 Contra Varimadum 1.5 (CC90,20-21) "And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, The Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."

450 A.D. De divinis Scripturis suie Speculum

(A collection of statements and precepts drawn from the Old Latin Bible (both Old and New Testaments). It has been attributed to Augustine, but this is not likely. Aland dates it c. 427. Except in editions associated with the Alands, it is usually cited as m of the Old Latin. In Paul at least, the text seems to be generally more primitive than the European Latin of the bilingual uncials. In the Catholics, it has many links with the text of Priscillian.)

Latin MS, also known as "m" "and there are three which give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one."note: this manuscript also included Acts 8:37

484 A.D. Victor of Vita Historia persecutionis Africanae prov. 2.82[3.11], CSEL7, 60

485 A.D. Victor Vitensis Historia persecutionis Africanae Provinciae 3.11 in PL58, 227C per RB "there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one."

500 A.D. Beuron 64 known as "r". (Sometimes labeled CODEX MONACENSIS) CODEX FREISINGENSIS "and the three are one which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit and these three are one."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS

(Considered, after Amiatinus, the best Vulgate manuscript. Copied for and corrected by Victor of Capua. Italian text. The Gospels are in the form of a harmony (probably based on an Old Latin original, and with scattered Old Latin

readings). Includes the Epistle to the Laodiceans.)

Responsio contra Arianos (Ad 10, CC 91) RB "there are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit. And the three are one being."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS Contra Fabianum (frag. 21.4: CC 91A, 797) "There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And the three are one being."

527 A.D. FULGENTIUS De Trinitate(1.4.1; CC91A 636), per RB "There are three who bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and these three are one being."

pre 550 A.D. JEROME prologue to the Catholic Epistles. "Preserved in the Codex Fuldensis (PL 29, 827-31)." per RB. Jerome writes in his prologue that the Comma (1John5:7-8) is genuine but has been omitted by unfaithful translators.

570 A.D. CASSIODORUS Complexionn. in Epistt. Paulinn. "Moreover, in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one God."

583 A.D. CASSIODORUS In Epistolam S. Joannis ad Parthos. (10.5.1; PL 70, 1373A) employs "Son" in place of "Word." NOTE: Cassiodorus cited the Comma in his commentary.

636 A.D. ISIDORE of SEVILLE Testimonia divinae Scripturae 2[PL, 83, 1203C] per RB. "And there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Spirit, and the three are one."

650 A.D. The Leon Palimpsest, also known as "Legionensis" or Beuron 67 CODEX PAL LEGIONENSIS "and there are three which bear testimony in heaven, the Father, and the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one in Christ Jesus."

700 A.D. JAQUB of EDESSA On the Holy Eucharistic Mysteries, Syriac document "The soul and the body and the mind which are sanctified through three holy things; through water and blood and Spirit, and through the Father and the Son and the Spirit."

735 A.D. The year of the decease of Venerable Bede manuscript E (also known as Basiliensis), Greek. Located: Basel, Switzerland. Universit

Edited July 23, 2009 by WolfBitn

[WolfBitn]

Heres something interesting. The NIV is based basicly nearly entirely on the Sianaticus and the Vaticanus.

Jerome ( c390AD) said

from Jeromes forward

In that place particularly where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed.

now lets look at the passage one more time...

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Ok Jerome states that this is a testamony of the trinity... and says that concerning verse 8, the translaters of his day INCLUDED verse 8...

where we read about the unity of the Trinity which is placed in the First Epistle of John, in which also the names of three, i.e. of water, of blood, and of spirit, do they place in their edition

YET Jerome THEN goes on to make a very direct accusation...

and omitting the testimony of the Father; and the Word, and the Spirit in which the catholic faith is especially confirmed and the single substance of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is confirmed

Jerome in other words, is CLEARLY stating... "there are those who have included verse 8 in first john, BUT THEY OMITTED the VERY THINGS that confirm that the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are a single substance" of course "The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit" being a 'single essance'

not only IS this a direct quote from the comma, its an accusation of editing it out

Jerome lived 340 AD- 420 AD... AT THE VERY TIME OF THE SINATICUS.... It appears that jerome is accusing the very document that the NIV offers as its foundation, and having been shown it was tampered with for centuries. As a matter of fact Jeromes words can be seen as direct testimony against the sinaticus in the very day it was fresh and new...

Jerome is a contemperary of sinaticus and he is blasting its very type (The Alexandrian Text Type) in this quote.

Edited July 23, 2009 by WolfBitn

[WolfBitn]

There are many scholars today who would try to refute all this info, and theres tons more...

A refutation is often something that just looks at the fact and says 'uh no'. There is perfectly good reason why men in powerful seminarial positions want to confuse the issues... many times they themselves are enemies of Christ. 2 WONDERFUL examples of this are Westcott and Hort themselves.

What we DO have are quotes and referances to the comma going back to 177 AD.. We have Jeromes VERY straight forward accusation against the scribes of his day stating they intentionally REMOVED the comma in the very forward of his translation. We have cyprians quote, and we have much more

Erasmus for instance, despised the greek texts for having been manipulated... he said

"But one thing the facts cry out, and it can be clear, as they say, even to a blind man, that often through the translator

[pokemaughan]

I like the ESV... not a fan of the NIV...

As with any translation, I believe homework and research is required and encouraged before trusting in it, just as you have done. This is something a lot of people do not do.

However, the one issue I know of the KJV is the use of Easter. My mother, a Christian nearly her whole life, uses the KJV regularly and was flabbergasted when I pointed out that verse in Acts. "Say what?" It is pretty silly... and it's even sillier how KJVO folks will go great lengths to explain that Easter is the correct translation or that God moved them to use that word instead of passover.

[WolfBitn]

I became aware of evidence that Origin, the apostate teacher form Alexandria, where most of the Alexandrian types were found, 'rewrote' scriptures intending to undermining it. He even commented on educating himself to 'improve' on them, and wrote well over 6000 works actually changing doctrine effectively.

Just as Origin worked to undermine the gospel, i believe it becomes apparent that so did Westcott and Hort

Westcott Hort, gave us the newer greek translation based on 2 Manuscripts with 45 manuscripts backing them ONLY in key portions of scripture. From this comes most all the newer translations of the bible including the NIV... Lets examine their overall outlook on things...

W.H. Salter, The Society For Psychical Research: An Outline of its History, London, 1948

"Among the numerous persons and groups who in the middle of the nineteenth century were making enquiries into psychical occurrences may be mentioned a society from which our own can claim direct descent. In the Life of Edward White Benson, Archbishop of Canterbury, by his son, A. C. Benson, will be found, under the year 1851-2, the following paragraph:

"'Among my father's diversions at Cambridge was the foundation of a 'Ghost Society,' the forerunner of the Psychical Society [meaning the S.P.R.] for the investigation of the supernatural. Lightfoot, Westcott and Hort were among the members. He was then, as always, more interested in psychical phenomena than he cared to admit.'

"Lightfoot and Westcott both became bishops, and Hort Professor of Divinity. The S.P.R. has hardly lived up to the standard of ecclesiastical eminence set by the parent society."

Arthur Hort, son of Fenton John Anthony Hort, wrote "The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort". Did the esteemed team of westcott and hort have an underlying hidden agenda for abandoning the great majority of accepted texts at critical points, to replace it with minority texts that were considered by most scholars to be flawed? These quotes From Arthur Hort's book can be very eye opening... The following are quotes from letters written by Hort, to Westcott

"Further I agree with them [authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology. . . The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority and especially the authority of the Bible . . . If this primary objection were removed, and I could feel our differences to be only of degree, I should still hesitate to take part in the proposed scheme. It is surely likely to bring on a crisis; and that I cannot think desirable on any account. The errors and prejudices, which we agree in wishing to remove, can surely be more wholesomely and also more effectually reached by individual efforts of an indirect kind than by combined open assault. At present very many orthodox but rational men are being unawares acted upon by influences which will assuredly bear good fruit in due time if is allowed to go on quietly; but I fear that a premature crisis would frighten back many into the merest traditionalism."

"But I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the infallibility of a canonical writing. I may see a certain fitness and probability in such a view, but I cannot set up an a priori assumption against the (supposed) results of criticism."

"I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the Atonement, having for many years believed that 'the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself' is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit. But I doubt whether that answers the question as to the nature of the satisfaction. Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy."

April 12, 1861 -- to B.F. Westcott --

"Also -- but this may be cowardice -- I have sort of a craving our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean a text issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms."

April 28, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott

"I dare not prophesy about America, but cannot see that I see much as yet to soften my deep hatred of democracy in all its forms."

October 11 and 12, 1865 -- to B.F. Westcott --

"I am very far from pretending to understand completely the ever renewed vitality of Mariolotry. But is not much accounted for, on the evil side, by the natural reverence of the religious instinct to idolatry and creature worship and aversion to the Most High; and on the good side, by a right reaction from the inhuman and semi-diabolical character with which God in invested in all modern orthodoxies -- Zeus and Prometheus over again? In Protestant countries the fearful notion 'Christ the believer's God' is the result."

October 17, 1865

[WolfBitn]

I like the ESV... not a fan of the NIV...

As with any translation, I believe homework and research is required and encouraged before trusting in it, just as you have done. This is something a lot of people do not do.

However, the one issue I know of the KJV is the use of Easter. My mother, a Christian nearly her whole life, uses the KJV regularly and was flabbergasted when I pointed out that verse in Acts. "Say what?" It is pretty silly... and it's even sillier how KJVO folks will go great lengths to explain that Easter is the correct translation or that God moved them to use that word instead of passover.

I do agree with you that "Easter" is a horrible translation. Actually when i study i use several differant translations. I rely on the KJV however to include the complete texts.

This is the ONLY modern translation contianing the entire text, and there are some very major doctrinal differances, in the texts that are missing from the newer translations.

I will post some of my notes on some of these differances

[WolfBitn]

There is a lot i can say about Origin, and his influance on the Alexandrian texts, (frankly i believe the evidence indicates that Origen was wthe originator of the Alexandrian texts... he REWROTE the mauscripts to comply more with his own universalist theology) and the fact he was found to be heretical, and i hope to in just another post or 2, but i have a few more thoughts i'd like to offer first. Let me provide this from a brother, Dr Frank Logsdon, who helped lay the groundwork for the NASV...

From Another Bible, Another Gospel

http://www.watch.pair.com/another.html

The Preface to the New American Standard Bible, published in 1963, states that,

Edited July 23, 2009 by WolfBitn

[WolfBitn]

Why did i do this study? There is more to come to prove the Alexandrian manuscripts originated from a heretical Ancient doctor of theology, Origin, and i am about to begin posting the evidence for this...

Frankly I mistrust modern scholarship. simply because it drasticly departs from traditional scholarship. When scripture prophecies that men shall depart from the faith, i take it that this departure from good biblical manuscript tradition is meant as well.

Unfortunately i also am very disappointed in the NKJV. It dies in fact contain many all of the passages omitted from the niv, however it is chock full of notes, showing that they are in fact basing this version on the Alexandrian manuscripts.

for example from the NKJV

c.Acts 8:37 NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.

b.1 John 5:8 NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse 8). Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.

There is good reason these are called "Alexandrian" as nearly all of them were found in the alexandrian area, which was known for its departure from traditional doctrine.

Just as it seems that Westcott and Hort both had reason to undermine the authority of scripture, it looks like Origin too had reason... he was knostic, and both he and his teacher, Clement of Alexandria, taught at the school of knowledge at Alexandria, a knostic school teaching greek philosophy, mythology and gnostic teachings.

The most intrigueing part of this to me is that Origin was a universalist, and the changes are done in such a way as to promote universalist theology. He also had other very strange doctrine, such as his doctrine on the logos.

It seems to me that these changes in traditional literature have their place in an evil satanic scheme, namely to create doubt in the minds of as many as possible, in the infallability of scripture, and its true inspiration from God.

The fact that the claims of the alexandrian manuscripts are found to be false, they are not the oldest, they are completely corrupted and not reliable in the slightest, and the fact that men in scholastic power hold to these claims and cover evidence by omission to prove these claims wrong, show me that indeed there is something much more than rotten in Denmark.

Origins writings were the first written departure from the traditional texts that we have preserved in manuscript fashion, and every alexandrian manuscript from that point on, (roughly 45) echo Origins changes. He believed that in the end even satan would be saved, a decidedly Universalist doctrine.

It has been implied by many teachers concerning manuscript evidence, that the school of Alexandria, and in particular Clement and most especially Origen, had no influence on what we now know as the 'alexandrian texts'.

The reality is however, the Influence of Clement of Alexandria and Origen, his student, on the church and in the manuscripts, are astounding... It seems rather foolish to say that the texts from ostly the alexandrian area had no influance on the alexandrian manuscripts.

Let me give just a few highlights on Origin from mainstream sources, and then i will add a few things in the next post or 2 that i have found in my studies concerning the comma, Origin and the alexandrian texts in general

from Origen - LoveToKnow 1911 we have the following...

He is the father of the church's science; he is the founder of a theology which was brought to perfection in the 4th and 5th centuries, and which still retained the stamp of his genius when in the 6th century it disowned its author. It was Origen who created the dogmatic of the church and laid the foundations of the scientific criticism of the Old and New Testaments. He could not have been what he was unless two generations before him had laboured at the problem of finding an intellectual expression and a philosophic basis for Christianity (Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Pantaenus, Clement)

...This school, of which the origin (though assigned to Athenagoras) is unknown, was the first and for a long time the only institution where Christians were instructed simultaneously in the Greek sciences and the doctrines of the holy Scriptures. Alexandria had been, since the days of the Ptolemies, a centre for the interchange of ideas between East and West - between Egypt, Syria, Greece and Italy; and, as it had furnished Judaism with an Hellenic philosophy, so it also brought about the alliance of Christianity with Greek philosophy.

2. Origen's textual studies on the Old Testament were undertaken partly in order to improve the manuscript tradition,

from CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Origen and Origenism we have the following...

Origen and Origenism

I. LIFE AND WORK OF ORIGEN

A. BIOGRAPHY

Origen, most modest of writers, hardly ever alludes to himself in his own works; but Eusebius has devoted to him almost the entire sixth book of "Ecclesiastical History". Eusebius was thoroughly acquainted with the life of his hero; he had collected a hundred of his letters; in collaboration with the martyr Pamphilus he had composed the "Apology for Origen"; he dwelt at Caesarea where Origen's library was preserved, and where his memory still lingered; if at times he may be thought somewhat partial, he is undoubtedly well informed.

...Born in 185, Origen was barely seventeen when a bloody persecution of the Church of Alexandrian broke out. His father Leonides, who admired his precocious genius was charmed with his virtuous life, had given him an excellent literary education. This he successfully accomplished by becoming a teacher, selling his manuscripts, and by the generous aid of a certain rich lady, who admired his talents.

...Frequenting the philosophic schools, especially that of Ammonius Saccas, he devoted himself to a study of the philosophers, particularly Plato and the Stoics. In this he was but following the example of his predecessors Pantenus and Clement, and of Heracles, who was to succeed him.

...The course of his work at Alexandria was interrupted by five journeys. About 213, under Pope Zephyrinus and the emperor Caracalla, he desired "to see the very ancient Church of Rome", but he did not remain there long (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VI xiv).

...If Eusebius (VI, viii) is to be believed, he was envious of the increasing influence of his catechist. So, on his return to Alexandria, Origen soon perceived that his bishop was rather unfriendly towards him. He yielded to the storm and quitted Egypt (231). The details of this affair were recorded by Eusebius in the lost second book of the "Apology for Origen"; according to Photius, who had read the work, two councils were held at Alexandria, one of which pronounced a decree of banishment against Origen while the other deposed him from the priesthood (Biblioth. cod. 118).

...Very few authors were as fertile as Origen. St. Epiphanius estimates at six thousand the number of his writings, counting separately, without doubt, the different books of a single work, his homilies, letters, and his smallest treatises (Haeres., LXIV, lxiii).

...During his lifetime Origen by his writings, teaching, and intercourse exercised very great influence. St. Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who regarded himself as his disciple, made him remain with him for a long period to profit by his learning (Eusebius, "Hist. eccl.", VI, xxvi; Palladius, "Hist. Laus.", 147). St. Alexander of Jerusalem his fellow pupil at the catechetical school was his intimate faithful friend (Eusebius, VI, xiv), as was Theoctistus of Caesarea in Palestine, who ordained him (Photius, cod. 118). Beryllus of Bostra, whom he had won back from heresy, was deeply attached to him (Eusebius, VI, xxxiii; St. Jerome, "De viris ill.", lx). St. Anatolus of Laodicea sang his praises in his "Carmen Paschale" (P. G., X, 210). The learned Julius Africanus consulted him, Origen's reply being extant (P. G., XI, 41-85). St. Hippolytus highly appreciated his talents (St. Jerome, "De viris ill.", lxi). St. Dionysius, his pupil and successor in the catechetical school, when Patriarch of Alexandria, dedicated to him his treatise "On the Persecution" (Eusebius, VI, xlvi), and on learning of his death wrote a letter filled with his praises (Photius, cod. 232). St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, who had been his pupil for five years at Caesarea, before leaving addressed to him his celebrated "Farewell Address" (P. G., X, 1049-1104), an enthusiastic panegyric. There is no proof that Heracles, his disciple, colleague, and successor in the catechetical school, before being raised to the Patriarchate of Alexandria, wavered in his sworn friendship. Origen's name was so highly esteemed that when there was a question of putting an end to a schism or rooting out a heresy, appeal was made to it.

After his death his reputation continued to spread. St. Pamphilus, martyred in 307, composes with Eusebius an "Apology for Origen" in six books the first alone of which has been preserved in a Latin translation by Rufinus (P. G., XVII, 541-616). Origen had at that time many other apologists whose names are unknown to us (Photius, cod. 117 and 118). The directors of the catechetical school continued to walk in his footsteps. Theognostus, in his "Hypotyposes", followed him even too closely, according to Photius (cod. 106), though his action was approved by St. Athanasius. Pierius was called by St. Jerome "Origenes junior" (De viris ill., lxxvi). Didymus the Blind composed a work to explain and justify the teaching of the "De principiis" (St. Jerome, "Adv. Rufin.", I, vi). St. Athanasius does not hesitate to cite him with praise (Epist. IV ad Serapion., 9 and 10) and points out that he must be interpreted generously (De decretis Nic., 27).

Nor was the admiration for the great Alexandrian less outside of Egypt. St. Gregory of Nazianzus gave significant expression to his opinion (Suidas, "Lexicon", ed. Bernhardy, II, 1274: Origenes he panton hemon achone). In collaboration with St. Basil, he had published, under the title "Philocalia", a volume of selections from the master. In his "Panegyric on St. Gregory Thaumaturgus", St. Gregory of Nyssa called Origen the prince of Christian learning in the third century (P. G., XLVI, 905). At Caesarea in Palestine the admiration of the learned for Origen became a passion.

From http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/e...tm/ii.viii.htm we have the following...

Since his father's teaching enabled him also to give elementary instruction, he revived, in 203, the catechetical school at Alexandria (see ALEXANDRIA, SCHOOL OF), whose last teacher, Clement, was apparently driven out by the persecution.

...At the request of Ambrose, he now began a huge commentary on the Bible, beginning with John, and continuing with Genesis, Ps. i.-xxv., and Lamentations, besides brief exegeses of selected texts (forming the ten books of his Stromateis), two books on the resurrection, and the work "On First Principles."

...According to Epiphanius (Haer., lxiv. 63) Origen wrote about 6,000 works (i.e., rolls or chapters). A list was given by Eusebius in his lost life of Pamphilus (Hist. eccl., VI., xxxii. 3; Eng. transl., NPNF, 2 ser., i. 277), which was apparently known to Jerome (Epist. ad Paulam, NPNF, vi. 46). These fall into four classes: text criticism; exegesis; systematic, practical, and apologetic theology; and letters; besides certain spurious works.

...of the commentary on John, only books i., ii., x., xiii., xx., xxviii., xxxii., and a fragment of xix. have been preserved. The commentary on Romans is extant only in the abbreviated version of Rufinus, and the eight books preserved of the commentary on Matthew likewise seem to be either a brief reworking or a rough outline. Codex Vaticanus, 1215, gives the division of the twenty-five books of the commentary on Ezekiel, and part of the arrangement of the commentary on Isaiah (beginnings of books VI., VIII., XVI.; book X. extends from Isa. viii. 1 to ix. 7; XI. from ix. 8, to x. 11; XII., from x. 12 to x. 23; XIII. from x. 24 to xi. 9; XIV. from xi. 10 to xii. 6; XV. from xiii. 1 to xiii. 16; XXI. from xix. 1 to xix. 17; XXII. from xix. 18 to xx. 6; XXIII. from xxi. 1 to xxi. 17; XXIV. from xxii. 1 to xxii. 25; XXV. from xxiii. 1 to xxiii. 18; XXVI. from xxiv. 1 to xxv. 12; XXVII. from xxvi. 1 to xxvi. 15; XXVIII. from xxvi. 16 to xxvii. 11a; XXIX. from xxvii. 11b to xxviii. 29; and XXX. treats of xxix. 1 sqq.). The Codex Athous Laura, 184, in like manner, gives the division of the fifteen books of the commentary on Romans (except XI. and XII.) and of the five books on Galatians, as well as the extent of the commentaries on Philippians and Corinthians (Romans: I. from i. 1 to i. 7; II. from i. 8 to i. 25; III. from i. 26 to ii. 11; IV. from ii. 12 to iii. 15; V. from iii. 16 to iii. 31; VI. from iv. 1 to v. 7; VII. from v. 8 to v. 16; VIII. from v. 17 to vi. 15; IX. from vi. 16 to viii. 8; X. from viii. 9 to viii. 39; XIII. from xi. 13 to xii. 15; XIV. from xii. 16 to xiv. 10; XV. from xiv. 11 to the end; Galatians: I. from i. 1 to ii. 2; II. from ii. 3 to iii. 4; III. from iii. 5 to iv. 5; IV. from iv. 6 to v. 5; and V. from v. 6 to vi. 18; the commentary on Philippians extended to iv. 1; and on Ephesians to iv. 13).

It is impossible to say with any accuracy, that Origen had no influence on the early church in Alexandria Egypt and especially the alexandrian manuscripts, unless you discount all the evidence here. As stated above, even the alexandrian codexes were arranged in the manner of Origin, so we see his influance on the changes

Origen's textual studies on the Old Testament were undertaken partly in order to improve the manuscript tradition,

^^That is MOST important, as he stated himself this was his intent on study... to 'improve' on the manuscripts... in other words change them. It is important to note as well that in Vaticanus, one of the scribes working on the text BLASTED past scribves for changing the text... and this is the text used for the westcott hort new greek translation that is now the backing for ALL modern versions

[WolfBitn]

I'm not replying to my own posts... i am providing evidence for the topic which i have uncovered in my studies, and i still have more to go.

If youre interested in this topic i invite you to read and comment, if not, no worries